The world needs less tears and more love

With everything that happens in this year and the last decade.We need to give more love in this world to combat the tears that come in.I think this also comes down to people on the politcal spectrum because politics divide us all epsically with people on this thread.I think too often that love should be spread and that many things will continue to do it.

... Fuck it. I'm in.

Savage Heathen. Thanks for the help with my dogs. Your opinions offend me, but I think your a decent Individual.

Love is risky, too easy to get hurt. Some might even say the opposite, if they feel they're giving too much love, and losing too much from it.

I mean love as the platonic kind which I think the world should have more of.I think people today think love as only romantic.But this love is a one that reaches across continents and never passes off tears of another as just water.I think we should find ways to spread this love.Yes,I heard about the hardships of love but if you don't develop love in a relationship then you will never truly understand the bond between that person.Its love that brings people after human trafficing,goes to the soup kitchen to feed others,and to protect people from a certain protesting church that picketts funerals.

The exact particulars of the form "love" takes isn't that relevant, whether platonic or romantic, it's still prone to the same set of problems.

Examples might be more at hand for the romantic kind. I can certainly think of more than a few of those without trying too hard.

I think that if we don't give love a chance then we would not advenute forth with many relationships.I think love has a power over people that can as you said enrich them or break them in two.

Should we love every human equally? Should we love our friends and family more than other humans? Should we love others more than ourselves?

This reminds me of yesterday when I had to explain to my cousin's four-year old daughter the difference between platonic love—such as the bond between family members—and romantic love. She can't really discern between the two yet and I became the target of her affection.

^^ No, no and no. "Should" is too strong a word. "Can" is better.

I love other people more then I love myself on the basis that (i) all of my flaws are very perceivable to me, and (ii) I would struggle to be saddened at my own demise, purely because my own demise, by definition, gives me no possibility to grieve over myself. Whereas with others, their death would truly sadden me.

edited 3rd Jul '11 7:25:34 PM by AllanAssiduity

I think people loved more then there would less people who would do sex trafficking.I think that one of the greatest form of being unloving someone because your willingly to let people be violated to get money.I think that's why crimes happen because people are so unloving to see the pain they inflict on others.When people go to great lengths to save all from sex slavery then they are showing love by showing that these people are not chattel to be sold.I think in a way love is a much deeper concept than people see it.Because it is love that brings people to help others.

Nah, there's a difference between love and fucking.

I would love to say we should love everything equally and with detachment, but metta doesn't seem to work on a large scale.

I think tears get a bad rap.

I cry when happy or filled with love for someone so I do as well...Then again I cry when expressing damn near every emotion.

Maybe I phrased it out I meant suffering which tears are commonly associated with.But i forget that tears can also come from love as well.I think the problem is suffering which it seems the world has too much of.I think suffering is growing everyday and just maybe those who truly love others can bring it down.

edited 3rd Jul '11 8:59:21 PM by KitsuneInferno

I think we need to do more and talk about doing stuff less. Generally, there's a lot more concern over problems than people willing to fix them. *

But that's just me. And of course, I am a massive hypocrite, so a couple mountains of salt might be appropriate.

edited 3rd Jul '11 9:07:07 PM by deathjavu

^Frankly, I'm more concerned about people who fret about tone and then actually want to make things worse and cause more suffering.

It's like good thoughts can overcome the damage they want to do to people. No, just no.

Love is overrated to be honest, through conflict, we grow.

At least that's my take on it.

Loving thoughts and hugs don't do a whole lot to solve the legitimate problems and conflicts that our world and societies face, only actions born of a pragmatic mind can fix those.

edited 4th Jul '11 2:15:59 AM by Barkey

> Loving thoughts and hugs don't do a whole lot to solve the legitimate problems and conflicts that our world and societies face, only actions born of a pragmatic mind can fix those.

But a lot of conflict are not "legitimate problem and conflict". a lot of conflict come from mistrust, and there nothing pragmatic mind can do with those kind of conflict.

US deficit conflict is not ordinarily un-solve-able, other nation have far worse deficit and debt. the problem is Right think left "lazy welfare recipient". while the left think the right "selfish rich people who dont want to pay tax". In iraq if sunni, shiah, and kurds trust each other, they can divide the oil fairly and become rich like Norway. there is nothing pragmatic mind can do with conflict like that.

Ah, but I disagree, a pragmatic mind might realize that when dialogue fails enough times, calculated violence will have to suffice.

There comes a point in time with some problems where you realize that discussion won't solve anything, and force becomes your only option that will get results.

It won't always be ideal, but the whole "If people were more loving!" argument doesn't accomplish a whole lot. We can cling to some hope that people will suddenly change, but it isn't terribly realistic. Cause and effect, however, is a realistic approach.

Rhetoric and diplomacy is one option, but just one option of many. Some people think it's the only option, and that if it fails you just need to keep trying until the end of time. I'll try to butt my head against a wall to break it once, but if it doesn't break, I'm going around it and kicking in the door.

edited 4th Jul '11 2:36:50 AM by Barkey

I highly doubt violence in the name of humanitarianism is as "practical" as you suggest.

Uh, using calculated violence to solve problem between two separate people only succeed if the losing side have more than 20% casualties and surrender. it can be achieved (Japan and Germany in WW 2, Shiah victory in Baghdad), but it will become very very bloody.

edited 4th Jul '11 2:45:05 AM by PhilippeO

More practical than "They didn't listen the last 20 times, so lets try a 21st time!"

Diplomacy, friendship, and negotiation are all great things that I don't want to downplay here, but sometimes they don't work, and nobody seems to ever consider any other routes to problem solving as legitimate. The more peaceful and friendly a solution you can find to a problem, the better, but it isn't realistic to expect all of our problems to be solved by such means.

Sometimes you just have to put on your hip waders and stride into the shit, and I see less and less people recognizing that these days. We have a whole lot of talkers, very few facilitators, and when someone actually does take action, all the talkers want to sit on the sidelines and complain about how the results were achieved.

^

I'm not necessarily talking about war, war is an option at the national level, but I'm talking about every level of problem solving. Some people cause problems and don't respond to deterrents put in place and won't listen to reason. That's when a good crack to the skull might accomplish what words could not. Sometimes it's a crack to the skull, other times it's walking in and firing somebody from an important position that they just aren't doing a good enough job at. Force doesn't have to be physical, it can be coercive or socially used as well.

tldr: Words don't always work. It's great when they do, but you have to be ready to switch gears and take action when it's clear that it's no longer an option.

edited 4th Jul '11 2:50:12 AM by Barkey

Meh, I think the issue is less that people aren't being punished enough and more that people in general aren't getting enough help. That's why we need a strong welfare state at least, and we need to all developed countries to tax enough for the bottom billion to be lifted up.