conditional love

[Advocate]

Loving someone just the way they are is horse shit. You should love someone for their potential, because that's their true worth. This applies to loving yourself too.

[Age]

Loving someone just the way they are is horse shit. You should love someone for their potential, because that's their true worth. This applies to loving yourself too.

But the potential someone has, is the way they are. So, to love someone the way they are, literally means love them for their potential.

By the way, the potential within EVERY one is the EXACT SAME.

[henry quirk]

Loving someone just the way they are is horse shit. You should love someone for their potential, because that's their true worth. This applies to loving yourself too.

Not a parent, yeah?

[FlashDangerpants]

Loving someone just the way they are is horse shit. You should love someone for their potential, because that's their true worth. This applies to loving yourself too.

Not a parent, yeah?

On what planet is that guy not a virgin?

[henry quirk]

Loving someone just the way they are is horse shit. You should love someone for their potential, because that's their true worth. This applies to loving yourself too.

Not a parent, yeah?

On what planet is that guy not a virgin?

He's strong on theory but weak on experience.

[Advocate]

By the way, the potential within EVERY one is the EXACT SAME.

You must be living in one of those alternate universes i've been hearing so much about.

[Advocate]

On what planet is that guy not a virgin?

This one. I don't know what planet y'all are living on, but i live on this one.

Q "What does a guy with an amazing penis have for breakfast?"
A "I don't know, yet. I just woke up."

[Advocate]

He's strong on theory but weak on experience.

Weak on love experience? Sure, but this post is about general things. It doesn't require emotional experience. It's true no matter how anyone feels about it. Understanding relative Worth and Value of things does not require love experience.

[henry quirk]

He's strong on theory but weak on experience.

Weak on love experience? Sure, but this post is about general things. It doesn't require emotional experience. It's true no matter how anyone feels about it. Understanding relative Worth and Value of things does not require love experience.

Value & worth are subjective, idiosyncratic.

Love (loving) is subjective, idiosyncratic.

You declare You should love someone for their potential as though this is a universal standard: it's not (and it's not even a very good personal standard).

You want neat boxes in a sloppy universe.

[Advocate]

He's strong on theory but weak on experience.

Weak on love experience? Sure, but this post is about general things. It doesn't require emotional experience. It's true no matter how anyone feels about it. Understanding relative Worth and Value of things does not require love experience.

Value & worth are subjective, idiosyncratic.

Love (loving) is subjective, idiosyncratic.

You declare You should love someone for their potential as though this is a universal standard: it's not (and it's not even a very good personal standard).

You want neat boxes in a sloppy universe.

You should love someone for their potential because anything else is short-changing them and is inaccurate - being contingent upon momentary circumstance, which may or may not be in their control but is at least to some major relevant extent, not.

Also, if they're not trying to live up to their potential you should stop loving them. It's the very definition of a lost cause.

[henry quirk]

Weak on love experience? Sure, but this post is about general things. It doesn't require emotional experience. It's true no matter how anyone feels about it. Understanding relative Worth and Value of things does not require love experience.

Value & worth are subjective, idiosyncratic.

Love (loving) is subjective, idiosyncratic.

You declare You should love someone for their potential as though this is a universal standard: it's not (and it's not even a very good personal standard).

You want neat boxes in a sloppy universe.

You should love someone for their potential because anything else is short-changing them and is inaccurate - being contingent upon momentary circumstance, which may or may not be in their control but is at least to some major relevant extent, not.

Also, if they're not trying to live up to their potential you should stop loving them. It's the very definition of a lost cause.

Yeah, you're not a parent.

[Advocate]

Value & worth are subjective, idiosyncratic.

Love (loving) is subjective, idiosyncratic.

You declare You should love someone for their potential as though this is a universal standard: it's not (and it's not even a very good personal standard).

You want neat boxes in a sloppy universe.

You should love someone for their potential because anything else is short-changing them and is inaccurate - being contingent upon momentary circumstance, which may or may not be in their control but is at least to some major relevant extent, not.

Also, if they're not trying to live up to their potential you should stop loving them. It's the very definition of a lost cause.

Yeah, you're not a parent.

Love finds it's own way, i merely point out there is a better way than random happenstance or popping out a kid.

[henry quirk]

You should love someone for their potential because anything else is short-changing them and is inaccurate - being contingent upon momentary circumstance, which may or may not be in their control but is at least to some major relevant extent, not.

Also, if they're not trying to live up to their potential you should stop loving them. It's the very definition of a lost cause.

Yeah, you're not a parent.

Love finds it's own way, i merely point out there is a better way than random happenstance or popping out a kid.

And I merely point out your standard stinks, has no grounding in how loving actually works, and that you should never talk about Fight Club.

[Age]

By the way, the potential within EVERY one is the EXACT SAME.

You must be living in one of those alternate universes i've been hearing so much about.

I could have worded that better - There is (a) potential within EVER one, which is the EXACT SAME.

This, however, still does not retract from the fact that this potential is 'the way they are'. Therefore, according to your "logic", you "should" love EVERY one 'for their potential', or for the EXACT SAME reason of 'the way they are'.

The reason you do not is because of your 'conditional' love.

Also, HOW could there even be alternate Universes?

[Advocate]

By the way, the potential within EVERY one is the EXACT SAME.

You must be living in one of those alternate universes i've been hearing so much about.

I could have worded that better - There is (a) potential within EVER one, which is the EXACT SAME.

This, however, still does not retract from the fact that this potential is 'the way they are'. Therefore, according to your "logic", you "should" love EVERY one 'for their potential', or for the EXACT SAME reason of 'the way they are'.

The reason you do not is because of your 'conditional' love.

Also, HOW could there even be alternate Universes?

Their potential is not equal so your love for them should not be equal. More than that, their attempting to live up to their potential is not equal and that says a great deal more about their "true" character. However, it's an impossible calculus. SHOULDs are IF/THEN statements. IF you want to value people according to that which is best in them, THEN you should love them according to their potential as elucidated here, or some more refined version of it. It's obviously not actionable as-is because the problems remain of recognizing people's potential, understanding whatever reasons they have for not pursuing their best self, and more than that, whether they can even recognize their own potential, without which there is no possible way to judge it, since potential can be a self-fulfilling prophecy that way.

There can't be alternate universes because the word universe means everything that actually exists. It's a dumb set of hypotheses that cannot claim even possibility much less actuality. There are no cheat codes on the universe - no wormholes, no other universes or rips in space or time, no time travel either direction, no god, no spirits or souls, no woo of any kind, and we are all individually and collectively worthless on all but our own scales of judgement.