Parental love is fake

...

...

...

...

and they a wrong how?

Then how come people can love animals? Is that somehow thrust upon us? Or is it that we love because it is an emotion that makes people feel good? Do I love my pets because nature makes me, or do I love them because bonds are formed beyond what you can explain in some fucking lab?

...

Love is not something that can me measured quantitatively. There are no numbers to represent or units to describe what love really is. Love can only be measured in how you feel it and how you interpret it. If we could truly measure love and compare love with others’ loves, then it would lose the right to be called love. If you are finding your love hard to describe or explain to your friends, chances are it is real love. Chances are your lack of words is only a testament to the special, almost mystical, nature of true love. The next time someone asks how much someone loves you the best answer is: It can’t be measured.

Pets are low hassle anthropomorphisation (convenient surrogate children/sibling). And you generally get to pick them(dog, cat, you…).

fucking read
and fucking READ (in general).

Not that I actually mind, this IS shitposting.

Coming from the user who had not one argument in this entire thread of why/how love is fake. Not one fact was ever spewed from your mouth of why love is fake. Not fucking one. All you ever really said is:
Which is inherently fallacious since you haven't once explained the depths of why it is fake.

...

opinion =/= fact

Prove to me your hunger exists.

Well then lemme sum this thread up in this vid.

This. Also:
Yes, because people are too stupid to tell between a dog/friends and your own offspring.

If "nature instilled bond" in mammals is not a fact for you, then this thread in which you just posted is not a fact either. I'm afraid to ask what is.

Hunger is another mechanism instilled by nature that keeps you alive. In a way is just as fake as parental love.
But food does not care that you have a vital dependence forced upon you. But somehow you don't just eat the first piece of shit that you see because it has the necessary ingredients that sustain your life. You/we eat junk food because our hunger is misdirected towards what used to be scarce materials (fats, sugar….). And this is not the fault of nature it the fault of capitalism that promotes it. And our lack of will to resist it.

With parents/siblings is different, whether they love you because they want to love you or they love you because they HAVE to, makes a lot of difference.

Our society is not advanced enough to let you chose parents/siblings/children as you chose food.

Now you give me your version of the prof that hunger exists.

Light shined by a flashlight isn't real, is your argument.

OP IS A MENTAL GYMNAST

...

OP's dad molested him when he was a kid, now he comes on Holla Forums to vent

...

This thread is about one gay giving his opinion and another just insulting him for it.
it smells like samefaggness

This is the best one

...

Loneliness adds beauty to life. It puts a special burn on sunsets and makes night air smell better.
Find what you love and let it kill you.

Nah, it's mostly out of insecurity. After a point, parents just live through their children and begin to project their own shortcomings on them. Sad, really. They also sponsor extremely destructive traits like self-esteem in girls. No wonder so many boys today are faggots.

Macaroni.

...

...

You can pretty much use the same argument about anything. Everything about you is just something nature instilled on you. You are a mindless puppet and everything is forced upon you. Sort of like a robot, which I suspect is not far from the mark, because autism.

What about choice?
You can chose a mate/friend, but not your kids/parents/siblings thats why is fake. And society ostracizes you if you go against family.

99% of b/ could live happier lives if they actually got over this.

Your parents don't love you, they are forced at gun point to care for you. They all secretly deep down hate your guts just as you do theirs.

You have no choices as at all dumbass.
Since you didn't choose your genetics, the environment you were born into etc there was never a point in time where YOU made a choice on YOUR own. Every single "choice" you have ever made is just the output of the inputs that were summed to create "you". You say that we are biollogicaly primed to love our children/parents, but the fact of the matter is that loving a partner is also just the result of dopamine released at the behest of the limbic system in your brain which YOU have no control over.

This discussion assumes free choice is a thing. And that we don't live in a completely deterministic universe. So even if the chems of love are there from the beginning you can chose where you direct them. And you can get over a "lover" and get a new one.

You cant get new parents on a whim.

...

impressive
usually 4yo can't write this well

So, this is the incest thread, right?

All love is fake under your that definition retard

hahaha. you suck op

...

ftfy

...

...

www.keepbelieving.com/

So what? Why do you hate biology? Are you a tranny?

...

...

www.keepbelieving.com

...

...

...

...

...

...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

...

...

...

...

I am going to smear everything you have to say op. Honestly op, you spilled the spaghetti quite hard to not include facts to support your conclusions.

Then how come their are parents who hate and abuse their children? It's called free will. People can love/hate their children if they want to, people aren't forced to do anything.
Your argument is that because "evolution acquired these emotions", means they're somehow not real. A volcano erupts because of the earths plates, therefore the eruption isn't real. Also, people who just have sex and abort the child/give him up for adoption is something nature forces upon them then? That's exactly what your trying to imply op.

People are not required to raise a pet in order to have them a pet, nor are they required to love/consider them apart of their family.

So, if nature instilled it, it's somehow fake? Your hunger doesn't exist at all then? If it exists it's real, to say it's "fake" is contradictory.
Any actual proofs that capitalism promotes eating unhealthy food? Because Fedil Castro had a sweet tooth and loved chocolate, which is an exception to your thought that somehow "capitalism promotes eating unhealthy foods". Also, Stalin loved drinking games, is that healthy intake? You're also assuming because people didn't have enough food/a bigger abundance of food, that peoples diets under communism are healthy because there was no "junk food" to be had by most people.
Because they're are no people who workout and are healthy/fit in the world? That is incredibly untrue op, it's almost ridiculous. You are a lardass, I presume?
You are using a crack pot theory and saying that is a fact. When in reality you are using the Reification fallacy to think that a hypothesis is an actual fact.

The fact that you don't have to have children is using your own free will. To imply it doesn't, well, is pretty idiotic.

You are taking a general situation and getting particular examples as if that negates the tendencies.

i killed your guard dog

…
refer to
MacDonalds (but ofc your fact checking radar is made in china)

...

You're truly pathetic. Tell me op if emotions don't exist, how does nature?
What else am I supposed to do? Op has not proven himself once.

I am comparing the fact that op is saying that "emotions don't exist because of evolution" is bullshit and doesn't actually explain how they are "fake" and I made the comparison between volcanoes and how op is saying that emotions are fake.
When I said and I'll quote myself (learn reading comprehension):
I'll quote myself again (reading comprehension):
Nice job cherry picking the fattest country in the world… does that please you? When most of the world is capitalist?

...

Double think much their kiddo?

Also:
I'll quote op:
He's saying that parents have to love their kids. I've already directly refuted that statement with your supposed "exceptions".

You must be mad, because your unintelligible autism is making your train of taught hard to follow.

isn't that what you do? (stop implying yourself)

again you imply your self

People are forced to love their family and the cases that don't are exceptions (mental illness… ). Try it your self to "want to hate a family member", see how that goes.

In communism there is no financial incentive so the choice of food does not depend of what people feel like. Here the decision of the general food types is proxy-ed to the government (or who ever the central organism decides). But this is not a discussion about communism no mater how much you want that.

Most of the world by surface and number of people is not capitalist. This does not imply its communist either.

...

How does even make sense to you that you can want to not love your parents/children?

As the parent of a young boy. No. It's not.

Underrated as fuck.

same fagging is gay

You did not say that I'll quote you again op you fucking retard:
You are a dumbass.
Prove that statement dumbass. Here's what you do: you try to explain why people are forced to love their family member and end up with the conclusion see this fallacy you fucking autist:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning
heritage.org/index/ranking

Nice loaded question dumbass. The fact that their are people that like to torture their children refutes that statement.

Not as gay as being btfo you shit-jousting faggot. Drink bleach you stupid fucking cunt.

Forgot pic, my apologies squire.

no your not an idiot

You imply that a normal person can raise a guard dog and have no feelings towards it. Hence my ironical comparison with a toaster, since most normal people don't have feelings for their toaster. You seem not to be capable of understanding any of this.

Oh so me saying people get a pet as a sentimental replacement for a child/sibling makes me a dumbass.
And because im a dumbass my statement is automatically null.

For the prof refer to

If your conclusion from what i said, is that the reason for not loving family members is all mental illness… No i cant continue.

here a with a map to
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom
sure capitalism = economic freedom

using > as in this gaygoat implies that

Never said that. direct to
I'll quote myself (because you are an extraordinary dumbass):
Never said that (nice strawman bro). I said that you don't have to love him/consider them apart of your family, not that you don't have emotions towards them. You are fucking stupid.
Prove it. Prove that a dog is a replacement for a child.
That is exactly what you said:
Without actually saying that there are more exceptions.
You are confusing pure capitalism with just capitalism. May I suggest that you read a book you dumb nigger.
Prove that they all are mentally ill then. It's not even possible retard.

sup' friend

yep, only on *chan child torture is considered normal parent behavior

nuff said

My family is shit, I don't really love them. I'm NEET as fuck though, so I rely on them for shit and I have to keep up appearances.

It destroys your logic of why "parents and children have to love each other". Bullshit.
Again you are fucking stupid.

Dont feed guilty for realising what they are.
And spit and piss in the mouths of people that tell you that you should respect your parents just because they are your parents.
Dont misunderstand, respect them if they deserve, not just because they conceived you.

It has been explained many times in a lab you dweebshit, it's not some gift from above as you ignorants like to think

What normal state of mind would make you torture your child?

Oh boy, another loaded question. Good going op. Explain to me your sense of "normalcy" and see if that can actually be construed as an actual mental illness that can be determined by a psychologist/legal definition in a court.

If your commons sens is telling you that parents that torture their children are not mentally ill i cant argue with that.

Try me kiddo.

Nevermind misread. I thought you said "can argue with that". I'm a bit tired. Good night and merry christmas idiot.

Please point out the load in my questions.

The 1st asks you to want something that you don't or the other way around, not want something you want. Which is pretty much a question about free will.
Since you cant change your want, you can DO the contrary, but that does not change what you want (or how you feel about it).

The second treats "mental illness" just like everything else, a general term and not a legal and binding dictionary definition. If not we end up becoming legal experts in linguistics and linking the whole dictionary and wiki here. And this is beyond me as is beyond the large majority of mortals. (my personal and humble belief)

The point is that you need to load the question (idk with what though) to be able to not give the obvious answer.

Here's the definition of a loaded question fallacy:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question
Knock yourself out. I'm too tired to explain why it is your question is loaded. But all people need to do is read it and understand the bullshit behind your question is.

...

Well yes… that makes love real.
Love for the opposite sex is designed to compel us to breed with one another and protect that significant other, parental love compels the parents to protect and raise the child, and making the parent go through great lengths to do so, a child loves his/her parents for survival and dependence, children also look up to their parents at a very young age.

But it doesn't make it fake, what you see is real, what your parents feel for you is real, wether that's instinctual or not is irrelevant, any parent who doesn't love their children has mental issues, any child that doesn't love their parents either had parents that did harm to him/her, or (s)he has mental issues.

Thinking that it's bad that love is an instinctual reaction just makes you a cynical bitch.

well y-yes. but to say that every parent has mental issues who does terrible stuff to their kid/doesn't love him, doesn't necessarily mean the parent has mental issues. being a bastard does not mean you have some mental illness or mental issues, it could just mean you're not that good of a person. have you ever been an asshole to someone before? if you say not, frankly, i don't believe you.

does not necessarily mean*

What I meant with harming a child was outright abusing the child, not being a little bit of an asshole to him.

Abusing someone generally and especially to someone close to you always link to a certain emotional repressed trauma from a past experience or a mental illness.

Surely you aren't implying that anybody that has a willingness to abuse someone whom, did nothing wrong or is close to the abuser does not necessarily have mental illnesses or carries a hefty bag of traumas and repressed troubles on their shoulders?

Of course I have been an asshole to someone, but I have never abused another, and I might add that there is a great difference between a random person and someone close to you.

As for a parent that doesn't love their child(ren), it is a certain mental fault if that's the case, parental instinct is in our nature and if certain individuals do not have this, it's a mental fault, for they aren't willing to raise and care for their child and would simply neglect them (something which could be on par with abuse), and would not empathize with their child for it, those people often lack empathy in general.

STOP TAKING THE BAIT YOU FUCKS

op never provided any proof in his opening statements, his argument was null and void from the get go. Stop eating this shit up, hook and sinker.

...

anything to actually back that up? or are you just making it up?
no i don't think everyone who does, is mentally ill/has repressed emotions. just look at the times we're living in… it is not ok to smack a child for doing something wrong anymore, as it's considered abuse. but back in the day it wasn't considered abuse, it was considered a proper punishment. not to mention parents under the influence abusing the child and the fact that their are sadists in this world who like abusing people and no, being a sadist does not always mean it's applicable to being a psychopath/sociopath

You still don't seem to differentiate abuse and punishment.
What most parents did back in the day was indeed punishment, and I don't personally think it's abuse.
Take archive.is/BV281 for example, do you think it's abuse, or punishment? Because these are the kind of people I talk about, those aren't even things parents back in the day would've done to their child and especially not when the kid has done nothing wrong even within the parent's standards.

Would you say that these people are merely sadists, and not people with a mental illness or repressed traumas?

lol i dont even like my parents

There sure are some good parents but as far as I'm concerned, if that bitch could croak for christmas that would be the greatest fucking gift I'd ever receive.
brb writing letter to santa

also, being a sociopath/psychopath means you have no remission of guilt for the people you've made suffer/screwed over. if you torture someone and feel terrible about it later on in life, that usually means that you aren't a psychopath.

in the extreme cases, yes, they are mentally deranged individuals. although i'm pretty sure you can't label all of them with a mental illness or repressed traumas. as pointed out, it would be impossible to actually tell if everyone who abused their child (by your standards, and perhaps not the most extreme examples, like your citation) people have a clinical mental illness. as for the repressed traumas, that's very difficult to ever prove. after all, they're repressed. most of the time people with traumas don't want to talk about them.

Well the only people I was talking about were the extreme cases. But I wasn't clear enough about it in my first post which is my bad.

I do understand your point, one cannot simply label them all with mental illnesses and repressed traumas are difficult to prove. But personally I simply cannot imagine any parent would think of abusing a child like in my citation and could be declared sane in any way or form.