Purple Knight wrote: ↑Sat Dec 04, 2021 11:52 pm
Miles wrote: ↑Sat Dec 04, 2021 10:39 pmConsidering that "
Loving one's children is not inconsistent with my idea of love," and your love being "
inseparable from a desire to mate and reproduce," when you love your child you "
desire to mate and reproduce" [s]with[/s]
through them.
There. That's closer to what I mean. Children are a part of the desire for reproduction. Children can spread one's DNA. Lots of people want grandchildren. That's not sick.
You can change the words I use ["with" to "through"] all you want, but your little ploy here doesn't change
the fact that considering that "
Loving one's children is not inconsistent with my idea of love," and your love being "
inseparable from a desire to mate and reproduce," when you love your child MEANS you "
desire to mate and reproduce" with them. It's as simple as A + B = C.
If I didn't want to be called sick I could have just said no to loving one's children. I could have just said, no, that's friendship in my book, not love. Instead I chose to be honest and say that in my book, what one feels for one's children is a part of the desire to continue to reproduce, so I do still count it as love.
Could have, would have, should have still doesn't change what
you've already said: considering that "
Loving one's children is not inconsistent with my idea of love," and your love being "
inseparable from a desire to mate and reproduce," when you love your child MEANS you "
desire to mate and reproduce" with them.
In addition, the thread focuses on romantic love in the first place. I don't think we're being asked the difference between sex and love for something like chocolate or a favourite shirt.
Hey,
you're the one who brought up the "
desire to mate and reproduce." Not me.
.