Orwar

That's really difficult to answer without first determining what is the correct definition of 'love'. Personally I think that the English language is behind in this regard as 'love' is the only word for it - to compare, in Swedish we have several terms; kärlek = the play/game of being in love, kär = to be in love, älska = to love. It's fine to say 'jag älskar ost!' ('I love cheese'), but if you say 'jag är kär i ost!' ('I'm in love with cheese!') you'll be frowned upon and regarded as a young, emotional bimbo who fails to understand their own language. As for whether love is divine though, and whether atheists can practice it, well, that depends on the type of atheist. Atheism isn't binary, and many use it to describe themselves because they don't attend church and don't pray, or commit to any other religious rituals - but a whole lot of those are more agnostic, and will admit to simply 'not knowing' whether there is a divine entity, and if so, whether that is the Abrahamic concept of 'God'. Others have created a confusing mix of Eastern religious philosophy, seeing themselves as part of a universe where everything is somehow connected, but seldom do such people appear to have reflected on this very much and come off as some vague-minded hippie types. If we use the word 'love' as the expression of a connection between two people that is stronger than common friendship or even blood, then certainly, atheists can practice it. Again, do 'they' want to is a rather generalising term. There are atheists who are obsessed with the idea of romantic love, and there are atheists who aren't, just as there are religious types who believe love to be an expression of purity and a connection to the divine, and those who regard it as an evil, the temptation to keep our kind locked in an eternal cycle of reproduction (such as Cathars - although to be fair, I don't think there's a whole lot of those around these days. Which is a shame, them and Judas-is-the-one-true-disciple-of-Christ kind of gnostics are the only Christians I feel I could get behind!). Yet again we have to ask for the definition of love, though, and how precisely we want to regard the terminology we use. Now, looking back at the original quote by the silly man with a PhD, it appears that his description is one of those vague sorts which is difficult to say it is factually wrong because the use of words is just so abhorrently lucid that it's hard to pin down exactly where he's being wrong; I strongly disagree with his concept though, and I find that sort of mindset downright despicable. Mind, I'm an existential nihilist who perceive nothing divine and no purpose, who believe life is a brief and random thing which has much too many very real things to explore, to shut one's eyes for the callousness of reality and project love onto everything and weaken the meaning of the word until it's pliable enough to fit in whichever application one wants to use it in. And yes, I find such people provocative; they make me want to smack them over the head and scream at them to wake up and feel the entropy that even now is working to break down their bodies, the process which will one day grow stronger than your ability to reinvigorate yourself, where life begins to decline and the likelihood of suffering begins to outweigh the likelihood of pleasure. That is one of the few truths that I believe in, the inevitability of our demise both as individuals and as a species and, thus, as a community - be it in fifty years or fifty million years. It's also one of my big pet peeves when it comes to our modern view of romantic love and our generally irrational expectations thereof. People often find pain and suffering in their search thereof, losing their sense of self-value because they don't receive enough affirmation. That's plain idiocy and counter-intuitive to the concept of harmony. It's the cause of a lot of people getting together with those who do them more harm than good, because 'love' is more important than anything; more important than your health, your mentality, or your economy. I know it's a bit cliché to say that 'you first need to work on yourself' (and goodness knows I abhor 'self-help' philosophers and bloggers), but if one loses oneself in the search for another, what's the bloody point anyway? It's just self-destructive and downright pathetic. "Be glad and strong, be glad and strong. For who needs someone, that needs someone?" - DLK, a Swedish trallpunk (punk pathetique-ish) band.

'Anything'? Come on now, the proper term is 'anyone', we mustn't objectif-- Oh. Oh! Yeah no. I uh. Ahem. Nothing much happened here. Glances between So's forum profile pic and the quoted post. 'Crazy cat lady'? Noo . . . Not at all . . .

I'm just going to drop this here. Gratitude and love are not the same thing. Gratitude is a tool with which we establish harmony. When we are in harmony, we are happier and more prosperous, and more likely to be capable of creating strong relationships that may develop into love.

Whatever floats one's boat, eh? There's nothing wrong with using the same system avi for 11 years and stacking prims in sandboxes if that feels creatively rewarding or entertaining. But if you want to use SL to socialise, expect that looks matter about as much if not more than it does in RL, to a large part of the userbase. And if you want to use SL to explore deviant desires, there's nothing wrong with that either. As long as one does it in a manner respectful of those around you - as with anything else. And no. Shunning someone because they do the 'noob stance' and look like a potato isn't being disrespectful; you're not entitled to anyone's acceptance to the point where they have to engage with you against their will. This bit isn't necessarily aimed at the quote, by the by. A majority of them, I suspect. It's an issue of a vocal minority with frilly ideals thinking that because people have given up trying to reason with them, that everyone's silence equals agreement. Back in 2014's election here, everyone 'knew' that 'things were changing', because according to all prognoses, they were overwhelmingly certain that Feministiskt Initiative (Feministic Initiative) were going to represent in parliament (which requires 4% of the votes to start getting seats). It was all people were talking about in social media and the news - we were watching history in the making! And then we watched a bunch of women crying in live national television when it became apparent that they weren't even close, at 3.1%, down from projections expecting 7-12%. The next election year, in 2018, they'd fallen to 0.4% of the votes. It's an issue of people being so confident that theirs is the one true view that they can't imagine anyone would disagree with them, and if you disagree with that kind of people you're usually met with an avalanche of profanity and insults; you're a misogynist, a Nazi, a cog in the machinery of the patriarchy, a person with archaic morals who 'isn't keeping up with reality'. P.S - note that this isn't a commentary on that particular political ideology, but rather of the mentality of sitting on such a high horse you're incapable of perceiving or comprehending reality due to altitude sickness.

There is another aspect to what Catrie was talking about, too. Self perseverance. Even if you do the dishes to aid a loved one is an act of compassion, it's not self-sacrifice; it's a good deed in the bank, a favour that may come with anticipation of the same service being provided to you if one day you should need it. Basically, it's the same way society functions - we contribute to society because we expect society to be there for us when we need it, we pay taxes because we expect fires in our homes to be turned out, our broken bodies to be mended, safety, protection and justice. Society is, in a way, a macro-relationship involving all the people within it. We're animals, we're driven by instinctive behaviours such as opportunism, deception, and greed - we're no different in our relationships, and even if we may have genuine empathy for people around us, a desire to see them prosper, it's arguably because it increases our own chances of survival the day we can't stand by ourselves. There's also lust, jealousy and schadenfreude; they're all responses to chemical inputs in our brains, triggered by behaviours that are wired into our very beings. To say that everything we do are acts of love is an insult, it ignores the reality of what we are, and undermines the true purpose of the word. It's such a thick shell of sugar coating that truth is entirely obscured by it. To be so reckless with our language, to warp the meaning of words to make them fit our position rather than explaining our perception by wielding words the way they are intended, it's degenerative, destructive, and despicable. And besides; in an age where we have dictionaries and thesauruses at our disposal at the click of a button, to just sit yourself down and burp up something as braindead as the stuff quoted in the OP, is just outright lazy. But that's just another part of human nature, isn't it - to take the path of least resistance when we got nothing to lose for doing so, to appeal to your audience because you can be certain that such hogwash is going to be swallowed, hook, line, and sinker, by desperately ignorant individuals that roam the world in terrifying numbers, so that you can have a shot at being noticed, publish a book, and make a living out of micturating gasoline on the fires of nescience.

Am I really that much more interesting than the topic itself? I mean, I get it - I sort of am - but surely there's more to be said about the topic itself before we dive into my hugging habits and what chemical compounds I'm familiar with?

Unless you're a train. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/17/611860169/japanese-rail-operator-says-sorry-for-inexcusable-departure-25-seconds-off-sched?t=1599339986689 . . . Okay, now we're derailing. Whilst talking about trains. Gee.

Oh dear. A human who allows human instinct to have a say in their choices, rather than oppressing themselves in the name of 'being correct' - how refreshing!

My spare time is rather uninteresting seeing as it's my spare time. I'm not a professional quack-salver like a lot of modern 'doctors of philosophy' though. My professional time does appear to contribute however, as it generates a taxable income and provides a service to those who want and can afford it. Awh, because I don't buy into some silly theory about how love is everything and everything is love, I must need a hug! Let's repel critical thinking with acts of love, and smother free thought with hugs until there's no opposition? All hail @Gatogateau the seer! Let us erect a temple of worsh--! . . Oh, wait. No. This is neither off-topic nor flaming, so. Meh?

I think that people trying to find a broader meaning of love to make it fit menial tasks is misguided. If you have enough spare time to 'philosophise' about how cleaning the dishes is a step along the path of love, you should find a more meaningful way to contribute to society. The concept of love is infested with the aspect of divinity, of fate; love isn't something you find, it's not something you're entitled to, it's a bond that two people build together through a mutual exchange. People are obsessed with it. The expectations people have from life are irrational to the bizarre. But most people don't have the time to reflect and consider how skewed their perspectives are, and so quite readily throw their attention at the feet of anyone who can offer them a glimpse of hope through a factually wrongful and misleading piece of text that they can consume, feel wiser for browsing the words of a self-proclaimed philosopher, and think that it makes them happier. I blatantly don't care about PhDs, they toss those out at the drop of a hat these days; besides, appeal to authority seldom rubs me the right way. Heck, I know of people who earned a PhD in 'the history of cow names', whose pursuit was purely for the sake of getting to attach a few letters to their names to make them feel important. I'm also wary of folks who use fonts based off of Chancery script on their books. That's an abomination. Especially when it's in partial all-caps. I mean the way that title has been printed, you know it's just going to be a bunch of touchy-feely rot.

Well. People do judge people by appearance. That's just how we work. Any claim to the contrary is idealistic hysteria. I've used this example before, but I'm going to repeat it because it's hilarious: A TV programeme here once did that thing where they walk around town asking people which they prefer, and presented women with two pictures. The first picture was the leader of the Environmentalist Party, a guy who've championed feminism with quite a bit of zeal - but he also looks like a little boy. The other picture was of a silver-fox actor infamous for his drug and alcohol abuse and alleged sexual assault. 100% of the women who were asked, would rather sleep with the 'bad boy' than the virtue signaling politician. "Looks do matter, because love at first sight doesn't happen based on your personality". And yes, this applies even if you don't intend to sleep with people; we like having pretty things around us.

I may have been quite close to writing a much less polite post about this a few days ago, when I was having some weird things happening when I updated my payment method and was asked to produce photocopies of a passport/driver's license and my credit card. I immediately went to find the rather well-hidden 'live support' link only to be faced with a bot. Luckily the whole thing was resolved before I was finished composing my text wall, but yeah, paying for something that includes 'live support' only to find yourself faced with a damned bot is to piss on your customers. I'd rather just have an ETA and queue number than an AI antagonising me by its blatant inefficiency.

I'm not making this crap up. This is legit what I get 90% of the time. It's like I'm playing a parallel universe version of SL where most people are assholes. Well, your profile is blank . . Blank profiles do not really incite people to talk. Also, that quote of yours comes on rather strong; it reeks of desperation for attention. Not to mention a lot of people on the grid need to be presented with a TL:DR if you write more than three sentences because they're pathetic excuses for human beings. It is usually better to start off gently and see whether the other party is partial to engaging or whether you've just wasted your time composing such a long introduction. Also, copy-pasting people's likes from their profiles to try to make yourself appear a potential person of interest is inadvisable. If someone has written 'I love beaches!', don't just say 'Oh, I love beaches also!' - that's not engagement, that's mirroring. Instead, try something like 'Hey, did you ever visit <insert beach sim here>? I thought that place was wonderful!'. Who knows, a few moments later you may be re-exploring that beach with someone you made intrigued to discover it. . . . But then again, who the Hell would ever try to engage with the sort of person who writes 'I like beaches' on their profile. Scoffs derisively.

Whilst that's nice and all, and you did point out that that's what it is to you, that's not the common interpretation of it. I mean, the word outright derives from 'social class', to 'be classy' is to act in a manner befit of a gentleman/gentlewoman, which is not necessarily with how kids today view 'kindness and respect' in some twisted 'peace, love and understanding' balderdash, but to be stylish and sophisticated (which, arguably, might require a touch of kindness and respectfulness). Eloquence, social aptitude and patience are far classier than 'I do disabled people a favour by sexing them for money'. To say that a person who blatantly advertises that she prostitutes herself, starts controversial threads for attention, wields the name 'Sextoy', and ends every expression with three exclamation marks is 'classy' feels like a bit of a stretch. That's not a judgement of whether they're a 'good' or 'bad' person, but that trying to make a term more inclusive by watering out its meaning is harmful to our language and reeks of that positive-attitude idealism that has infected most discourse online today, where people can't fully express themselves in fear of 'offending' someone. Speaking of - a true mark of being classy, is to never show that you are offended; humility, restraint, and self-distance are cornerstones of good etiquette.

Orwar was quite happy to have such a spectacle to return to, but was somewhat disappointed to see the illeism didn't last - but he would not surrender as easily! Well, meh. It's no fun doing it all by myself anyway. So. If people would kindly cut out the whole 'Oh no, I forgive you and you taught me a valuable lesson' shenanigans and stop trying to be some twisted ideal of world-peace, and behave like people again, that'd be great. Getting kinda soppy over there, folks. Not all people are meant to like and agree with each other. Even the people whose philosophy is that we should have a harmonious free-for-all that's inclusive of everyone regardless of their choices or identities, push this philosophy through conflict against, well, 'the conservatives' who rather call a spade a spade, who aren't welcome in this all-inclusive world where everyone is happy and make cats wear silly outfits they knitted with yarn bought from a second hand shop and try to rewire them to become tofu-guzzling vegan felines. Do I believe Bagnu's apology to be genuine, that she's stepped out of their persona of ignorance to embrace rationalism and critical thinking? No. After 800+ posts of 'being herself', this here cynic is going to stick with the empirical evidence; perhaps in another 800 posts of providing indication to the contrary I may change perspective.

Orwar figures that, considering the overhanging threat of having the bejebus kicked out of him (which he can't help by question whether it isn't a good thing? Expel the saviour!), there can't be much harm in pointing out that he reckons Jordan rather likes it when he peeks-her-boo.

Orwar would like to have it pointed out that he does not pop in people with a mere "hi". He's fairly certain that it's usually either "Hello there, how are you doing?" or "Peekaboo".

I disagree. Orwar has a mental image of people being scalded and flayed by demonic tormentors in Hell and displays a vague grin as he reclines in his chair with a happy sigh.

I don't like being judged for judging people by how they look. Huffs.

Orwar announces that the 'gleeful' part was to emphasise how it wasn't as much 'I want to hurt you' as 'You hurt yourself and I giggled'. He also wishes to inform, that to apply to become a Premium Sadist one must send the admission fee of L$1,999 to the sadistic secretary (Nephtyria), and a recurring subscription fee of L$299 monthly or L$666 quarterly to retain the title and the perks* that come with it. *No perks included.