Valentines!

[Adrianis]

Bridge, it's just that nothing you have said prevents the possibility of that emotion existing. Firstly, why (and from what basis) have you concluded that it is biologically impossible to love 50% of the population? Once that's worked out, then why is it impossible to love any of the remaining 50% of the population? Then, if your concluding that 'love' does not exist, how can you say that it is impossible to 'love' 50% of the population? Surely by your argument it is impossible to love any of the population? Why does some people being divorced mean that others cannot possibly be in love? Why does marriage even suggest love in the first place?

I think theres some serious barrier to me understanding what your saying, whether thats language, specific meaning of the word 'lovel', or just the way you're explaining it I don't know. Just so we're clear, I don't know that you are wrong, but I know that you do not know that you are right. I also want to stress that I do take your argument seriously (I wouldn't respond if I didn't), and I don't want you to take anything I say as belitteling your argument.


But lets just go back to what funderbunk said - "you fail to provide a definition of what love is for purposes of this thought experiment. You have to define properties before disproving them"
-> Clearly we're going to need a more rigid definition to continue this argument. I, on the other hand, vote to discontinue the argument on the basis of it not having any basis in fact.