NationStates Jolt Archive

Is it worse to be eternally exposed to that which you hate, or to be eternally deprived of that which you love?

I hate: Western Democracy and all it's intensional bullshit it's doing to melt our minds. I walk on the streets and it's like a deluge of filth pouring down my throat.

I love: Smoking good green punk with my great stoner friends.

So long as I have what I love, I can easily survive exposure to what I hate.

I've become used to being deprived of that which I love. It's depressing. It passes. If I had to be continuously exposed to something I hated I'm sure I would go completely bonkers. I suspect I'm halfway there already so I think being completely bonkers wouldn't be a pretty sight.

Sometimes it's the same thing, which is never be good.

Or is it worse to be eternally exposed to that which you love, until you find and in your mind magnify any fault, no matter how tiny, so that in the end you hate that which you loved?

Or is it worse to be eternally exposed to that which you love, until you find and in your mind magnify any fault, no matter how tiny, so that in the end you hate that which you loved?


Now THERE'S a deep thought.

But I'd say no. If you truly love something, each new discovery whether fair or foul will merely contribute to the experience of the whole. And the more of the whole thing you comprehend, the greater your love for it will be.

I've become used to being deprived of that which I love. It's depressing. It passes. If I had to be continuously exposed to something I hated I'm sure I would go completely bonkers. I suspect I'm halfway there already so I think being completely bonkers wouldn't be a pretty sight.
Sounds like me, but I'd never use the word "bonkers." That which I hate can be eternally destroyed; there is no way to cope with the loss of that which I love, which is also not mine at all.:(

Sometimes it's the same thing, which is never be good.
At least one then has absolute misery as company.:(

At least one then has absolute misery as company.:(
I'd rather no company than absolute misery...

Now THERE'S a deep thought.

But I'd say no. If you truly love something, each new discovery whether fair or foul will merely contribute to the experience of the whole. And the more of the whole thing you comprehend, the greater your love for it will be.
But one could love something so much a small vice could inspire a hatred that feeds on the love and the sense of betrayal.

How do you differentiate? To be constantly exposed to something I hate, means that my sensitivity to that which I love is deadened. To be constantly deprived of that which I love, means more awareness of that which I hate. The negative always seems to trump the positive.

I'd rather no company than absolute misery...
But no company often invites absolute misery to sup with you; then it refuses to leave, even 'neath the lover's smile.:(

But one could love something so much a small vice could inspire a hatred that feeds on the love and the sense of betrayal.

But surely such a great degree of love could overcome such minor flaws? The overwhelming beauty of the thing compensate for any such lack? If you are to truly love something, it means even accepting that which you might find unacceptable.

But your argument has a great deal of merit.

But no company often invites absolute misery to sup with you; then it refuses to leave, even 'neath the lover's smile.:(
Well, I'm lucky that I can entertain myself perfectly well...I find interest in even the smallest thing. Doesn't help with the misery, but at least it helps take my mind off things a bit.

How do you differentiate? To be constantly exposed to something I hate, means that my sensitivity to that which I love is deadened. To be constantly deprived of that which I love, means more awareness of that which I hate. The negative always seems to trump the positive.
Disappointments abound anyway, so one might as well share the burden with a love, for with the lover the hated become insignificant in large part.

Deprivation of love is worse. Love is more powerful than hate; with no love all the little bad things in the world will drag you down and eventually cause you to say fuck it and down a bottle of pills; even with lots of hate the little good things in the world will cheer you up and things will still be tolerable.

Deprivation of love is worse. Love is more powerful than hate; with no love all the little bad things in the world will drag you down and eventually cause you to say fuck it and down a bottle of pills; even with lots of hate the little good things in the world will cheer you up and things will still be tolerable.
You couldn't be more wrong: love and hate are equal and opposite, as it must be to maintain balance in the universe. Without love, one may well be driven to hate, as one may with abundant sources of love, so it makes little difference.

I don't really hate anything, but I am exposed to many things I greatly dislike all day long, and if I didn't have the things I loved I might well snap.

I think it's worse to be without the things you love.

I believe that being deprived of that which you love is far worse then being exposed to that which you hate.

Even when I hate something, there are other things I can do to work around it and to ignore it but when I don't have what I love it is all I can think about. It is something so internal that my life focuses around that deprivation, and that is far worse in my opinion.

I believe that being deprived of that which you love is far worse then being exposed to that which you hate.

Even when I hate something, there are other things I can do to work around it and to ignore it but when I don't have what I love it is all I can think about. It is something so internal that my life focuses around that deprivation, and that is far worse in my opinion.
The best part about hate, though, is that it can be used to destroy the object of the hatred, reducing the necessary hatred one must have.

The best part about hate, though, is that it can be used to destroy the object of the hatred, reducing the necessary hatred one must have.

That depends though. If you hate a person, you cannot destroy them. If you hate an object that does not belong to you, you cannot destroy it (if you don't want to get in trouble). There are only certain things I can destroy, and the things I have hated have been untouchable.

Disappointments abound anyway, so one might as well share the burden with a love, for with the lover the hated become insignificant in large part.

That works well if you have a love. But if you are deprived of that love and are constantly exposed to the hateful, you're s.o.l.

That depends though. If you hate a person, you cannot destroy them. If you hate an object that does not belong to you, you cannot destroy it (if you don't want to get in trouble). There are only certain things I can destroy, and the things I have hated have been untouchable.
I'm not saying there wouldn't be risks or consequences, just that it could be done by anyone with enough hate.

That works well if you have a love. But if you are deprived of that love and are constantly exposed to the hateful, you're s.o.l.
That's about the sum of it, yes. At that point, one could well embrace the hatred, the darkness within.

i dont mind being exposed to that which i hate, because i enjoy feeling the anger and passion rise up. its better than being apathetic

being deprived of what you love can only make you miss the thing even more, and i would imagine it would give you only good memories of it
i voted deprived because the visions of love could at least keep you going

Is it worse to be eternally exposed to that which you hate, or to be eternally deprived of that which you love?Both at the same time is worst.

As an objective question it is hard to answer. But when I consider the practical application I would much rather be exposed to what I hate than deprived of what I love. Mainly because the only thing I love is sex, and I would rather get laid in hell than be celibate in Hawaii.

Both at the same time is worst.
I think someone already said that. :confused:

As an objective question it is hard to answer. But when I consider the practical application I would much rather be exposed to what I hate than deprived of what I love. Mainly because the only thing I love is sex, and I would rather get laid in hell than be celibate in Hawaii.
It's so hard to answer objectively because IT ISN'T OBJECTIVE.:headbang:

Is it worse to be eternally exposed to that which you hate, or to be eternally deprived of that which you love?

I hate being deprived of the thing i love, and am externally exposed to that.

DOUBLE WHAMMY!

I win the thread k thx bai
x

Sounds like the real question is would you rather be eternally in the company of both that which you love and that which you hate, or eternally without either?

I could survive the hate if I had the love, but could not survive the nothingness if I had neither. I will say being deprived of love would be worse.

Sounds like the real question is would you rather be eternally in the company of both that which you love and that which you hate, or eternally without either?

I could survive the hate if I had the love, but could not survive the nothingness if I had neither. I will say being deprived of love would be worse.

Depends, really, if you know what love feels like...i mean, if all you'd ever known was nothingness...you know?

Before i really entered the relationship game, i was casual sex man, solitary, surly, get drunk on occasion, thats it. Since then i've been chewed up and spat out by love and being in love on a few occasions. On one level, i would be happier now if i had never known love.

But now i have, i wouldn't go back.

I hate: Western Democracy and all it's intensional bullshit it's doing to melt our minds. I walk on the streets and it's like a deluge of filth pouring down my throat.

And fascism won't melt our minds (to say nothing of our bodies)?

In my understanding, the absence and deprivation of what you love is exactly exposure to what you hate. Where there is no love there is hatred. Where there is no justice there is injustice. Where there is no freedom there is oppression. Where there is no democracy there is oligarchy.

And fascism won't melt our minds (to say nothing of our bodies)?
Maybe he's Communist?

In my understanding, the absence and deprivation of what you love is exactly exposure to what you hate. Where there is no love there is hatred. Where there is no justice there is injustice. Where there is no freedom there is oppression. Where there is no democracy there is oligarchy.
That's enought of your simple-minded, black-and-white nonsense. What one hates is not necessarily what one hates, though it could be related or exactly the same. Emotion is complex, irrational and transcendental.

I would try to respond but I have difficulty speaking to fascists without insulting them.

I would try to respond but I have difficulty speaking to fascists without insulting them.
Ah, so we have something in common, except I insult almost everyone. :p
And I'm not really fascist; I'm actually Centrist, so respond away.