LifeFuel "You're not entitled to love" debunked

[sneed (not chuck)]

There's nothing strange about feeling entitled to love. In fact, for a portion of our lives, it is enshrined in law that we must receive love. Children have both the moral and legal right to love.

• In 1974, Foster and Freed wrote in their article “A Bill of Rights for Children” that “a child has a moral right and should have a legal right, to receive parental love and affection.” Such a legal right now exists in Israel, Japan, Mozambique, and the United States and appears in the preamble of United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC): “a child should grow up in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding.” The assertion that children have not only a moral but a legal claim to love, with all the State power of enforcement that entails, seems to ask a lot more of the child/parent/State relationship than we currently conceive.

The justification for it is simple:

• Matthew Liao states that children have a right to be loved as a human right on the grounds that human beings have rights to those conditions that are primary essential for a good life.

In essence, that which is necessary to human wellbeing should be considered a right. This includes food, water, and of course, love.

A Right to be Loved

In 1974, Foster and Freed wrote in their article “A Bill of Rights for Children” that “a child has a moral right and should have a legal right,1 to receive parental love and affection.”2 Such a legal right now exists in Israel, Japan,...

link.springer.com

However, Liao's position has been argued against. Not because love shouldn't be a children's right. Instead, the question is, Why stop at children? What about adults, and what about animals? Do they not have rights?

• It might be worth exploring whether any being that has the genetic basis for moral agency also has the genetic basis for living a good life. If so, this view of rightholding would support all the claims that Liao is interested in defending with respect to children. It would, however, also support attributing rights to non-human animals, an issue about which Liao tries to remain uncommitted.

https://sites.pitt.edu/~japa/papers/hr.pdf

So here's how it's going down, toilets. You either love us, or we're calling Ben Crump and filing civil rights charges against you all for depriving us of our right to love. Without love, we will rope. You are morally, philosophically, and legal obliged to love us if you give a rat's ass about human rights. It is bullshit that anyone thinks that the right to love suddenly disappears when you turn 16 like fucking Timmy Turner losing his fairies. You still have the same psychological needs, and most of us incels weren't even loved as children so we already have the basis for civil rights charges against the toilets that rejected us in childhood.

 

[THE TRUE HONKLER]

the least normies could do is not be horrible to us but even thats too much to ask a lot of the time

 

[iamsubhuman]

Why are your threads always polls and the last option is always awoooooooo

 

[sneed (not chuck)]

Why are your threads always polls and the last option is always awoooooooo

Incels under the influence of the autumnal equinox's full moon slip into lycanthropic madness and have the ability to shapeshift into ferocious beasts. They are one of the most common creatures found in both cities and forests. When the gravitational forces are at a certain point, the subhuman morphs, and the only thing that can cure it is true love's first kiss. Awoooo!

 

[DespressedCurryCel1]

Awooooooooo!

 

[SentimentalCel]

You only have a right to be loved by those societies who wish to monopolize your labor, compliance, participation, sublimation, investment, risk, and loyalty. Modern society does wish to monopolize all of these out of us, so of course we are ethically entitled to love in modern society, but the whole POINT of feminism is that we don't get it.

Modern society does treat us like children, in many ways- we are beholden to the state and powers who know "what's best for us". Our lives are increasingly monitored and micromanaged on a central level. Such a society seeks far more compliance with an increasingly narrow set of ideological pretexts than children are expected to from their parents (although parents are usually more closed-minded). In such a novel society, depriving men of love systemically and individually while expecting them to give more and more is abusive, and would objectively be made more fair by making love/romance a human right.

But beyond that, I don't think men are entitled to love, like, in an absolute sense. Even children- if a 15 year old boy runs off to go live in the woods, and survives for 3 years and comes back, nobody says, "oh, he was deprived of his basic human right to be loved". Nobody would give a shit even though he WAS under 16.

Basically, guardians must always have the responsibility to provide love to those for whom they are responsible for. In large part, this is to help justify the involuntary nature of guardianship, a massive imposition that needs some powerful justification to justify it. When society imposes on us by restricting our negative freedoms to such a high extent, specifically the negative freedoms that gave us authority over women naturally (acting as our guardians), the state raises a responsibility for itself- a responsibility that it deliberately does not keep.

But if the state decided to say, get rid of all welfare, all social security, all medicare, all medicaid, all food stamps, all minimum wage standards, all child support, all alimony, all business regulations, all anti-discrimination policies, all affirmative action, all public healthcare, all subsidies, all public and medical research funding, and all laws penalizing rape, then would men be entitled to love from the system? NO, and anyone suggesting that they were would be a faggot. The truth is that under such a system, some men WOULD get left behind, some men WOULD be unloved, but it would at least be fair, since the playing field has been mostly leveled to a natural level. But I have a feeling that we would all be more accepting of this, for some strange reason.

It wouldn't be a huge deal if the state understood the responsibilities that came along with each path inherently and experimented with them, even if some are better or worse than others (and even operating within my framework of guardians providing their wards their basic needs or else fucking off, there are ABSOLUTELY terrible things that can and would happen if we started experimenting with different possibilities, there are ABSOLUTELY much better and much worse ways of doing this, IMO, and I have my own preferences).

The problem is that society wants to force men to bear the same load, but with no incentive. All stick, no carrot.

Despite being apparent opposites, a NazBol society with state-mandated GFs and an ancap society except womens' nap can be violated would both be much preferable in this regard than modernity.

 

[Sans]

If no one is entitled to love, why is there a holiday celebrating it?