Think of it this way: someone lends you a rug, it's the best rug you've ever had, you love this rug. It makes you happier than any other rug has made you in your whole life. Now imagine that later the person comes back, pulls the rug out from under your feet and takes it away. You're not going to be happy about it, you might even hate the person who took away your rug because you were happy with that rug. You were used to that rug, it was your rug and yet now it's not yours and you will never have that rug again.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Love is not something to be stepped on. Love is not something to forsake, to provide happiness without being provided happiness. Love is not something to be likened to a **rug**.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I didn't say it was a perfect metaphor.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

What a coincidence.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

That's like...me saying to someone, "oh well, you can't have your cake and eat it too," and them saying, "you can't compare me wanting these things to **cake**, you can't eat these things like you can eat **cake**."

by Anonymous 11 years ago

That is essentially true, though. Cake has different, objectionable characteristics that desire might not have, just as love and rugs are on two different planes of formal identity.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

you're being a little pedantic and annoying now. just stop.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

The Straw Man Fallacy.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

No it's not. They didn't present misrepresentation of your position. They didn't quote you out of context. They didn't over simplify your point then attack the over simplified version (for the record, the "you can't have your cake and eat it too" is not an over simplification of your point then an attack on your point, it's another analogy.) They didn't create a fictional persona with your stance, give them actions and beliefs, then criticize those actions and beliefs. They didn't assume someone else's poor representation of the argument stood for yours and everyone else with that stance. They know you don't put love and a rug on the same platform. They didn't ignore that. They basically said "well duh. It's an analogy, not a mirror reflection. Not everything in an analogy can match up perfectly on all aspects, then they'd just be the same thing. The point of an analogy is to compare the partial similarities." THIS is the straw man fallacy: A: We should give children ice cream after every school day. B: That would be rather bad for their health. A: Do you want our children to starve? And before you go looking up fallacies, that wasn't ad hominem either.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

You're right. I made that comment when I first began a philosophy class, so I wasn't exactly sure if that was a proper attribution of fallacy. I appreciate your correcting me, though.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

You hate the thing that took away your rug, but you do not hate the rug. The rug was always there for you, but now it's gone. You can't be angry at the rug; sometimes things happen that are out of it's control. Sometimes someone loves us and then they stop loving us. They can't help it. The love just vanished as time wore on. You cannot hate them for not loving you, but you can hate whatever caused them to not love you. If there is no cause then hate the fact that they no longer love you, but do not hate the person. They are not at fault.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Thank you. Thank you for knowing how to explain things.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

The rug really tied the room together

by Anonymous 11 years ago

You can hate someone for hurting you. You cannot hate someone for not feeling something for you.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

I still do though. But it's not really a hate.

by Anonymous 10 years ago