I don't want to live in a world where unconditional love is frowned upon
>>25340391Do or don't, Five Seconds of Summer will piss you off
>>25340391It'll require reconditioning.
>>25340391Then seek the Creator.
>>25340391Then kill yourself.
mate, tell me something you don't know
Damn I was just thinking about this book today for some reason. Is the world trying to tell me something?
>>25340498Call your mom and tell her you love her
>>25340934Do better and go to church today.
>>25340391Who is frowning upon it and why does such a person’s opinion matter to you?People suck, someone is always frowning
Isn't the point that the boy/man takes and takes and takes? It isn't love if only one person if benefitting. Love is symbiotic at worst; mutually beneficially at best.
>>25341093>He's never heard of agape.
>>25341093The message people took from the book: "You are the tree, you are not loved, you should stop loving."The message people should have taken: "You are the boy, you are loved, now go be better about spreading love in return."
>>25341128Unsurprisingly, if you follow the new rite, the Gospel today is from Matthew>Jesus sent out these twelve after instructing them thus, “Do not go into pagan territory or enter a Samaritan town. Go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. As you go, make this proclamation:Emphasis added>‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, drive out demons.Extra emphasis added>Without cost you have received; without cost you are to give.”
>>25340391I don't see The Giving Tree as unconditional love so much as toxic love with a selfish SOB.
thanks for letting me sit on your stump but now i have to go to the bathroom >carve into me a bowl and make me your toilet
>>25341128>The message people should have taken: "You are the boy, you are loved, now go be better about spreading love in return."For what? Take creative work, which this board is about: you write, or draw, or make music, or any other fucking thing, and it's always been a net negative, but not only that, people piled layer upon layer of entitlement on the zero return nature of artwork. Now curry niggers make AI slop with everything you "give", the fucking parasites, and why? Because people love it, it's already free but it's not enough, they want it free and now and an infinite amount, and it will never stop, because people are just pigs who devour everything. The more you give, the more they take, and they never stop taking and want more and more for less and less, and if you struggle they say "just work 3 jobs, faggot". Nobody gives a FUCK about your time, your existence, your hardships, your work, whether it's superfluous work like art or vital work for society, they do not give a single fucking fuck because that's exactly how nature works.What kind of shit do people pay for? Addictions. Porn, gambling, drugs, that shit always gets money from stupid pigs, and the secret of it is that addictions are given good which take from you instead. That's the ONLY catch that works with humans.The idea of "giving" with nothing in return, that what goes around comes around is the most poisonous and exploitative concept in fucking history. It was "free" services that fucking ruined the internet. Charities exist to launder tax money. It's all fucking fake and gay. The "giving" people who feel this need to "share" with the world should be fucking stopped like they're terrorists. Imagine if everyone pulled out of creative work the second AI was announced. No hurr durr let's keep "sharing" and "giving" for "free", congrats you fucking idiots, feed the ticks. An openly transactional society (it's always been transactional, but idiots delude themselves thinking they can "give" like it means something) is far better from any possible point of view, and that's exactly the way society worked before the industrial revolution: you did your work and other people did, not because of charity but because you had a transactional role. Very different. People have NEVER been moral, they have only ever been FEARFUL, of God, of authorities, of public shame, and that was the only thing that ever kept this lie going. The internet with its veil of anonymity showed exactly what people are made of, all of them, and in fact the more people accessed the internet the worse it became, because people are just parasites, viruses who eat and eat and eat from the giving host until there's nothing left.
>>25340971People say the tree is the wrong. It's those people who think unconditional love is bad that sicken me.>>25341093How's your relationship with your mom?
>>25340391>unconditional loveoxymoron, you can't argue against it, because it's not a possible kind of thing.
>>25341214Kek
>>25340391The giving tree is pretty much just ole drippy from Aqua teen. >I’m gonna rake your yard just for being such a big fat jerk!
>>25341229Just be more discerning bucko.
>stein
>>25341606Good Lord preserve us!
>>25340391Now, now. There you go being conditional. Maybe the problem is that you don't understand what love actually is.
>>25341606Into the trash it goes.
Okay, but how is this an allegory for jews?
>>25341229>The idea of "giving" with nothing in return, that what goes around comes around is the most poisonous and exploitative concept in fucking history.so why are you here? im here because Jesus told me to spread the Gospel, as well as for my own personal reasons of wanting society to change in a way that would benefit everyone including me>It was "free" services that fucking ruined the internet.no, it was women using free services to post tits so that men would exchange all their personal information and post liberal bullshit to see tits. but, Jesus doesnt like it when women post tits, and neither do i, which is why im here to talk about how women are evil worthless whores and deserve to be beaten and raped>Charities exist to launder tax money. It's all fucking fake and gay.around 15 years ago, the gnome project was taken over by "charity management" communists who gave all the money to women and trannies and ruined the project>The "giving" people who feel this need to "share" with the world should be fucking stopped like they're terrorists. previously, linux, xorg, gnome, were all projects by intelligent computer programmers who wanted to control their own hardware instead of having their hardware remotely controlled by microsoft, apple, google, etc. so, today, the internet real name mandate is applied through poetteringware to your free operating system>Imagine if everyone pulled out of creative work the second AI was announced. No hurr durr let's keep "sharing" and "giving" for "free", congrats you fucking idiots, feed the ticks.youre implying that anyone gives a shit that drawing used to be hard. now i can make memes with prompts, thats called user empowerment>An openly transactional society (it's always been transactional, but idiots delude themselves thinking they can "give" like it means something) is far better from any possible point of view, and that's exactly the way society worked before the industrial revolution: you did your work and other people did, not because of charity but because you had a transactional role.right. so when i say that women deserve to be beaten and raped, thats not out of charity, but because i want to live in a world where women are routinely beaten and raped and laughed at for it and dont have the power to [...], and when i contribute to free software, it is because i want to control my hardware instead of having my hardware controlled by microsoft, apple, google, and also have on my resume that i contributed x to y
It is extremely important to separate Unconditional positive regard from Unconditional approval. The first is good, the second is bad. The tree is doing the second.
(((Silverstein)))
>>25340391Why do you think it’s a mother? It gives and gives and gives and asks nothing in return, but that’s not what defines “a mother”, that’s how your mother defines herself. In fact, the fundamental characteristic that would make it a “mother” is explicitly absent from the story, and that’s responsibility to the boy. The Tree has none. It may be nice to him, it may sometimes let him win at hide and seek, it may give him a boat, but it doesn’t have to punish him, it doesn’t have to protect him, it doesn’t have to worry about teaching him to swim or warning against gold digging hippies, it doesn’t have to make him sad/angry/scared for his own good. “I just want him to be happy”. That’s it? The tree isn’t his mother. At best, it’s his godmother. Uh oh.So the question you have to ask your pop rocks and triple cola conscience is not why you thought it was a mother, but why you wanted it to be a mother. “Because it acts selflessly out of love?” Boy oh boy are you way off.
>>25344992The trick to what the demographic wants, and this may sound familiar, is that while it doesn’t believe in “true love” between two people, it doesn’t believe in true love of a parent for a child either. Parental love can’t be true love because it is definitional, obligatory, and therefore it doesn’t count. What the demo believes in, what it aspires to, is unconditional love chosen by free will - that can be witnessed and confirmed by other people as an act of free will. To the demo, rather than the symbolic obligation being both the requirement for love and its justification, the symbolic obligation negates it. This is the form of love you and the other adult readers are capable of - of imagining. That’s why it’s a tree. Since there’s no cultural or even biological responsibility to love this boy, then this love is (depicted as) real love.The desire to display gigawatt devotion with zero responsibility is the standard maneuver of our times, note the trend of celebrity soundbite social justice, or children’s fascination with doing the extra credit more than the regular credit, and as a personal observation this is exactly what’s wrong with medical students and nurses. They’ll spend hours talking with a patient about their lives and feelings while fluffing their pillow to cause it to be true that they are devoted - they chose to act, chose to love - while acts solely out of ordinary duty are devalued if not completely avoided. “Well, I believe the patient’s spirituality is very important.” It will be if you don’t get this NG tube in.
>>25344999Not everyone likes the story. There have been a lot of ferocious criticisms of its “theme”. The question is, what is the outcome of these criticisms? Do the criticisms offer an alternative understanding, or do they pretend to criticize in order to maintain the status quo? A popular criticism, heavy with contempt and thus conveniently dismissed as misogyny, is that the Tree “mothered” him too much and failed to foster independence in the child. While this may be factually accurate, it’s even more wrong, it’s the kind of insight that gets you out of having to go any further, it ends your connection to the story - you are done with the book. The criticism that the Tree fails to foster independence presumes it is supposed to do this. But that’s not it’s job. It’s his actual mother’s job, it’s his father’s job. Based on how this little rat turns out it’s clear they failed, but that’s a totally different book, and it’s called Oedipus Tyrannos.
I ain't reading that word salad
>>25345019thankfully i didnt write it
>>25344999nice digits>gigawatt devotion with zero responsibilitythis is the inversion of the anglican view that attempting supererogation is a sin. whereas previously papism and puritanism were highly regarded, in 1611 the Bible was translated so that in the 18th century in order to be a professor at an english university you had to assent to the Bible and the 39 articles, so, the romantic and atheistic movements, as seen on tv, had as their core belief the rejection of rejecting supererogation and the free choice of something other than God and some public act of devotion to it, which, could have been denounced as idolatry, but wasnt, and instead anglicanism was overthrown by its latitudinarian principle against condemning random idolatries.the historical fact that anglicanism was a response to the warring supererogations of papists and puritans, leads to the dismissal of the dismissal of supererogation as secularism, and the accusation that it led to the secularism that replaced it. so other than the Bible itself, it is easy to read the basal stoicism of aquinas as supporting the fact that virtue has its limit and the real objective of the Christian is to be in the world.but just as gary gygax solved witchcraft with his thought experiments of gaming it out, he also solved supererogation
>>25345200>but just as gary gygax solved witchcraft with his thought experiments of gaming it out, he also solved supererogationi dont think i follow
>>25341229I like helping other people and giving to charities because I'm superior to the average pleb.
>>25340399Eve is positively RIPPED in this icon. She mogs the fuck out of Adam and Satan, humiliating
>>25340956Don't go to church and have sex with men instead
>>25341128The message people take from the book is "the boy takes from the tree until it's destroyed". It's not like it would be hard to write a story where the boy took care to replant trees showing a cycle of regrowth, and "giving back". But instead the tree is just stripped and killed. This is the mentality of a virus or parasite where the host only exists to be used until it dies.>>25341133>Unsurprisingly, if you follow the new rite, the Gospel today is from MatthewUnsurprisingly the second jew religion has people defending this shit.
>>25345746i mean, she was his rib at some point...
>>25345746Eve macronutrient'd from the Tree of Knowledge of Gains and Anavar.
>>25345766>how to kill your soul without commiting suicide
>>25340391Read Rainer Maria rilke ol
>>25340391The book doesnt frown upon it
