True or false?

Topic: To find true love we need to make sacrifice


False

extremely wrong!

Totally FALSE!!!

Lol

We call it shish-kebob.

To find true sacrifice we need to make love ..

why it has to be sacrifice? have no clue
hmmmm, maybe just me didn't get it

I am thinking, perhaps a cultural thing. Maybe..because women are far more liberated in the West.

Just guessing.

True.

To find "true love" you have to spend the time:
finding people.
meeting people.
talking to people.
developing relationships.
All time and energy and effort that could have been "spent" somewhere else, doing something else, with someone else.

Most of the time in this world "sacrifice" is simply another name for "opportunity cost."

No matter what you choose to do there is always something else you could have done.
Choosing to do one thing means you are sacrificing the ability to do the other.

Unless you are using it in its most literal pedantic sense.
Then false.
You don't have to slaughter fauna as an offering, or give up a possession, to some deity in worship to find "true love."




Other than that, to find "true love" you have to be non resistant (and adaptable) to necessary change.

Lots of people see change of any kind as a "sacrifice."
You know how babies have pacifiers and security blankets they need to be weaned off from as they get older?

Adults have a lot of behaviors and habits they develop in their life, especially when single and independent, most especially to protect themselves, they have to wean themselves away from in order to make a relationship work, in order to let "true love" be a part of it.

That's change and seen as sacrificing and it is necessary.

To make true love we need to find good condoms

Yes...we must sacrifice virgins to the Mingle2 gods....or was it goats?

Indeed. It matters a lot. For me, if you want to find your happiness to a person but there are some factors hindering your relationship (like culture, religion), you need to work on with these factors and talk about the circumstances that need to be taken into considerations.

Sacrificing WHAT?

What do you mean? Like a lamb on a alter?

In fairness to the OP...

this idea that "we must make sacrifices in order to achieve things" is EXTREMELY common.

And it is infuriatingly pervasive as well. We have entire Political Parties, who hold as a central tenet, that if you want to be as well off as they are, that you must give up most of what makes you who and what you are.

That if you want to have fun, you have to do work first. That sort of thing.

The reason why a lot of people will tell you this sort of thing, isn't the same every time. Sometimes it's well meant, because they want to encourage you to accept the real work required for a task, and to reassure you that the rewards are worth the effort; but other times, people who say such things are either trying to manipulate you in to allowing them to feast on your your suffering for their benefit, or just to make you stop crying in their soup, and to go away and leave them alone to have their own fun.

The main thing to AVOID at all costs with this kind of thinking, is the all-too -common idea that "making a sacrifice" is identical with "paying for a service." You can "make as many sacrifices" as you want, but it will NEVER obligate anyone to love you as a pay back.

It's true.

Not goats please no goats...
My livelihood depends on goats

“Sacrifice” does not mean the rejection of the worthless, but of the precious. “Sacrifice” does not mean the rejection of the evil for the sake of the good, but of the good for the sake of the evil. “Sacrifice” is the surrender of that which you value in favor of that which you don’t.

If you exchange a penny for a dollar, it is not a sacrifice; if you exchange a dollar for a penny, it is. If you achieve the career you wanted, after years of struggle, it is not a sacrifice; if you then renounce it for the sake of a rival, it is. If you own a bottle of milk and give it to your starving child, it is not a sacrifice; if you give it to your neighbor’s child and let your own die, it is.

If you give money to help a friend, it is not a sacrifice; if you give it to a worthless stranger, it is. If you give your friend a sum you can afford, it is not a sacrifice; if you give him money at the cost of your own discomfort, it is only a partial virtue, according to this sort of moral standard; if you give him money at the cost of disaster to yourself—that is the virtue of sacrifice in full.

If you renounce all personal desires and dedicate your life to those you love, you do not achieve full virtue: you still retain a value of your own, which is your love. If you devote your life to random strangers, it is an act of greater virtue. If you devote your life to serving men you hate—that is the greatest of the virtues you can practice.

A sacrifice is the surrender of a value. Full sacrifice is full surrender of all values. If you wish to achieve full virtue, you must seek no gratitude in return for your sacrifice, no praise, no love, no admiration, no self-esteem, not even the pride of being virtuous; the faintest trace of any gain dilutes your virtue. If you pursue a course of action that does not taint your life by any joy, that brings you no value in matter, no value in spirit, no gain, no profit, no reward—if you achieve this state of total zero, you have achieved the ideal of moral perfection.

You are told that moral perfection is impossible to man—and, by this standard, it is. You cannot achieve it so long as you live, but the value of your life and of your person is gauged by how closely you succeed in approaching that ideal zero which is death.

If you start, however, as a passionless blank, as a vegetable seeking to be eaten, with no values to reject and no wishes to renounce, you will not win the crown of sacrifice. It is not a sacrifice to renounce the unwanted. It is not a sacrifice to give your life for others, if death is your personal desire. To achieve the virtue of sacrifice, you must want to live, you must love it, you must burn with passion for this earth and for all the splendor it can give you—you must feel the twist of every knife as it slashes your desires away from your reach and drains your love out of your body. It is not mere death that the morality of sacrifice holds out to you as an ideal, but death by slow torture.

Do not remind me that it pertains only to this life on earth. I am concerned with no other. Neither are you.

If you wish to save the last of your dignity, do not call your best actions a “sacrifice”: that term brands you as immoral. If a mother buys food for her hungry child rather than a hat for herself, it is not a sacrifice: she values the child higher than the hat; but it is a sacrifice to the kind of mother whose higher value is the hat, who would prefer her child to starve and feeds him only from a sense of duty. If a man dies fighting for his own freedom, it is not a sacrifice: he is not willing to live as a slave; but it is a sacrifice to the kind of man who’s willing. If a man refuses to sell his convictions, it is not a sacrifice, unless he is the sort of man who has no convictions.

Sacrifice could be proper only for those who have nothing to sacrifice—no values, no standards, no judgment—those whose desires are irrational whims, blindly conceived and lightly surrendered. For a man of moral stature, whose desires are born of rational values, sacrifice is the surrender of the right to the wrong, of the good to the evil.

The creed of sacrifice is a morality for the immoral—a morality that declares its own bankruptcy by confessing that it can’t impart to men any personal stake in virtues or values, and that their souls are sewers of depravity, which they must be taught to sacrifice. By its own confession, it is impotent to teach men to be good and can only subject them to constant punishment.

Thus spake John Galt

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/sacrifice.html