Valentines!

[rtjhbfvsrry]

..... are you for real Bridge? Did you actually just try to 'disprove' an entirely emotional, unquantifiable concept, with statistics? Statistics that you yourself admit are not accurate?

Um... no. My point was:

How can love exist when it is biologically impossible for you to love 50% of the human population? Shouldn't that clue you in that love is an illusion? Or is the "emotional connection" you have to that one girl just so powerful that it transcends gender? I don't think so.

Furthermore, I wouldn't even consider being in a relationship with someone that has no face, or an amputee, or someone that isn't a human being. Tell me: What are the chances of every single case of so-called love being between the same species and between the same sexual persuasion? If you stop taking it for granted, you will conclude that the chances are almost impossibly low. How can it be a coincidence that love is entirely in sync with our natural urges?

What, is love just a by-product of physical relations? Then how the hell can it be love?

EDIT: Just to be clear, I am not saying that it's impossible to have a strong affection for other people, but that is it. "True love" as it's portrayed in the media just doesn't exist. It makes no sense at all, especially when you consider that the divorce rates are so high.

Hrm, the Socratic Method means you're being very unscientific about it. Scientific impossibility to prove something doesn't exist. You cannot present a lack of presence. It's the reason religion is still around.

Second you fail to provide a definition of what love is for purposes of this thought experiment. You have to define properties before disproving them.