In this specific example, the meaning was that if you love, say, your child, then you will hate someone who would harm it. True, there are people who forgave their child's killer or rapist etc., but this just shows the weakness of the analogy, not the principle (or it shows they held other values, like equanimity, that outwrestled their love for their child). I have to come up with these examples to make my ideas clearer, but really nothing depends on them. The essence of the argument is that you can't value something (i.e. freedom, pleasure, knowledge, etc.) without disvaluing its opposite. Our values are necessarily binary: there's 2 sides to them. Too many people today pretend they can be for something without being against something else. So for example people try to be atheists without being polemical atheists. It's one of the reasons I appreciate vegans, feminists, social justice warriors, etc., cos at least they wear their agonistic nature on their sleeve. I mean, if it's objectively true that we shouldn't eat animals, like the vegan believes, then of course vegans should be doing everything they can to convert the rest of us! Of course they can't sit at a table with meat-eaters and not think more lowly of them, and not think of themselves as morally superior. What else would we expect? Only a fundamental misapprehension of human nature would make us expect, or demand, otherwise.