Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 02:50:28 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Search:     Advanced search
we're back, baby
*
Home Help Search Login Register
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  General Discussion  |  Serious Business  |  Topic: Internet Dating: Everyone's still shallow 0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 42 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Internet Dating: Everyone's still shallow  (Read 407399 times)
Endie
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6436


WWW
Reply #245 on: January 08, 2010, 11:21:14 AM

This. Until you can be happy alone, you can not be happy with someone else.

What the fuck?  Has this become the inane Hallmark thread?

My blog: http://endie.net

Twitter - Endieposts

"What else would one expect of Scottish sociopaths sipping their single malt Glenlivit [sic]?" Jack Thompson
Samwise
Moderator
Posts: 19212

sentient yeast infection


WWW
Reply #246 on: January 08, 2010, 11:21:51 AM

Apparently all emotions are myths because they correlate to physiological changes.

Quote from: Screwtape
You will notice that we have got them completely fogged about the meaning of the word "real"'. They tell each other, of some great spiritual experience, "All that really happened was that you heard some music in a lighted building"; here "Real" means the bare physical facts, separated from the other elements in the experience they actually had. On the other hand, they will also say "It's all very well discussing that high dive as you sit here in an armchair, but wait till you get up there and see what it's really like": here "real" is being used in the opposite sense to mean, not the physical facts (which they know already while discussing the matter in armchairs) but the emotional effect those facts will have on a human consciousness. Either application of the word could be defended; but our business is to keep the two going at once so that the emotional value of the word "real" can be placed now on one side of the account, now on the other, as it happens to suit us. The general rule which we have now pretty well established among them is that in all experiences which can make them happier or better only the physical facts are "Real" while the spiritual elements are "subjective"; in all experiences which can discourage or corrupt them the spiritual elements are the main reality and to ignore them is to be an escapist. Thus in birth the blood and pain are "real", the rejoicing a mere subjective point of view; in death, the terror and ugliness reveal what death "really means". The hatefulness of a hated person is "real"—in hatred you see men as they are, you are disillusioned; but the loveliness of a loved person is merely a subjective haze concealing a "real" core of sexual appetite or economic association. Wars and poverty are "really" horrible; peace and plenty are mere physical facts about which men happen to have certain sentiments. The creatures are always accusing one another of wanting "to cat the cake and have it"; but thanks to our labours they are more often in the predicament of paying for the cake and not eating it. Your patient, properly handled, will have no difficulty in regarding his emotion at the sight of human entrails as a revelation of Reality and his emotion at the sight of happy children or fair weather as mere sentiment.

"I have not actually recommended many games, and I'll go on the record here saying my track record is probably best in the industry." - schild
Grimwell
Developers
Posts: 752

[Redacted]


Reply #247 on: January 08, 2010, 11:23:56 AM

This. Until you can be happy alone, you can not be happy with someone else.

What the fuck?  Has this become the inane Hallmark thread?
Nope. You can rub your stinky internet vag with a chainsaw for all I care.

What I said is the truth as far as I am concerned. If you can't find a way to be happy alone, your relationships are going to be codependent emo filled crutches of shit that prop you up so you can ignore the empty well inside your life that being alone makes you aware of.

If you think it would make a pretty card, knock yourself out.

Grimwell
Ingmar
Terracotta Army
Posts: 19280

Auto Assault Affectionado


Reply #248 on: January 08, 2010, 11:24:33 AM

Of course love is a chemical process. Fucking everything is a chemical process, including being bitter and telling people they're not REALLY experiencing anything real.

The Transcendent One: AH... THE ROGUE CONSTRUCT.
Nordom: Sense of closure: imminent.
Endie
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6436


WWW
Reply #249 on: January 08, 2010, 11:28:02 AM

This. Until you can be happy alone, you can not be happy with someone else.

What the fuck?  Has this become the inane Hallmark thread?
Nope. You can rub your stinky internet vag with a chainsaw for all I care.

What I said is the truth as far as I am concerned. If you can't find a way to be happy alone, your relationships are going to be codependent emo filled crutches of shit that prop you up so you can ignore the empty well inside your life that being alone makes you aware of.

If you think it would make a pretty card, knock yourself out.

Calm down.  You can post your homespun wisdom as much as you like.  It just isn't true.  But that certainly is a very well-thought-out argument about "stinky internet vags".  It's certainly revealing.

My blog: http://endie.net

Twitter - Endieposts

"What else would one expect of Scottish sociopaths sipping their single malt Glenlivit [sic]?" Jack Thompson
LK
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4268


Reply #250 on: January 08, 2010, 11:28:25 AM

We COULD start a successful line of cynical greeting cards with the insights delivered in this thread.

"Then there's the double-barreled shotgun from Doom 2 - no-one within your entire household could be of any doubt that it's been fired because it sounds like God slamming a door on his fingers." - Yahtzee Croshaw
Endie
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6436


WWW
Reply #251 on: January 08, 2010, 11:32:38 AM

And, Grimwell, since my "aunt" (the sort you grow up calling aunt without being related to) was deeply unhappy for years, met her husband and blossomed into a lovely, outgoing, relaxed woman you'll have to restrict your epigram to "some people only learn to be happy in relationships after they come to terms with aspects of themselves, whereas some are just waiting for the right person to come along to undergo a striking metamorphosis. Which are only two of a multitude of possibilities."  Which is cool.

My blog: http://endie.net

Twitter - Endieposts

"What else would one expect of Scottish sociopaths sipping their single malt Glenlivit [sic]?" Jack Thompson
Yoru
Moderator
Posts: 4615

the y master, king of bourbon


WWW
Reply #252 on: January 08, 2010, 12:48:05 PM

We COULD start a successful line of cynical greeting cards with the insights delivered in this thread.

someemocards.f13.net
gryeyes
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2215


Reply #253 on: January 08, 2010, 01:56:34 PM

Someone else's hurf blurf

How lovely, and utterly fucking irrelevant to the discussion. Have anything of value to contribute that isn't plagiarized? Or perhaps something that directly applies to the topic at hand?
Ingmar
Terracotta Army
Posts: 19280

Auto Assault Affectionado


Reply #254 on: January 08, 2010, 01:59:43 PM

Someone else's hurf blurf

How lovely, and utterly fucking irrelevant to the discussion. Have anything of value to contribute that isn't plagiarized? Or perhaps something that directly applies to the topic at hand?

...plagiarized? You do know what that word means right?

The Transcendent One: AH... THE ROGUE CONSTRUCT.
Nordom: Sense of closure: imminent.
Signe
Terracotta Army
Posts: 18942

Muse.


Reply #255 on: January 08, 2010, 02:15:13 PM

I'm so confused.   ACK!

My Sig Image: hath rid itself of this mortal coil.
gryeyes
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2215


Reply #256 on: January 08, 2010, 02:15:25 PM

Apparently not!
Musashi
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1692


Reply #257 on: January 08, 2010, 02:21:24 PM

'Love' is a myth.  It's a chemical floating in your dome tricking you.  That simple.  Darwin.  The end.

Erm, so what you're saying is that love is a "myth".  An invented story, idea or thing with no provable basis in fact.  But that it is also a measurable and observable series of electro-chemical exchanges occuring primarily in the limbic cortex, where neural responses in the amygdala stimulate increasingly addictive pleasure-reward responses in the nucleus accumbens while provoking cardiovascular reactions through the cingulate gyrus and the hypothalamus?

I think you have to choose one, really.

Also, I wish that we had a philosophy thread here, where it was possible to discuss things like the idea that one's own brain can meaningfully "trick" oneself, other than on the facile level interpretation of sensory data.  Preferably in the form of a proper Symposium with drink and dancing girls.

Myth was a bad choice of words.   sad

Trying to define love in a vacuum is kind of pointless. I guess it has some definitions.. But objectifying it too much on it's own gives an excuse to get carried away with explanations about hormones and chemistry, as if love is some thing itself that needs to be examined (and in turn, disspelled). I think it's better defined by specific people. It's a relationship, just like any other. And relationships aren't "mythical". They actually exist. Some you are born into. Some are built into friendships. Some into lovers. But they exist for a ton of reasons, be it social factors, intellectual, behavioral, physical, genetic, philosophical, etc, etc. All the dynamics that make some people click. It's not merely "chemical". Not sure what Darwin has to do with anything either. Darwin would tell you to survive, multiply, and not be such a self defeatist dipshit.

"True love" may be a myth, since you can probably be compatible with many people.. if you're lucky enough to find them.

[edit] Not even sure why I addressed that. He's got to be joking.

[edit] On second thought, Darwin married his cousin. Probably not doing himself any favors there.

I'm totally not joking.  I think dispelling the idea of love, whatever you believe it is or isn't, makes way for meaningful relationships that people can define for themselves.  And I'm glad you recognize that relationships are real.  Of course they are.  But do you need to be in love in order to have a relationship?  I'm not trying to say I necessarily care if you think you're in love or not.  The world, and my mechanistic view, needs you to think you are in order to propagate our species long enough to prove love doesn't exist - as you can see below.  I'm sure as hell not going to propagate it.  I hate people, especially children.  All I'm trying to say is that it would be nice if we developed as a society to the point where we aren't shoving love up each other's asses.  If people didn't do that, I might not need to hate them.  That is totally not pointless.

Stray, I totally agree with you that asserting that love is a purely chemical phenomenon is facile.  It smacks of the deterministic, mechanistic world-view of the 18th and 19th centuries that gave us the blind watchmaker view of the universe, and which disappeared in the first decades of the 20th century.  Darwin was an integral and important part of that post-enlightenment world, and we cannot criticise him for not anticipating what was to come sixty years later.

Obviously, I'm not saying that we cannot detect chemical changes in someonebody who is in love: enhanced seratonin levels, hormonal changes and so on.  But the ability to observe and describe is not the same as being able to predict or even, sometimes, fully understand.

As the geneticist and evolutionary biologist JBS Haldane said: "Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose."

Let me understand you correctly.  You're saying we're beyond the simplistic explanation Darwin provided?  We now understand that there may be forces at work beyond our knowledge?  Wut?  It seemed like what you did there was chide the scientific observations you made in your previous post, then offered only "God is maybe Love."  Really?  Totally not trying to be a dick, but if there's something other than that, you're going to have to explain it to me.

Maybe love is one of those things that's queerer than we can suppose.  You might be right.  It sure seems queer to me.  I'll give you that.  But until you ARE right, I'm gonna stick with my mechanistic (not necessarily deterministic) views.  Love is a chemical that engenders a social framework for necessary procreation.  That victory doesn't feel facile.  In fact it feels fucking liberating, if you ask me.  Like I just spit the bit, and threw the yoke of social, and biochemical oppression.  Yay me.  Maybe mother fuckers were doing that in the 18th and 19th century, but it took me until I was 30.  I'm not really ashamed.

AKA Gyoza
stray
Terracotta Army
Posts: 16818

has an iMac.


Reply #258 on: January 08, 2010, 02:29:14 PM

Well, if you see the usefulness of relationships, then I can't argue with you. It's not really important to me how they are defined exactly. Whether a "strong bond" or whatever is "love" or the result of behind-the-scenes chemical reactions, the usefulness is still there either way. You say tomato, I say tomat-Ah-o..? Something like that.
gryeyes
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2215


Reply #259 on: January 08, 2010, 02:33:44 PM

Love is not just an emotional response, furthermore out of the number of people I have fucked or wanted to fuck I have "loved" an insignificant number of them. So obviously love is not required to propagate the species (In fact the modern concept of romantic love would have the opposite effect). All of these things seem to shit on your hypothesis.

Love in its modern context is counter intuitive to instinctual wiring, namely fucking everything that catches your eye. Lust alone is all that is required to propagate a species. The modern incarnation of romantic love is one of social convention not genetic hard coding. A vast majority of what you feel and are is emotional/mental trickery so when someone emphasizes one aspect of their being as more illusionary it is pretty telling about the person. Why do you place particular note on the illusionary nature of "love". Your entire being is equally as false.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2010, 02:35:32 PM by gryeyes »
Rasix
Moderator
Posts: 15024

I am the harbinger of your doom!


Reply #260 on: January 08, 2010, 02:52:29 PM

Love is not just an emotional response, furthermore out of the number of people I have fucked or wanted to fuck I have "loved" an insignificant number of them. So obviously love is not required to propagate the species (In fact the modern concept of romantic love would have the opposite effect). All of these things seem to shit on your hypothesis.

Survival of the species doesn't end with your ejaculate finding an egg.

-Rasix
Grimwell
Developers
Posts: 752

[Redacted]


Reply #261 on: January 08, 2010, 03:01:55 PM

And, Grimwell, since my "aunt" (the sort you grow up calling aunt without being related to) was deeply unhappy for years, met her husband and blossomed into a lovely, outgoing, relaxed woman you'll have to restrict your epigram to "some people only learn to be happy in relationships after they come to terms with aspects of themselves, whereas some are just waiting for the right person to come along to undergo a striking metamorphosis. Which are only two of a multitude of possibilities."  Which is cool.
Either that your your aunt is codependent and has esteem issues.

Oh wait, I mentioned something about that didn't I?

Grimwell
LK
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4268


Reply #262 on: January 08, 2010, 03:03:43 PM

Fuck it. If it happens it happens. I'll be over here having fun in the meantime.

"Then there's the double-barreled shotgun from Doom 2 - no-one within your entire household could be of any doubt that it's been fired because it sounds like God slamming a door on his fingers." - Yahtzee Croshaw
Merusk
Terracotta Army
Posts: 27449

Badge Whore


Reply #263 on: January 08, 2010, 03:27:24 PM

Fuck it. If it happens it happens. I'll be over here having fun in the meantime.

No you won't.  Fun is just a chemical response in the brain to a stimulus.  You're not really having fun.  There is no spoon. We ARE the Matrix.

 why so serious?

The past cannot be changed. The future is yet within your power.
gryeyes
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2215


Reply #264 on: January 08, 2010, 03:29:24 PM

Survival of the species doesn't end with your ejaculate finding an egg.

Its also not predicated on "romantic love", very few animals are monogamous. And based on human instinctual wiring I would venture the guess that human males aren't one of them by nature.

Grimwell, the psychological need for human companionship is well documented. We need interaction to remain "healthy", its very misguided to believe a human has to be complete as an individual. But I do understand and agree in the context of exceptionally broken individuals who seek out others to fill the gap. But humans inherently require social interaction.
stray
Terracotta Army
Posts: 16818

has an iMac.


Reply #265 on: January 08, 2010, 03:34:11 PM

By nature, humans also don't do everything according to nature either.   Ohhhhh, I see. There's that little thing called free will, making choices in life. My dick doesn't think for me. It's merely one option among many.
Samwise
Moderator
Posts: 19212

sentient yeast infection


WWW
Reply #266 on: January 08, 2010, 03:36:14 PM

Someone else's hurf blurf

How lovely, and utterly fucking irrelevant to the discussion. Have anything of value to contribute that isn't plagiarized? Or perhaps something that directly applies to the topic at hand?

Plagiarism would be if I'd paraphrased Lewis and pretended it was mine.  I also didn't think I could say it any better.   awesome, for real

I'm guessing you didn't read the quote, since you (a) think it was somehow irrelevant and (b) seem to think I was disagreeing with you.

I can try paraphrasing if you like, though.  The "love isn't real because it's all chemicals" is dumb, as you and Ingmar pointed out, because everything is all chemicals if you want to look at it that way.  The point that Lewis made, which I think is both interesting and true, is that many people will disdain love as being "imaginary" on those grounds, and live their lives accordingly, but few apply that same reasoning to, say, hate or anger.

"I have not actually recommended many games, and I'll go on the record here saying my track record is probably best in the industry." - schild
stray
Terracotta Army
Posts: 16818

has an iMac.


Reply #267 on: January 08, 2010, 03:44:32 PM

Plagiarize.. lol

He clearly attributed the quote to "Screwtape"  Oh ho ho ho. Reallllly?
gryeyes
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2215


Reply #268 on: January 08, 2010, 03:51:21 PM

By nature, humans also don't do everything according to nature either.   Ohhhhh, I see. There's that little thing called free will, making choices in life. My dick doesn't think for me. It's merely one option among many.

Yeah, lets not do that.  awesome, for real

Sorry I misconstrued your intent/quote samwise. I wasn't certain of the point and am familiar with CS lewis perspective on "romantic love" which generally is not that favorable.
Grimwell
Developers
Posts: 752

[Redacted]


Reply #269 on: January 08, 2010, 03:56:08 PM

Grimwell, the psychological need for human companionship is well documented. We need interaction to remain "healthy", its very misguided to believe a human has to be complete as an individual. But I do understand and agree in the context of exceptionally broken individuals who seek out others to fill the gap. But humans inherently require social interaction.
You know, trolling is a lot more fun when people respond emotionally instead of logically. Where are your damned personal anecdotes to refute me?Huh :)

Grimwell
Endie
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6436


WWW
Reply #270 on: January 08, 2010, 03:56:51 PM

Stray, I totally agree with you that asserting that love is a purely chemical phenomenon is facile.  It smacks of the deterministic, mechanistic world-view of the 18th and 19th centuries that gave us the blind watchmaker view of the universe, and which disappeared in the first decades of the 20th century.  Darwin was an integral and important part of that post-enlightenment world, and we cannot criticise him for not anticipating what was to come sixty years later.

Obviously, I'm not saying that we cannot detect chemical changes in someonebody who is in love: enhanced seratonin levels, hormonal changes and so on.  But the ability to observe and describe is not the same as being able to predict or even, sometimes, fully understand.

As the geneticist and evolutionary biologist JBS Haldane said: "Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose."

Let me understand you correctly.  You're saying we're beyond the simplistic explanation Darwin provided?  We now understand that there may be forces at work beyond our knowledge?  Wut?  It seemed like what you did there was chide the scientific observations you made in your previous post, then offered only "God is maybe Love."  Really?  Totally not trying to be a dick, but if there's something other than that, you're going to have to explain it to me.

Maybe love is one of those things that's queerer than we can suppose.  You might be right.  It sure seems queer to me.  I'll give you that.  But until you ARE right, I'm gonna stick with my mechanistic (not necessarily deterministic) views.  Love is a chemical that engenders a social framework for necessary procreation.  That victory doesn't feel facile.  In fact it feels fucking liberating, if you ask me.  Like I just spit the bit, and threw the yoke of social, and biochemical oppression.  Yay me.  Maybe mother fuckers were doing that in the 18th and 19th century, but it took me until I was 30.  I'm not really ashamed.

Um, I didn't mention God.  I was talking about non-deterministic world-views.  Not some hippy shit based around crystals and auras.  I started into a long discussion of the philosophy of science, Foucault, Feynmann, quantum mechanics and the rest but that's a terrible derail. Basically, in the simplest and least provocative terms, the idea of the blind-watchmaker view of the universe - the deterministic view that would say that we can look at the state of someone's brain, look at all the circumstances surrounding it and, with the right model, predict what will happen in it the next day (or even second) was thrown away the best part of a century ago.

I'm certainy not talkinhg about Darwin's description of evolution or anything like that.  

Either that your your aunt is codependent and has esteem issues.

Wut?  That was a bit of a wild stab in the dark.  Anyway nope.  If anything I'd say she had and has a bit too much confidence and self-esteem.  Try again.

My blog: http://endie.net

Twitter - Endieposts

"What else would one expect of Scottish sociopaths sipping their single malt Glenlivit [sic]?" Jack Thompson
Endie
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6436


WWW
Reply #271 on: January 08, 2010, 03:58:48 PM

Grimwell, the psychological need for human companionship is well documented. We need interaction to remain "healthy", its very misguided to believe a human has to be complete as an individual. But I do understand and agree in the context of exceptionally broken individuals who seek out others to fill the gap. But humans inherently require social interaction.
You know, trolling is a lot more fun when people respond emotionally instead of logically. Where are your damned personal anecdotes to refute me?Huh :)

lolol guyz i was trolling i am da puppetmaster.

If you state a universal maxim then a single evidential counter-point is sufficient to defeat that maxim.  Your only hope is to attack the person statingthat point (which you tried) or mock them (which you tried).

My blog: http://endie.net

Twitter - Endieposts

"What else would one expect of Scottish sociopaths sipping their single malt Glenlivit [sic]?" Jack Thompson
Grimwell
Developers
Posts: 752

[Redacted]


Reply #272 on: January 08, 2010, 04:28:18 PM

If you state a universal maxim then a single evidential counter-point is sufficient to defeat that maxim.  Your only hope is to attack the person statingthat point (which you tried) or mock them (which you tried).
Your mom is a bitch. I can't get her to shut her trap while I'm sticking it to your dad.

Like that?  why so serious?

Grimwell
NiX
Wiki Admin
Posts: 7770

Locomotive Pandamonium


Reply #273 on: January 08, 2010, 04:43:16 PM

Survival of the species doesn't end with your ejaculate finding an egg.

I should stop jizzing on supermarket eggs then.
Trippy
Administrator
Posts: 23611


Reply #274 on: January 08, 2010, 04:55:01 PM

I don't have anything relevant to add to this discussion. I just wanted to say I approve of Stray's new avatar. awesome, for real
Musashi
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1692


Reply #275 on: January 08, 2010, 05:05:33 PM

Um, I didn't mention God.  I was talking about non-deterministic world-views.  Not some hippy shit based around crystals and auras.  I started into a long discussion of the philosophy of science, Foucault, Feynmann, quantum mechanics and the rest but that's a terrible derail. Basically, in the simplest and least provocative terms, the idea of the blind-watchmaker view of the universe - the deterministic view that would say that we can look at the state of someone's brain, look at all the circumstances surrounding it and, with the right model, predict what will happen in it the next day (or even second) was thrown away the best part of a century ago.

I'm certainy not talkinhg about Darwin's description of evolution or anything like that.  

Hm.  Okay.  I'm not really interested in the predictions one can make.  Nor am I interested in whether the watchmaker is blind, or even there at all.  Ok, I'd be interested if he was tap-dancing naked in my living room.  I also don't think that would be a terrible derail.  While it's definitely still a science in it's infancy, it would also be interesting to watch what Epigenetics offers to this discussion.

Anyway, all I'm worried about is the false conclusions we as a collective society draw based on our antiquated notion of love.  It's way more antiquated than Dawkins.  Like, by a lot.  It's the reason these poor guys in this thread (and a few others) pour their hearts out, and profess to have tried everything to fit into their own interpretations of love.  I'm just trying to convey the message that it's actually crap.  Their unhappiness is their own fault, not someone else's.  They're projecting their own desires on people who have no hope of fulfilling them, even if they wanted too.  Of course, most of them don't want too - the good ones at least.  The smart ones take one sniff of that mess and run like hell, as they themselves would too if they weren't being overrun by the misfiring synapses, and chemicals in their brains every time they got within reach of the opposite sex.

AKA Gyoza
Endie
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6436


WWW
Reply #276 on: January 08, 2010, 05:09:21 PM

Musashi the "blind watchmaker" is just a convenient, widely-used description of that deterministic model

Other than that we're a lot more in agreement than I thought.  Especially in your second paragraph.
 
If you state a universal maxim then a single evidential counter-point is sufficient to defeat that maxim.  Your only hope is to attack the person statingthat point (which you tried) or mock them (which you tried).
Your mom is a bitch. I can't get her to shut her trap while I'm sticking it to your dad.

Like that?  why so serious?

Hush.   The grown-ups are talking.  You'll get plenty of attention later.

Edit: I'm quite serious.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2010, 05:13:18 PM by Endie »

My blog: http://endie.net

Twitter - Endieposts

"What else would one expect of Scottish sociopaths sipping their single malt Glenlivit [sic]?" Jack Thompson
stray
Terracotta Army
Posts: 16818

has an iMac.


Reply #277 on: January 08, 2010, 05:11:13 PM

I don't have anything relevant to add to this discussion. I just wanted to say I approve of Stray's new avatar. awesome, for real


Heh I was tempted to go Rodin from Bayonetta.  awesome, for real Chock full of one liners.
gryeyes
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2215


Reply #278 on: January 08, 2010, 05:18:45 PM

blurf

What the fuck are you talking about?! The entire concept of "romantic love" exists as a social convention. Thats what it is, you can disagree with the convention but calling it "false" because it is in fact a convention is dumb. One can love outside of the constraints of total life long monogamy and nobody in this thread has asserted otherwise. But to say something is "false" because you personally have no fucking clue or experience about the subject is stupid. People can in fact have lifelong romantic relationships. It occurs and it tends to be the western cultural ideal. Whether you personally can attain the ideal has no bearing on the validity of the experience itself...at all.

This thread is like watching virgins talk about fucking.
MahrinSkel
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10857

When she crossed over, she was just a ship. But when she came back... she was bullshit!


Reply #279 on: January 08, 2010, 06:23:28 PM

Notice how all the *actual* step-parents are keeping their mouths shut?  Yeah, that's because it's exactly like virgins talking about fucking, even if there's a non-virgin in the room, they might as well explain "blue" to the blind man.

If you don't believe in love as a transcendent emotion that defies logic, then there's *no* rational reason to date a single mother that doesn't verge into Grimm's Fairy Tales or Pedobear territory.  Love makes you stupid, but it's more fun that way.

--Dave

--Signature Unclear
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 42 Go Up Print 
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  General Discussion  |  Serious Business  |  Topic: Internet Dating: Everyone's still shallow  
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.10 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC