|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted October 15, 2013 09:22 PM |
|
|
Fauch said:
but friend and partner isn't the same thing?
No, a friend is a friend, and a partner is a partner. The main difference is emotional - one is romantically interested in a partner, but not in a friend. A partner is also a friend, but a friend is not necessarily a partner.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted October 16, 2013 10:13 AM |
|
|
Smithey said:
LOL.. rationality and love in the same spectrum... Now thats funny 
If your heart and mind are at odds, it's time to reassess values or it's time to start taking some Wellbutrin, I guess. Being a mystic about relationships smacks to me as someone who hasn't been in long ones or someone who is stuck looking at a mirror. I sympathise. I also am hauntingly beautiful.
EDIT: To clarify, I think it's a really weird axiom to say "love is crazy," unless you just don't want that stuff to last. My brother also used to say stuff like that a lot. How can you want to live with someone if you argue a lot? How can you talk with someone for a significant amount of time who has no intersecting fields of interest?
How can you like someone who has entirely different or even opposite values (and if you're left and he's right, but you both don't vote, then those are not "entirely different values," for clarification.)
I'm young and inexperienced, I know, I know. And I have an easier time of it, being so divine and handsome, but in my experience it's not worth my time to try forming something meaningful with someone who defines love differently than I do or defines "snow" and "just a darling person" differently than I do.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted October 16, 2013 10:25 AM |
|
|
Can confirm. He really is hauntingly beautiful.
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 23, 2013 04:33 AM |
|
|
DagothGares said:
Being a mystic about relationships smacks to me as someone who hasn't been in long ones or someone who is stuck looking at a mirror
Or someone who's been watching too much TV. "He is a cynical stockbroker with no social life. She is a free but troubled artist who huffs paint in her free time. This summer... Matt Damon... and Zooey Deschanel... in 'Not Another One Of These Movies Hollywood This Is Getting Really Boring'".
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted October 29, 2013 01:36 AM |
|
|
DagothGares said:
Being a mystic about relationships smacks to me as someone who hasn't been in long ones or someone who is stuck looking at a mirror. I sympathise. I also am hauntingly beautiful.
Not sure I follow. I imagine people who're more reserved usually are so because they've other things on their mind, objectives different from only having a relationship or hang out with any particular crowd.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted October 29, 2013 08:44 AM |
|
|
Not talking about people who may or may not be reserved. Talking about people who think: "Love is irrational. You can't understand it. It's pointless. You're a fool in thinking that there's any logic in the people you like."
Because: SCREW YOU, I am in love with awesome, intelligent and kind people!
Those are people who are mystics about love. People who say those things usually can't connect to others and I don't mean in an obvious "Oh, he's autistic" way. I mean that they can't connect, because they're too busy looking in the mirror. These are people who are in love with the idea of a person, rather than with a person themselves. These are the people who want the image of a relationship, rather than an actual relationship.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 29, 2013 09:33 AM |
|
|
|
Awesome, intelligent and kind are very general traits. Yes, there are people who overmistify love, that I agree with, however it's also true that people who get along very well as friends sometimes feel no sexual or romantic attraction at all, also people who dont agree on intellectual matters and people who dont have many common interests, people who like different type of films, hobbies, books etc etc can fall in love and have long-term passionate relationships. Love is not friendship, it's involved with friendship.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted October 29, 2013 02:48 PM |
|
|
artu said:
Love is not friendship, it's involved with friendship.
Spot on Artu. I'd say the read-deal, the love that will last in any storm, can be the springboard to the best of all roles. Even though I still have my best-friend of decades, my wife has became all to me including best friend.
I wrote this once upon a time, it is part of poem where an old woman is looking at a picture of her departed husband
Quote:
He teased her like her grandpa,
cared for her like grandma,
shared with her like aunt or uncle,
helped her like sister or brother,
treasured her like a father,
and loved her like a mother.
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 29, 2013 05:34 PM |
|
|
Friendship is part of love, as other things are, such as romantic attraction and commitment. In fact, successful love has to include a close friendship - if you want to be as close as is necessary for love, you need to be able to be close friends. But just as it's possible for friends to not have many common interests or disagree on intellectual matters, and still be close, that's possible for a couple as well. Doesn't mean it's not friendship. If you're the sort of person who can have close friends despite disagreeing with them intellectually or not having many common interests with them, that may work for you with love as well. Though for a successful relationship you do have to agree about certain values, and if it's long-term, you should agree about money, religion, and children, at least.markkur said:
He teased her like her grandpa
<_<
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 29, 2013 07:16 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Friendship is part of love, as other thingsare, such as romantic attraction and commitment. In fact, successful love has to include a close friendship - if you want to be as close as is necessary for love, you need to be able to be close friends. But just as it's possible for friends to not have many common interests or disagree on intellectual matters, and still be close, that's possible for a couple as well. Doesn't mean it's not friendship. If you're the sort of person who can have close friends despite disagreeing with them intellectually or not having many common interests with them, that may work for you with love as well.
Well, yes, people with different interests can be friends. However, that usually happens if they go to the same school, work in the same place, are neighbors etc etc... That is, at least in the developing stage of the friendship, they usually have another reason to constantly be around each other, other than themselves. There are exceptions to that but what I was trying to emphasize was that friendship is based on common ground more COMPARED TO romantic love.
Quote:
Though for a successful relationship you do have to agree about certain values, and if it's long-term, you should agree about money, religion, and children, at least.
First of all, a successful relationship and falling in love are very different things and they don't necessarily go hand in hand with each other. I'm guessing part of the objections to you about "love's rationality" comes from people who think you over-overlap them altogether. People do fall in and stay in love with people they can not work their relationships with, that's why there are so many tragedies and dramas written about it. Love is not always pragmatic and it does not always end happily.
And about your long-term deal-breakers I am not so sure... If by agreeing on religion you mean sharing the same faith, that's really not the case, there are many couples who are from different religions or who are religious matches non-religious. Keep in mind that religion is not as central as it is in American culture in many many places. Money can be a real problem especially if there is not enough of it but if the couple is relatively wealthy, it can also be completely out of the equation.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 29, 2013 07:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Well, yes, people with different interests can be friends. However, that usually happens if they go to the same school, work in the same place, are neighbors etc etc...
That's often how it starts, but they stay friends even after they discover they don't have many interests in common and are no longer in the same environment. They have to have at least a few interests, so they have something to talk about or do while they're together, but the people involved really don't have that much in common with each other. At least, that's how it happens for other people. I personally couldn't be friends with someone who doesn't share my interests.Quote:
First of all, a successful relationship and falling in love are very different things and they don't necessarily go hand in hand with each other.
Part of love (i.e. the feeling) is wanting to be in a successful relationship with someone. If you wouldn't want to be in a successful relationship with a person, you don't love them (in the romantic sense). It's true that some people want to have successful relationships in situations when it's not possible, so the key is to figure out how to not let that happen.
As for religion, the people involved don't have to be of the same faith, but have to agree about how they're going to raise their children (Are the kids going to Sunday school? What are they taught when they ask how the world was created? Etc.) and what the religious atmosphere in the home will be. For example, a guy who yells "Praise Jesus!" all the time and a Satanist aren't going to get along, but a liberal Christian and a "live-and-let-live" agnostic atheist could get along quite well. As for money, it can be spent as quickly as you make it, unless you're extremely rich. Some people are bad at saving money even when they have high incomes.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 29, 2013 08:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It's true that some people want to have successful relationships in situations when it's not possible, so the key is to figure out how to not let that happen.
I just wonder what your version of Romeo and Juliette would be like!
People can want be in a successful relationship with the one they love on a fantasy level, be very well aware it is not a realistic expectation, yet still keep on feeling the same. Actually, many people I saw in love were like that. So it happens even though it makes you beep "illogical."
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 30, 2013 08:56 PM |
|
|
love is the signal for "run the other way!"
it won't last forever fortunately 
Quote:
Well, yes, people with different interests can be friends. However, that usually happens if they go to the same school, work in the same place, are neighbors etc etc... That is, at least in the developing stage of the friendship, they usually have another reason to constantly be around each other, other than themselves. There are exceptions to that but what I was trying to emphasize was that friendship is based on common ground more COMPARED TO romantic love.
from my experience, friendship usually lasts as long as you play the same video game together.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 30, 2013 09:36 PM |
|
|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
|
posted October 30, 2013 10:23 PM |
|
|
|
Ok when girl like sex or heroes.. You can't KNOW who she is.. You can meet her if you want.. Adam didn't KNOW Eve was stupid.. Hm ok sex and heroes are airs Maybe Romeo & Julia if they are in same time.. American culture? Media or poor family was living etc Later on child take model etc and eat gene food in best class by House
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 30, 2013 10:48 PM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
For example, a guy who yells "Praise Jesus!" all the time and a Satanist aren't going to get along
Praise Jesus!
mvassilev said:
but a liberal Christian and a "live-and-let-live" agnostic atheist could get along quite well.
1. Liberal christians are not christians. There are Christians and non-Christians, "liberal christians" belonging to the later group as well as pagans, muslims, hindus, buddhists, satanists, etc.
2. There are no agnostic atheists. Either they're agnostics, unsure about the existence of God, or atheists, sure about the inexistence of God.
3. Though I totally get what you're trying to say. And I have to agree.
Just wanted to define some terms.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted October 30, 2013 11:16 PM |
|
|
Stevie said:
2. There are no agnostic atheists. Either they're agnostics, unsure about the existence of God, or atheists, sure about the inexistence of God.
False. The terms are not mutually exclusive. A person can believe there are no gods (atheist), but simultaneously acknowledge that we lack the ability to know the truth (agnostic).
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 31, 2013 12:08 AM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 12:21, 31 Oct 2013.
|
Corribus said:
False. The terms are not mutually exclusive. A person can believe there are no gods (atheist), but simultaneously acknowledge that we lack the ability to know the truth (agnostic).
Yes they are.
An Atheist says: There is no God/gods. There is no uncertainty from his side. He's asserting a negative value to the question. "Does God/gods exist? - Yes, No, I Don't Know.
An Agnostic says: I don't know if there is a God/gods. There is uncertainty from his side. He does not assert any value to the question. "Does God/gods exist? - Yes, No, I Don't Know.
Atheist Agnostic is impossible by deffinition, because one cannot be certain and uncertain at the same time in the same context. Logic 1.0.1.
You cleverly underlined the word "believe", you almost threw me off track. Good thing I figured out it has no relevance whatsoever.
Aaaanyway, there are variations within the "atheist" spectrum, as one article from a site I'm reading put well:
Quote:
Atheists may be categorized under various technical terms as well as sociopolitical and cultural ones, which may overlap depending on the individual atheist's preferences:
Strong atheism, positive atheism, explicit atheism or critical atheism: generally refers to those who positively affirm God’s non-existence. Some current atheists, perhaps influenced by the deleterious effects of the New Atheist movement, actually think that this definition of atheism is a hoax concocted by theists in order to make atheists appear foolish. Yet, this is a traditional definition and one found in various dictionaries, encyclopedias, philosophical textbooks.
Weak atheism, negative atheism or implicit atheism: generally refers to those who would claim merely to lack a God belief. They would generally claim that they do not believe in God because God's existence has not been proven (or evidenced). It may or may not be in the future. This sect is similar to agnosticism.
Militant atheism or antitheism: generally refers to atheists who consider belief in God as dangerous superstitious ignorance and seek to abolish it or, at the very least, remove it from the public sphere (public meaning from politics, culture at large, etc.).
Note, that the closest it gets is when you could say it "resembles" agnosticism, but in no way it gets to be literally "the same" as agnosticism, otherwise which would be which? (I think this is the case that made you think that atheist agnostics are possible by definition)
I hope this made things more clear to you, dear moderator. 
|
|
Humanoid
Bad-mannered
Known Hero
Rest in Peace Juvia (48-499)
|
|
posted October 31, 2013 09:02 AM |
|
|
|
Oh men... I understood your problem. And what you need is Hungary. Here lives the most beutyful womens. (Its not sexysm this is troe!)
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted October 31, 2013 11:32 AM |
|
|
Quote:
And what you need is Hungary. Here lives the most beutyful womens. (Its not sexysm this is troe!)
I can attest to this, all we need now is a well founded prostitution system to milk this national quality. Seriously though, beauty is superficial and it's a quality that has little use, especially in the field of love. (I actually want establish national brothels, but that's got nothing to do with love)
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
