|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
posted October 21, 2014 07:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Zenofex beat you to it, though, which seems to give indication for some kind of selective reading here.
To be fair, I was funnier.
EDIT: also, I didn't mean for what I said to be spiteful, but I'm sure we're all aware I'm as Team Mvass as it gets in this room.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 21, 2014 08:06 PM |
|
|
Then just don't try to put on the shoe I threw into the room. 
|
|
veco
Legendary Hero
who am I?
|
|
posted October 21, 2014 08:14 PM |
|
|
wow, I feel like watching a superhero save the day.
Saving HC from itself because mvass doesn't look like a victim of anthing
____________
none of my business.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 21, 2014 08:19 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
But there is no reason whatsoever to treat Mvass with the kind of condescension I read and feel here. Of course not just from you.
I mean, you know Mv for some time now - virtually, I mean -, and by now it should be clear that he's somewhat different than your typical male youth. So different, in fact, that it might work for him. Think SPOCK, for frag's sake, or Sheldon Cooper or whatever - but I don't see any reason to make fun of him, just because he allows himself to explore something, I doubt most of the people posting here would be able to.
Can't you just make fun of him because of his naive economic ideas?
you're right, let's make fun of Xerox instead
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 21, 2014 09:22 PM |
|
|
Comparing me to Spock or Sheldon Cooper is hardly a defense. The former is the original Straw Vulcan (and not very rational), and the latter is a nerd stereotype from a show that's like blackface for nerds.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 21, 2014 09:28 PM |
|
|
It's also not meant as a defense, but only as popular examples for "people", who are emotionally "different".
I'm also pretty confident, looking at the original Enterprise crew, being compared with Söpock isn't that bad.
You wouldn't want to end up being compared with Kirk, Bones or Scotty, right?
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 12, 2014 01:02 AM |
|
Edited by xerox at 01:14, 12 Nov 2014.
|
What is love REALLY?
Is it biological? Is it social? Is it both?
I'm trying to understand how I can feel love and why.
If it is biological, then for what purpose? How could it possibly be evolutionary beneficial for me to fall in a love with a psychotic homosexual who eats anti-depressive pills every night before he goes to sleep?
Fauch said:
JollyJoker said:
But there is no reason whatsoever to treat Mvass with the kind of condescension I read and feel here. Of course not just from you.
I mean, you know Mv for some time now - virtually, I mean -, and by now it should be clear that he's somewhat different than your typical male youth. So different, in fact, that it might work for him. Think SPOCK, for frag's sake, or Sheldon Cooper or whatever - but I don't see any reason to make fun of him, just because he allows himself to explore something, I doubt most of the people posting here would be able to.
Can't you just make fun of him because of his naive economic ideas?
you're right, let's make fun of Xerox instead
Congratulations! Your psychopathic, narcissistic, nihilist gay objectivist is here!
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted November 12, 2014 01:15 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Congratulations! Your psychpathic, narcissistic, nihilist gay objectivist is here!
No need to demonise anyone here, xerox, including yourself. And I always took yourself for the rational type. Any reason you can't dissassociate yourself from this person causing you grief, other than yourself?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 12, 2014 01:35 AM |
|
|
xerox said:
If it is biological, then for what purpose? How could it possibly be evolutionary beneficial for me to fall in a love with a psychotic homosexual who eats anti-depressive pills every night before he goes to sleep?
The biggest and most obvious mistake of the so-called objectivism is to take things with biological or beneficial foundations and roots and expect them to have direct benefits all the time at face-value. As I hopelessly tried to explain to you guys many times, once a social construct starts to exist as the abstraction it is, there isn't always a sore process of calculation. It starts to create motives of its own, which are quite subjective and impossible to objectify in terms of benefit. It's really such a puritanical stance to put so much effort in trying to deny a fact so observable only out of ideological narrow-mindedness.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 12, 2014 01:38 AM |
|
Edited by xerox at 01:43, 12 Nov 2014.
|
DagothGares said:
Quote:
Congratulations! Your psychpathic, narcissistic, nihilist gay objectivist is here!
No need to demonise anyone here, xerox, including yourself. And I always took yourself for the rational type. Any reason you can't dissassociate yourself from this person causing you grief, other than yourself?
I'm not demonising myself, it's been long since I did that. But I have a great deal of self-distance and in that lays some grains of truth. Such as:
Me fulfilling atleast four of the nescessary criteria to have a "schizoid personality disorder" according to the WHO:
Quote:
It is characterized by at least four of the following criteria:
Emotional coldness, detachment or reduced affect.
Very few, if any, close friends or relationships, and a lack of desire for such.
Indifference to either praise or criticism.
Indifference to social norms and conventions.
Preoccupation with fantasy and introspection.
Consistent preference for solitary activities.
Little interest in having sexual experiences with another person (taking age into account).
Taking pleasure in few, if any, activities.
I consider myself a nihilist, extremely rationally oriented and identify a great deal with the writings of Ayn Rand. I believe I am superior to most other people, there are few of them that I truly look up towards and respect, which I guess makes me some what of a narcissist. Ultimately, I only care for my individual pursuit of happiness.
The person I am in love with does not cause me grief. Contrary, he is perhaps the only person I have ever truly loved in my life. Though we live in different locations at the moment, I strongly feel as if that love is mutual.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 12, 2014 01:59 AM |
|
|
xerox said:
If it is biological, then for what purpose? How could it possibly be evolutionary beneficial for me to fall in a love with a psychotic homosexual who eats anti-depressive pills every night before he goes to sleep?
First of all, what's wrong with taking anti-depressants? If he has a problem and anti-depressants make it better, that's a good thing, not something to stigmatize.
Now, just because something is biological doesn't mean it's evolutionarily beneficial in all circumstances. Your current environment is radically different from the savanna in which humans evolved. Traits that may have been advantageous in that environment can be disadvantageous now. Also, you can have alleles that are advantageous in some combinations while disadvantageous in others. For example, while being homozygous for sickle-cell anemia is a disadvantage, being heterozygous for it is an advantage because it confers some protection against malaria. (Corribus, feel free to correct me about this.) Thus, the allele that can cause sickle-cell anemia can become more widespread even though sickle-cell anemia is bad.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted November 12, 2014 01:59 AM |
|
|
Quote:
If it is biological, then for what purpose? How could it possibly be evolutionary beneficial for me to fall in a love with a psychotic homosexual who eats anti-depressive pills every night before he goes to sleep?
Forgive me for thinking this person is causing you grief;
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 12, 2014 02:08 AM |
|
Edited by xerox at 02:10, 12 Nov 2014.
|
|
I have a hard time understanding why you and Mvass interpreted that as if I was condeming him? He has legitimate (presumably, I'm not sure) psychological problems. He gets a sickness benefit at the moment and medically prescribed narcotics that he has to take every single day. He occassionally uses illegal drugs such as cannabis and acid/LCD. That's the facts, and I don't condemn him for that, I support him because he is the only one that I love more than myself.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 12, 2014 02:26 AM |
|
|
Sorry for the misunderstanding. You made it sound like a bad thing.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 12, 2014 02:41 AM |
|
Edited by xerox at 02:50, 12 Nov 2014.
|
|
Because I wrote that I didn't get why I fell in love with him from an evolutionary perspective? If there's a genetic component to homosexuality and biopsychological problems, then it's probably not smart from an evoultionary point of view to reproduce with soemone like him. I also don't get how if love is biological, why it is even possible for me to fall in love withs someone I can't reproduce with. On the other hand, he has A LOT of positive attributes too such as been massively intelligent. I mean there are reasons for him being one of the few people I respect and don't look down upon (though him living comfortably on the sickeness benefit kinda bothers me).
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted November 12, 2014 02:48 AM |
|
|
|
Thinking there is intelligent design behind evolution and biology is a fallacy, pretty sure, man.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 12, 2014 03:57 AM |
|
|
|
How is such a simple thing so hard to understand when you claim you are superior than most people, especially when it had basically been spelled out to you. Romantic love -obviously- having its roots in sexuality does not indicate that the abstraction itself should always be aiming to reproduce once it becomes a social construct, a meme if you will, memes are sometimes mirrored things independent of their origin. The higher the abstraction, the less relevant it becomes with the biological urges (yet almost never completely irrelevant), at least on a conscious level: Look at the traditional old folk songs of love that were sang by illiterate simple medieval people, lust and love are directly hand in hand, then look at the courtly love of the aristocrats and their elite poetry. It's all metaphors and symbols and "innocent love" that stays away from offers of intercourse. Your libido, your sex drive is directly something that evolved in our species because gendered species have evolutionary advantage over asexual ones, two parents mean more variation and a better shot at fitting in the environment. Your sexual tendency as an individual has directly nothing to do with the evolution of your specie as a sexual creature but if your specie weren't sexual you couldn't be a heterosexual or homosexual and the concept of romantic love wouldn't exist to begin with.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 12, 2014 04:03 AM |
|
|
xerox said:
Because I wrote that I didn't get why I fell in love with him from an evolutionary perspective?
Just because emotions related to love may result from genes selected because they confer an advantage to the species generally, this does not mean that everyone who experiences those emotions reaps a direct and immediate benefit - that every marriage works, that every relationship is healthy, or that every person falls in love with someone who is normal or likely to treat them well. Insofar as "love" involves both the physical attraction as well as the emotions that go along with it (and, frankly, come along after), and these likely have different biochemical/genetic bases, AND that they confer different types of selective advantages to individuals and the species as a whole, it should be no surprise that many people end up in relationships with incompatible or unhealthy individuals... or for that matter that psychopaths who cannot experience the normal range of human relationships end up having sexual relationships with other humans. You don't need to be able to or be interested in experiencing the emotional state of "love" to want to have sex. In fact, I think a lot of people mistake the latter for the former.
This is basically just a really poor understanding of natural selection on your part... or represents a basic induction fallacy. Take your pick.
____________
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
|
|
violent_flower
Promising
Supreme Hero
Almost there.
|
|
posted November 12, 2014 05:25 AM |
|
|
@ Corribus
There is nothing really to add to that, you stated it perfectly and with conviction. I was just getting ready to respond to this and how I would have put it would have mirrored your response. 
____________
Learn how to duck and weave because I will throw truth at you all day!
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 12, 2014 12:24 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 12:25, 12 Nov 2014.
|
artu said:
How is such a simple thing so hard to understand when you claim you are superior than most people, especially when it had basically been spelled out to you. Romantic love -obviously- having its roots in sexuality does not indicate that the abstraction itself should always be aiming to reproduce once it becomes a social construct, a meme if you will, memes are sometimes mirrored things independent of their origin. The higher the abstraction, the less relevant it becomes with the biological urges (yet almost never completely irrelevant), at least on a conscious level: Look at the traditional old folk songs of love that were sang by illiterate simple medieval people, lust and love are directly hand in hand, then look at the courtly love of the aristocrats and their elite poetry. It's all metaphors and symbols and "innocent love" that stays away from offers of intercourse. Your libido, your sex drive is directly something that evolved in our species because gendered species have evolutionary advantage over asexual ones, two parents mean more variation and a better shot at fitting in the environment. Your sexual tendency as an individual has directly nothing to do with the evolution of your specie as a sexual creature but if your specie weren't sexual you couldn't be a heterosexual or homosexual and the concept of romantic love wouldn't exist to begin with.
But (romantic) love isn't just a social contruct, it's also something I can physically feel?
What makes a person romantically interested in another and why?
|
|
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
