|
On August 06 2003 20:47 YouTopia[SB] wrote: Hahahha BigBalls's comments are fun to read just because of that spacebar :-o
dude the spacebar is driving me nuts, its fine right now, but it was having its period before. The L key is worse. LLL = hitting L 10 times
|
out of 6 ages the only notable thing you should remember is to do her TWICE
ROFL
|
On August 06 2003 19:03 Maenander wrote: Show nested quote +On August 06 2003 18:34 ObsoleteLogic wrote: That would be objectification of the man. It works both ways.
So sex is all "objectification" in ur eyes. Hmmm. Not for me.
No; sex between two people who sincerely love each other is not. However, I feel as though there is some discord on what mine and your defintions of love would be.
In my eyes:
The only thing that is truely 100% ours, that can't be taken away from us, is our will (except perhaps by death, but no one knows). You can give someone your mind, your body, all your thoughts, everything in the world, but all of that can be taken away, perverted, twisted, or turned malign. Thus the only thing you can really give someone, that no one else can stop you from, is your will. To go ahead and make the choice to continue acting with love towards that person, even though you don't feel like it. Because, face it - some days, some weeks, months, or even years, you may not feel like it. Ask any couple that has been together long enough, and they'll say that its true. In archaic languages, such as Greek and Aramaic, they had multiple words for "love"; eros - physical, philios - fraternal, and agave (agape) - choice.
Conclusion - Love, true love, has all three qualities. Each requires the other to function as it should, within the whole.
|
On August 06 2003 21:07 ObsoleteLogic wrote: Show nested quote +On August 06 2003 19:03 Maenander wrote: On August 06 2003 18:34 ObsoleteLogic wrote: That would be objectification of the man. It works both ways.
So sex is all "objectification" in ur eyes. Hmmm. Not for me. No; sex between two people who sincerely love each other is not. However, I feel as though there is some discord on what mine and your defintions of love would be. In my eyes: The only thing that is truely 100% ours, that can't be taken away from us, is our will (except perhaps by death, but no one knows). You can give someone your mind, your body, all your thoughts, everything in the world, but all of that can be taken away, perverted, twisted, or turned malign. Thus the only thing you can really give someone, that no one else can stop you from, is your will. To go ahead and make the choice to continue acting with love towards that person, even though you don't feel like it. Because, face it - some days, some weeks, months, or even years, you may not feel like it. Ask any couple that has been together long enough, and they'll say that its true. In archaic languages, such as Greek and Aramaic, they had multiple words for "love"; eros - physical, philios - fraternal, and agave (agape) - choice. Conclusion - Love, true love, has all three qualities. Each requires the other to function as it should, within the whole.
whats the difference between lust love and true love?
|
On August 06 2003 20:59 Vicious)Soul wrote: Show nested quote +On August 06 2003 20:57 ObsoleteLogic wrote: On August 06 2003 20:45 Vicious)Soul wrote: More seriously, to answer the question, you obviously like her
Now ignore all of these kids posting shit about how you should not have sex cuz it's wrong and the other ones saying you should be a man and go for it. This isn't exactly a topic you should present to a buncha SC nerds. You are better.... how? didn't claim to be but at least everyone else here is just giving advice, you're trying to force an ideal down his throat and that's not exactly the most moral action either.
I'm not trying to force it down his throat, and the manner in which I am speaking is no different than BigBalls. You just disagree with me, so you resort to the age old attack of, essentially, calling me a moral fascist.
|
Lust is purely physical. True love is physical, fraternal (not actually brotherly, but, you know what I mean. The love you have for a friend), and the love of choice (so that you act within the first two even when you don't feel like it)
|
On August 06 2003 21:11 ObsoleteLogic wrote: Lust is purely physical. True love is physical, fraternal (not actually brotherly, but, you know what I mean. The love you have for a friend), and the love of choice (so that you act within the first two even when you don't feel like it)
wrong, spitting, swallowing and gargling
muahahhahaha
|
Obsolete,
What you say is true. But remember that the majority of human beings will forget what love means if they ever even knew, and even more don't care. Don't preach to a crowd that's too hopeless to understand and will only flame you again.
|
this thread brings back bad memories
|
Actually there hasn't been much flaming yet, and what there has been, I've ignored (:
|
On August 06 2003 21:10 ObsoleteLogic wrote: Show nested quote +On August 06 2003 20:59 Vicious)Soul wrote: On August 06 2003 20:57 ObsoleteLogic wrote: On August 06 2003 20:45 Vicious)Soul wrote: More seriously, to answer the question, you obviously like her
Now ignore all of these kids posting shit about how you should not have sex cuz it's wrong and the other ones saying you should be a man and go for it. This isn't exactly a topic you should present to a buncha SC nerds. You are better.... how? didn't claim to be but at least everyone else here is just giving advice, you're trying to force an ideal down his throat and that's not exactly the most moral action either. I'm not trying to force it down his throat, and the manner in which I am speaking is no different than BigBalls. You just disagree with me, so you resort to the age old attack of, essentially, calling me a moral fascist.
You're making too many assumptions, i don't disagree with you. I think the best thing for him would not to have sex with this girl and find someone "nicer." Bigballs also isn't exactly presenting his opinion lightly either. I never said what he was doing was right either.
|
Well you certainly insinuated it. Theres a fine line between advice and opinions, but I think its already pretty clearly established that we're hardly even talking about the original post anymore (:
800th post :O
|
On August 06 2003 21:12 BigBalls wrote: Show nested quote +On August 06 2003 21:11 ObsoleteLogic wrote: Lust is purely physical. True love is physical, fraternal (not actually brotherly, but, you know what I mean. The love you have for a friend), and the love of choice (so that you act within the first two even when you don't feel like it) wrong, spitting, swallowing and gargling muahahhahaha
Your talents I'd assume?
|
On August 06 2003 21:17 ObsoleteLogic wrote: Well you certainly insinuated it. Theres a fine line between advice and opinions, but I think its already pretty clearly established that we're hardly even talking about the original post anymore (:
800th post :O
Sorry about insinuation, I just honestly think it's more important for him to make his own choice than to give him our moral opinions, because he hasn't exactly led our lives. People never learn from the lives of others. And Bigballs is right about one thing, if he does go out and do this, he'll at least learn something
|
On August 06 2003 21:19 Vicious)Soul wrote: People never learn from the lives of others.
Thats a pretty naive statement, don't you think? What else is history for, then?
|
I meant with creating individual moral structure. History doesn't deal with individuals as much as society. People, when dealing with only themselves, can really only learn from themselves
|
Congrats on 800th post :p
|
The founding fathers of our country weren't individuals? Gandhi, Joan of Arc, Henry VIII, Luther, Calvin, Muhammed, Constantine, Jesus, Moses?!?!? Please (: Any basis in character education is based around the strong examples of individuals who accomplished great things; society is reflective only of those individuals which it is comprised of.
|
When people give advice to others, when people learn history, do they truly understand every motive behind every action? Of course not, we can't live in other people's lives. The best we can do is make the assumption that they had good reasons. Same goes with history, we took what others did and assumed they had good reason for what they did, and then work off that. People, however, can't work like that. Individuals are too unique to truly let anyone else's life truly effect them
|
Society is comprised of individuals, but it doesn't work backwards. The society created by the individuals isn't the individual, but that's the best we have to work off of. And on the indivudal level, it's not good enough
|
|
|
|