Valentines!

[rtjhbfvsrry]

..... are you for real Bridge? Did you actually just try to 'disprove' an entirely emotional, unquantifiable concept, with statistics? Statistics that you yourself admit are not accurate?

Um... no. My point was:

How can love exist when it is biologically impossible for you to love 50% of the human population? Shouldn't that clue you in that love is an illusion? Or is the "emotional connection" you have to that one girl just so powerful that it transcends gender? I don't think so.

Furthermore, I wouldn't even consider being in a relationship with someone that has no face, or an amputee, or someone that isn't a human being. Tell me: What are the chances of every single case of so-called love being between the same species and between the same sexual persuasion? If you stop taking it for granted, you will conclude that the chances are almost impossibly low. How can it be a coincidence that love is entirely in sync with our natural urges?

What, is love just a by-product of physical relations? Then how the hell can it be love?

EDIT: Just to be clear, I am not saying that it's impossible to have a strong affection for other people, but that is it. "True love" as it's portrayed in the media just doesn't exist. It makes no sense at all, especially when you consider that the divorce rates are so high.

Hrm, the Socratic Method means you're being very unscientific about it. Scientific impossibility to prove something doesn't exist. You cannot present a lack of presence. It's the reason religion is still around.

Second you fail to provide a definition of what love is for purposes of this thought experiment. You have to define properties before disproving them.

[Bridge]

..... are you for real Bridge? Did you actually just try to 'disprove' an entirely emotional, unquantifiable concept, with statistics? Statistics that you yourself admit are not accurate?

Um... no. My point was:

How can love exist when it is biologically impossible for you to love 50% of the human population? Shouldn't that clue you in that love is an illusion? Or is the "emotional connection" you have to that one girl just so powerful that it transcends gender? I don't think so.

Furthermore, I wouldn't even consider being in a relationship with someone that has no face, or an amputee, or someone that isn't a human being. Tell me: What are the chances of every single case of so-called love being between the same species and between the same sexual persuasion? If you stop taking it for granted, you will conclude that the chances are almost impossibly low. How can it be a coincidence that love is entirely in sync with our natural urges?

What, is love just a by-product of physical relations? Then how the hell can it be love?

EDIT: Just to be clear, I am not saying that it's impossible to have a strong affection for other people, but that is it. "True love" as it's portrayed in the media just doesn't exist. It makes no sense at all, especially when you consider that the divorce rates are so high.

Hrm, the Socratic Method means you're being very unscientific about it. Scientific impossibility to prove something doesn't exist. You cannot present a lack of presence. It's the reason religion is still around.

Second you fail to provide a definition of what love is for purposes of this thought experiment. You have to define properties before disproving them.

I'm flattered you took my post so seriously but I am not trying to disprove anything. I just offered my two cents, based on my own observations and deep thinking. You need only agree or disagree.

EDIT: Also, I readily admit it's not possible to prove it at all. But just look around you. How can you not suspect something's up?

[Nice]

Can i choose between making out with your, or your food?

i am your food

[Adrianis]

Bridge, it's just that nothing you have said prevents the possibility of that emotion existing. Firstly, why (and from what basis) have you concluded that it is biologically impossible to love 50% of the population? Once that's worked out, then why is it impossible to love any of the remaining 50% of the population? Then, if your concluding that 'love' does not exist, how can you say that it is impossible to 'love' 50% of the population? Surely by your argument it is impossible to love any of the population? Why does some people being divorced mean that others cannot possibly be in love? Why does marriage even suggest love in the first place?

I think theres some serious barrier to me understanding what your saying, whether thats language, specific meaning of the word 'lovel', or just the way you're explaining it I don't know. Just so we're clear, I don't know that you are wrong, but I know that you do not know that you are right. I also want to stress that I do take your argument seriously (I wouldn't respond if I didn't), and I don't want you to take anything I say as belitteling your argument.


But lets just go back to what funderbunk said - "you fail to provide a definition of what love is for purposes of this thought experiment. You have to define properties before disproving them"
-> Clearly we're going to need a more rigid definition to continue this argument. I, on the other hand, vote to discontinue the argument on the basis of it not having any basis in fact.

[rtjhbfvsrry]

..... are you for real Bridge? Did you actually just try to 'disprove' an entirely emotional, unquantifiable concept, with statistics? Statistics that you yourself admit are not accurate?

Um... no. My point was:

How can love exist when it is biologically impossible for you to love 50% of the human population? Shouldn't that clue you in that love is an illusion? Or is the "emotional connection" you have to that one girl just so powerful that it transcends gender? I don't think so.

Furthermore, I wouldn't even consider being in a relationship with someone that has no face, or an amputee, or someone that isn't a human being. Tell me: What are the chances of every single case of so-called love being between the same species and between the same sexual persuasion? If you stop taking it for granted, you will conclude that the chances are almost impossibly low. How can it be a coincidence that love is entirely in sync with our natural urges?

What, is love just a by-product of physical relations? Then how the hell can it be love?

EDIT: Just to be clear, I am not saying that it's impossible to have a strong affection for other people, but that is it. "True love" as it's portrayed in the media just doesn't exist. It makes no sense at all, especially when you consider that the divorce rates are so high.

Hrm, the Socratic Method means you're being very unscientific about it. Scientific impossibility to prove something doesn't exist. You cannot present a lack of presence. It's the reason religion is still around.

Second you fail to provide a definition of what love is for purposes of this thought experiment. You have to define properties before disproving them.

I'm flattered you took my post so seriously but I am not trying to disprove anything. I just offered my two cents, based on my own observations and deep thinking. You need only agree or disagree.

EDIT: Also, I readily admit it's not possible to prove it at all. But just look around you. How can you not suspect something's up?

Hah, I was being mostly sarcastic. You keep throwing around terms like "biologically impossible" and "statistically unlikely" as if you were being scientific so I was making fun of it.

Honestly though anyone who has ever dated can tell you that it doesn't work like the movies. Nobody cares about destiny except for twelve year old girls who read too many horoscopes. I'm not sure how that means that something is "up". Your posts are a bit incomprehensible to me due to the failure to specify your concept of love.

P.S. I get the other examples, face moreso than body is the qualifier for attraction and of course you don't want to do animals, but why no amputees? I can think of personality issues that would bother me a lot more than someone missing a hand or a foot.

EDIT: Yeah, I agree with Adrianis who apparently posted while I had this window open. It's a bit of a pointless argument since emotions and sensations are entirely subjective and everyone has a different view. Also, wow quote tunnel.

[Statyk]

That's my cue to leave |D

[Nice]

That's my cue to leave |D

yeah, all i wanted was to have some cyberlove but then all those serious people showed up

[rtjhbfvsrry]

I can have fun! I even wrote documentation about it!

[Bridge]

Bridge, it's just that nothing you have said prevents the possibility of that emotion existing. Firstly, why (and from what basis) have you concluded that it is biologically impossible to love 50% of the population? Once that's worked out, then why is it impossible to love any of the remaining 50% of the population? Then, if your concluding that 'love' does not exist, how can you say that it is impossible to 'love' 50% of the population? Surely by your argument it is impossible to love any of the population? Why does some people being divorced mean that others cannot possibly be in love? Why does marriage even suggest love in the first place?

I think theres some serious barrier to me understanding what your saying, whether thats language, specific meaning of the word 'lovel', or just the way you're explaining it I don't know. Just so we're clear, I don't know that you are wrong, but I know that you do not know that you are right. I also want to stress that I do take your argument seriously (I wouldn't respond if I didn't), and I don't want you to take anything I say as belitteling your argument.


But lets just go back to what funderbunk said - "you fail to provide a definition of what love is for purposes of this thought experiment. You have to define properties before disproving them"
-> Clearly we're going to need a more rigid definition to continue this argument. I, on the other hand, vote to discontinue the argument on the basis of it not having any basis in fact.

I'm all for that but burying the hatchet so to speak before you completely understand what I mean leaves a bad taste in my mouth. So allow me to explain briefly what I mean by not being able to love 50% of the population and then we can stop talking about it.

What I mean is since the majority of the population is heterosexual that the concept of love is flawed. Let me give you a definition of love:

a (1) : strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties <maternal love for a child> (2) : attraction based on sexual desire : affection and tenderness felt by lovers (3) : affection based on admiration, benevolence, or common interests <love for his old schoolmates>

I'm not insulting your intelligence or anything, just saying this is the general definition I usually go by. Now, I do think this definition of love is completely valid in the sense that two friends love each other. I would be an idiot if I said it is impossible for two people to feel affection for one another. But when people say "true love" they do not mean love between two friends. They mean love between people who are mutually attracted to each other sexually (and as the media would lead you to believe, more than that). Because of this very real fact, it is logical for me to conclude that love does not exist.

If it truly did exist, why are human beings not bisexual? After all, you are biologically prevented from being sexually attracted to the same sex (under usual circumstances). What if the person you feel the strongest affection for is a man? You would be best friends, for sure, but neither of you would consider it love because it's not sexual. Because very few relationships where one or both partners promote abstinence turn out well, it is my conclusion that what people refer to as love is nothing more than being good friends with sex thrown in.

I honestly believe that people are so sad about it (including me on occasion) because we have been led to believe it is something much more than that by culture, the media, whatever. Believe me, I wish it was real. I'm a fairly romantic person and want life to be more than what it is. But I just can't bring myself to pretend when the evidence is laid so clearly in front of me. High divorce rates are relevant in my opinion because if there is such a thing is love, how can two people fall in love and after 3 years (marriages break up after 3 years on average according to some studies) choose to go their own separate ways? It makes no sense.

Feel free to ignore everything I said as I don't have any real experience, I'm just a lonely loser etc. But think about it. Even if you disagree, I would appreciate it if you gave it some thought. At the very least, you can see how my conclusions are consistent with what you can observe, even if you believe there is such a thing as love (which is not a bad thing, I just can't accept it).

Peace.

[FlawlessHappiness]

I understand what you wrote, and i also agree...
Just... if it doesn't exist how come it that we can feel that someone is very special to you? Someone that you cannot be normal around, because you don't want to look weird (in my case) her eyes, someone that keeps popping up in your mind, and you find attractive while others don't because she isn't a model.

There must be something...