Valentines!

[Adrianis]

Look man, I'm not going to insult you, or your intelligence by saying that your argument is a result of a lack of experience. I'm reading your argument thoroughly and I understand what you are saying, and why you say it. I appreciate you have taken the time to explain yourself, and remained polite, a good discussion is rare anywhere on the internet, so I'm going to humour you on this one since I also enjoy a good discussion

I simply do not see your conclusions as being at all related to the premise of your argument. I do not find your argument logical. I have to use some quotes from your post for my response, I apologise in advance if you feel that I am taking you out of context - there is nothing I hate more in a good discussion than being quoted out of context so will make every effort not to.

I also want to apologise to other forum members for wall(s) of text, past present and future

Now with that out of the way... first some inaccuracies...

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)

Firstly, some humans are bisexual, though I do not see that as having any relevance to the existence of love between two people.
Secondly, you are not biologically prevented from being attracted to the same sex, under any circumstances. If this were true, it would mean that from birth till death you would retain a sexual orientation, since some people's sexual orientation does change, it must have at least some environmental component, perhaps from personal experiences with other people, combined with chemical changes in the brain, though I do not have any proof of this (hence the 'perhaps') - I appreciate that may be biological in nature, but it is by no means preventative

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) ...
... 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.

I quote those two separate parts as my answer is directly related to both.
Your right about 'true love' not meaning love between two friends. This is why you can feel a strong affection for someone and not be in 'true love' with them. Now, whilst I very roughly agree with that definition of the word 'love', the problem is that it is a definition of the word 'love', as used in conversation, and since it can refer to several different emotional feelings, people have (naturally) added an additional word to define one particular aspect of that word - this is a very particular emotion feeling that is 'true love'.

The reason that 'the media' (which of course is a massively diverse group of people with wildly different views to each other, and shouldn't ever be generalised into a single group like that) present true love as common theme is that it is something that they have experienced and is a very intense emotion. The reason a huge amount of people find that very engaging is precisely because it is a powerful emotion that they can associate with easily, as it is something they will often have experienced. The reason why Romantic films/books are not simply porn is because 'true love' is not just sexual attraction.

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.

How do you feel happy one day, and yet you feel sad the next? Being sad does not invalidate being happy
How can you have a friend one year, and grow to hate each other the next? Disliking someone you used to be friends with, does not invalidate the entire friendship

How can you be deeply in love with someone, 'true love' as they say, and yet lose that love several years later? Not being in love with someone does not invalidate being in love with someone.
It is an emotional connection, a feeling people get, and all emotions can change, but they all still exist. 'True love' is a different emotion to 'friendship', but both can be gained and lost in the same way.


But most important of all - because it is emotional, we cannot (currently) understand how other people feel, we can never know if anyone else ever feels anything like love. Your emotions are (largely) understandable to you, just as mine are (largely) understandable to me, however your emotions are a completely abstract concept to me, the only thing I can rely on is certain words - like happy, friendship, love - that you use, and I will never know if it is true or what it is like to experience it.

You couldn't possibly explain to me the experience you had when you were really happy about something, all you can say is "I was really happy" and I would get what you mean, because I've been 'really happy'. If I had not been 'really happy', I wouldn't know what you meant, and would possibly believe that such a thing could not possibly exist.

Ok I'm done *rest*
Looking back... there's an aweful lot there haha, I hope you read it, and keep an open mind...
It's a frustrating topic to debate because there are so few facts, and so much conjecture. I don't want this to sound condescending, but I recommend you do some research on the philosophy of Logic because I think from reading your argument that you might be applying it incorrectly in this situation.

As you say, Peace

[Kman]

/thread

[No Author]

Last time I was in this thread there were only 2 pages. Now there are 7 ? The freak ? I didn't expect this thread to be a discussion or other stuff. And besides it's been 2 days since valentine.

[PutraenusAlivius]

Last time I was in this thread there were only 2 pages. Now there are 7 ? The freak ? I didn't expect this thread to be a discussion or other stuff. And besides it's been 2 days since valentine.

....thats what i said when i visit this thread.....

[No Author]

Last time I was in this thread there were only 2 pages. Now there are 7 ? The freak ? I didn't expect this thread to be a discussion or other stuff. And besides it's been 2 days since valentine.

....thats what i said when i visit this thread.....

Huh, guess people like this thread so much.

[Adrianis]

Last time I was in this thread there were only 2 pages. Now there are 7 ? The freak ? I didn't expect this thread to be a discussion or other stuff. And besides it's been 2 days since valentine.

....thats what i said when i visit this thread.....

Huh, guess people like this thread so much.

Nah, that's not it A point was made, and it required debate, therefore, debate did follow

[Bridge]

post

Preface: Man, what was originally going to be two lines ended up being almost 4 paragraphs. I understand if you are not in the mood to answer this, I'm not sure I would. Still, if you are interested in understanding my thought process better, read on.

Touche. I admit I am wrong (or inaccurate) on some scores but I remain adamant on others, because it is simply the way in which I see the world.

One thing I want to clear up though is I am not trying to make it sound like a conspiracy when I say the media. I'm simply saying that fantastical, romantic (as in inspired by the historical movement, not the adjective) art portrays love in a manner that just doesn't exist in the real world. I hope we can at least agree on that. I'm not trying to invalidate love as you say (I realize that's not exactly what you said), simply trying to say that love makes little sense in the way we are built IMO. I'm a materialist for life and I just can't accept fantasy of that nature.

I appreciate your recommendation of studying logic, as much of an indirect insult as it was, as I am always interested in learning more about stuff, but what I say makes perfect logical sense to me. Okay, I do agree the bit about the existence of divorce being proof that love is not real is very weak. I didn't consider all the angles before posting that and I apologize for it. Everything else, especially the very real fact that heterosexuality is dominant and homosexuality and bisexuality are irregularities I think stands true. I don't quite understand how the existence of a few bisexuals somehow invalidates my comment. The point was and is: If love exists, why is it 98% of the time between people of the opposite sex who are attracted to each other sexually? If love is just something that comes with sex, then why do people differentiate between love and friendship? Sex being a part of the relationship does not automatically make it more profound. Therefore, I say that it is not a coincidence that love is mostly heterosexual. My conclusions (and bear with me) are:

If love is something more than friendship, it logically follows that everybody should be a viable candidate. Why? Because once sex is subtracted from the equation, love is a mix between emotional and intellectual connections. These are both factors that can be present in friendships as well. Assuming everybody in the world is heterosexual (because the existence of rarities is besides the point), that means that whether something is love depends entirely on a coin toss once you come right down to it. Same exact person, same exact ideals, same exact interests. An extra X sex chromosome and suddenly it's not love? Sorry, I call bullshit on that. It makes no sense, it makes the entire system dependent on a flaw in our design, and that does not logically follow.

[failedALIAS]

There are considerable feelings of affection towards Danny in my heart.

[Froge]

There are considerable feelings of affection towards Danny in my heart.

wrong target

[PutraenusAlivius]

There are considerable feelings of affection towards Danny in my heart.

Do you mean Danny Boy? 'cause he changed his name to Gezz Boy.