Posted by WingZ on October 02, 2004 at 07:41 [159.91.114.121]
In Reply to: Re: Wot Is Luv? posted by IMO on October 02, 2004 at 00:48
"Your statement very clearly indicates, that you have not had to deal very much with the rationality of most women (no disrespect to the fairer sex intended here), not to mention some men."
You're wrong there about me not dealing with women and you're wrong in thinking there's no distinction between rationality and emotion. For more on the distinction, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality
"Couldn’t disagree with this statement more! While not all needs of another requires love to fulfill them, certain needs defiantly do require love to fulfill them."
LOL! You just contadicted yourself. By your own admission, there are needs that don't require love to fulfill them. In fact, the only need I can possibly think of that would require love to fulfill it is the need for love itself. Furthermore, inasmuch as I am getting along fine without it, I would contend that it is not really a true need after all.
"The question was not what you believe, but to name ONE thing of importance a woman could offer apart from friendship or love?"
Women are capable of providing me with the following:
- A different perspective from my masculine worldview
- The ability to listen, interpret and often provide advice in personal matters (guys tend to be more tight-lipped)
- Knowledge and understanding of other women and (admittedly generalized) female behavior via my conversations with them.
- An affirmation of my own masculinity (not that any is needed) in contrast to them.
Satisfied?
"However, there is tons of evidence that can be produced that profoundly refutes your claims (beliefs). As an example, if you were to take a poll on the street, asking the simple question of the common folk, “Do you believe that ‘being in love’ is something real and capable of lasting?”, I have no doubt that the overwhelming response would be, ‘YES’, as the short answer."
Since when is public opinion tantamount to truth? Since when is a random inquiry the same as hard evidence?
"And that you are inspiring to be a good Journalist. Is not two of the good qualities of a, ‘good Journalist’, to be open minded and objective, regardless of his or her beliefs?"
Do not attempt to lecture me on the ethics of journalism! Inasmuch as I am not covering a news story, I am free to take a position (just as you have).
"1. It is very clear that you have never felt the true feeling of ‘love’, or experienced a state of ‘being in love’."
Obviously, I cannot experience what doesn't exist.
"2. And this is probably the MOST resounding reason; You are in a very small minority with regards to your beliefs on this subject."
THAT'S a reason?! Since when does consensus (especially when it is not unanimous consensus) equate to truth? Why should I be swayed by the beliefs of others when they have no evidence for their cause? All people can do is point to things which they believe to be the product of love (marriage, love songs, etc.) but which may very well be (and often are) the products of things other than love. That alone is hardly proof of its existence. Likewise, the "I have experienced it" argument carries no weight. If you can experience "true love", then why can't I simply experience the nonexistence of love?
"For you to understand what has been said here, would be like you, or me for that matter, trying to understand the feelings felt by those that have scaled Mount Everest. Until you have been there and done that, there is no way that you could ever truly understand.
Of course, I guess you could say that the feelings that were felt by those that have scaled Mount Everest, were nothing more than impulse feelings, and those feelings only lasted up to the point when they started their decent."
Your attempts to equate love with an accomplishible physical task are absurd. The problem, and you undoubtedly realize it by now, is that you cannot (or at least have not been able to) prove love on its own terms. I'm not going to accept any non-sequitars, poorly drawn analogies, or baseless personal testimonies in absence of proof. And, inasmuch as I am not trying to convert anyone to my belief as they are trying to convert me to theirs, I don't have to prove a damn thing to anyone else:)
"I certainly can understand why you have such core beliefs. It’s easier to dismiss and deny the existence of something, when it is so strongly desired, and yet, so fleeting."
That would explain why you cling so stubbornly to your notion for love despite the fact that you've done nothing to prove its existence. I've waited 20+ years for love to prove its existence to me. It has not done so. Ergo, I stand by my beliefs. Whereas I've at least entertained the notion that it COULD exist (and quickly dismissed the notion after finding it lacking), have you ever entertained the notion that it couldn't? Mind you, I'm not talking about feeling bad after a break-up, but declaring, in a clear and rational state of mind, that love does not exist? If not, then you are the stubborn, close-minded one and you have no business preaching to me.
Email: