Posted by WingZ on October 03, 2004 at 10:42 [159.91.114.121]
In Reply to: Re: Wot Is Luv? posted by IMO on October 03, 2004 at 04:32
"As it is clear that I did not contradict myself with that statement. I was only acknowledging the fact that not all needs require love to fulfill them."
Really?
"“The mutual fulfillment of needs does not require love.”
Couldn’t disagree with this statement more!"
Does that sound like "acknowledgement" to you? Saying that you couldn't disagree more, then subsequently, agreeing?
"Yes!
Satisfied that you are self-centered.
Satisfied that you are emotionally clueless.
Satisfied that your attitudes toward the opposite sex are of a demeaning nature.
Satisfied that you wouldn’t recognize a genuine, heart felt emotion, if it bit you in the ass."
You asked me to name ONE thing. I named SEVERAL and you not only refused to acknowledge the vapidity of your question, but attacked me for the answers I gave. As such, I'll rebut:
- In what way am I any more selfish than anyone else?
- In what way are my attitudes towards the opposite sex demeaning?
- Lacking knowledge of my emotions, how do you see fit to declare that I am emotionally clueless?
"You lack the intellect that would be necessary to understand my response."
Which is probably a clever way of saying you don't have a fucking clue....
"Further, that same lack of intellect is what compelled you to ask the questions in the first place."
Can what compelled me to ask the questions in the first place be factually demonstrated? Or is it more idle speculation on your part?
"Further, my point was to demonstrate that love is just as tangible, as the ‘feelings’ associated with the accomplishment of such a physical task."
Do you even know what tangible means? Since when are feelings capable of being touched?
"When you were born, were you left in a cardboard box, at the doorstep of some orphanage? Because this is the only explanation that I can come up with for you believing as you do."
Don't you EVER get tired of being wrong? I would contend that my upbringing is entirely irrelevent, but since you brought it up: I was raised by my two natural parents, never abused and suffered no major tragedies. Ergo, your explanation is false.
"It’s normally referred to as ‘falling out of love’."
No. Falling out of love is simply acknowledging that you aren't in love any more as a state of being. Embracing the nonexistence of love is acknowledging that you were never in love as a state of being to begin with.
"“Further, the denial of the existence of ‘profound love’ (being in love), is to deny the existence of ‘profound hatred’.”"
And I would contend that hatred doesn't exist as a state of being as well.
"I can understand why you feel and believe as you do"
I highly doubt this. If you did understand, you would either believe as I do, or, at the very least, stop mischaracterizing my beliefs.
"since existence without love, is certainly a sallow and lonely existence."
Hate to burst your bubble, but I don't live in a cave.
"I also feel, that you should seek some form of help. Be it professional or not."
How is it that you would attempt to delve into my psyche and drag my mother into this yet maintain that I am the one trying to turn this into a debate about me?
"Stop acting and thinking like machine, and more like a human, and you may just discover a whole new plain of existence."
I'm going to rebut this on several levels, so please bear with me and don't attempt to lump them together as one argument:
1.) Is it even possible for one who writes creative fiction to "think like a machine?" It would seem that creativity is at odds with mechanical thought.
2.) You contend that, by thinking the way that I do, I am experiencing a plane of existence different from the one you experience. You then urge me to change my thinking as to experience your plane of existence. Right now, I see no reason to do so.
You could, of course, mention that your plain of existence is somehow better than the one I am now and that, as I have not experienced your plain, I have no right to dismiss it.
HOWEVER, were you to do that, I could just as easily contend that my plain is better than the one that YOU are experiencing now, and, inasmuch as YOU have never experienced it, YOU have no right to dismiss it. Thus, a form of stalemate is achieved.
This whole argument began, interestingly enough, because TVOR implied that everyone should believe in love and those who don't should be "educated." In other words, he was not willing to leave others to their beliefs. I, however, am. If you want to continue to believe in love, it is no business of mine. I will debate the validity of that belief, but not your right to believe it. You, on the other hand, seem willing to attack the basis for the belief and my own state of being rather than the belief itself. The issue at hand is the existence or nonexistence of love as a state of being. I'll ask that you stick to that and prove or disprove it on its own terms (something that you thusfar have not been able to do).
Email: