NationStates Jolt Archive


True Love, Do you Know?

True Being
18-04-2006, 04:54
Ok for those of you who were part of the long Catholic debate, you knew htis was coming. Anyways, Who on NS thinks that they really know what True Love is. I want to know whos got a real good definition of it. So lets see what the world thinks.
Megaloria
18-04-2006, 04:57
There are so many possible ways for a love to be true.

Like I said before, one of my favourites was "french toast, when none was expected".
Antikythera
18-04-2006, 04:59
Q: what hurts so much that the pain cuts to the bone? what makes you feel so passionate you cant even breathe?


A:love
The Fallen Dead
18-04-2006, 04:59
Love is pain and sacrafice but it is also joy and happines. In love you will tak and be taken from without limit you will hurt the one you love and be hurt by the one you love without limit. love will pas through day of treachery and night of resignation to stand befor you as it should: undiminshed by the trials and stedfast.
Dinaverg
18-04-2006, 05:01
Overall, a compounding of various emotions. You could mention what you'd do for someone if you love them, but eh.
The South Islands
18-04-2006, 05:02
http://plaatjes.hemisphere.nl/707844.jpg

Points for whoever gets the reference!
Undelia
18-04-2006, 05:03
“True Love” can not exist as romantic love does not truly exist as we understand it.

Love is a combination of reproductive drives in the brain and a desperate need for individuals to justify their lusts in a society that, while often open about sex, still is, for whatever reason, unappreciative of unemotional attractions. The need to justify pure lust is so strong, that in most, artificial emotions and affections are manufactured and attached to an act that should be no more intimate than any other mutual exchange.
The Fallen Dead
18-04-2006, 05:04
“True Love” can not exist as romantic love does not truly exist as we understand it.

Love is a combination of reproductive drives in the brain and a desperate need for individuals to justify their lusts in a society that, while often open about sex, still is, for whatever reason, unappreciative of unemotional attractions. The need to justify pure lust is so strong, that in most, artificial emotions and affections are manufactured and attached to an act that should be no more intimate than any other mutual exchange.

an intresting yet missled theory.
Upper Botswavia
18-04-2006, 05:07
Love is the when another person's happiness is vital to your own happiness. True love is when that is mutual.
Megaloria
18-04-2006, 05:07
an intresting yet missled theory.

And incredibly depressing to boot.
Antikythera
18-04-2006, 05:10
Love has features which pierce all hearts, he wears a bandage which conceals the faults of those beloved. He has wings, he comes quickly and flies away the same." - Voltaire
Galloism
18-04-2006, 05:11
True Love is finding a woman that you fear with such intensity that you cannot help but be irresistably attracted to her. You then spend your entire life fearing that she's going to kick your ass, but clinging to the knowledge that for some unfathomable reason, she loves you too.

That is true love.
Undelia
18-04-2006, 05:11
an intresting yet missled theory.
How so?
Lacadaemon
18-04-2006, 05:13
You get the feeling back in your right hand......

And in your left cheek in the pub..... &c,
The Fallen Dead
18-04-2006, 05:16
How so?


Firstly love dosen't have anything to do with sex.. well not always. there is a girl that I love with a passion yet I have no intrest in having sex with her. her mere ability to argue a point intelectualy with me is all I need.

secondly: You make it sound like all the human race has on its mind is sex. and that we are willing to use any means to have it.
The Fallen Dead
18-04-2006, 05:21
And incredibly depressing to boot.

that too.
Xislakilinia
18-04-2006, 05:22
As I've posted in an earlier thread, true love doesn't exist. Only Boob love. Or Fanny love, since that was ahead in the polls.
Eutrusca
18-04-2006, 05:23
Ok for those of you who were part of the long Catholic debate, you knew htis was coming. Anyways, Who on NS thinks that they really know what True Love is. I want to know whos got a real good definition of it. So lets see what the world thinks.
Love is a decision, sometimes made on a moment-to-moment basis.
True Being
18-04-2006, 05:25
“True Love” can not exist as romantic love does not truly exist as we understand it.

Love is a combination of reproductive drives in the brain and a desperate need for individuals to justify their lusts in a society that, while often open about sex, still is, for whatever reason, unappreciative of unemotional attractions. The need to justify pure lust is so strong, that in most, artificial emotions and affections are manufactured and attached to an act that should be no more intimate than any other mutual exchange.

I get it Undelia, you don't like me. Will you be actively hunting down and attacking all my threads? As for your theory. You again lower the standard of discussion. The concept of love takes a little faith that human existence has something more than jsut survival.
Undelia
18-04-2006, 05:26
Firstly love dosen't have anything to do with sex.. well not always. there is a girl that I love with a passion yet I have no intrest in having sex with her. her mere ability to argue a point intelectualy with me is all I need.
No, see, on some level you do want to have sex with her.
If not, the emotion you are feeling is admiration, which is the application of the very real emotion of pride to another human being. Sort of like pride to the negative first power.
secondly: You make it sound like all the human race has on its mind is sex. and that we are willing to use any means to have it.
Are you going to deny that? I’m fairly convinced that the vast majority of human actions are just elaborate plans to get laid. Nothing wrong with that, though.
True Being
18-04-2006, 05:28
Ok my definition of love:

Love. A very well known emotion and force today.
Love is indeed the most powerful force of all.
But it seems that so many people are confused about what love really is.
Often, love is used by too many teenage guys to get what they want.
Girls seem to fall in love so very often and give in.
Love is seen as wanting someone so much you can't stand it.
That's called love as desire
And it is NOT True love...
Here is a glimpse into what True love really is.
Love is not wanting someone or something.
Love is not just the happy giddy feeling around someone you like.
Love is rare and hard to find.
Not to get this wrong, love has a connection to those.
But it's not everyting...
When you really do love someone,
you want the best for them.
To claim a true love of another means you want their happiness with such passion.
When you truly love someone you'd give almost anything to make them happy and have what's right for them.
It means you'd DIE for them. And they should be willing to do the same.
Love is very hard and doesn't always make you happy.
Here's a question for those who think they are in love.
If you loved him/her and they didn't love you but someone else.
Would you be willing to let them go if it was better for them?
Could you sacrifice all your desires for yourself and let them have their tur happiness?
And the same goes for those who claim to love you.
A guy in love would NEVER ask a girl to give of her body just for so-called love.
True love is unified in marriage and can then be completed in that wonderful act of love called sex.
Such an act outside of this union is more like mutual masturbation.
So the next time you think about saying those three very powerful words
STOP
Do you really care soo much for this person that you'd die for them?
Are you sure that you can trust this person to never hurt you?
Is your love for them a love for good will?
Because True Love is for good will, not desire, not simple physical attraction, not even just becasue of compatibility.
It's the undying desire to see that person happy and well.
The strong and unbending focus on what's right for them.
So guys dont pressure your girlfriends, and girls don't say yes.
Because if he pressures you, and even if you want to,
It doesn't make it right. Sex is sacred.
Use it as it was intended, not for recreation.
Love is the greatest and most dangerous power of all.
And it should not be brought about lightly...
Undelia
18-04-2006, 05:29
I get it Undelia, you don't like me. Will you be actively hunting down and attacking all my threads?
I really didn’t even notice that you were the OP of this thread. I generally ignore a poster’s name outside of a thread I’m responding to them in, if they have under a hundred posts. I’ve posted this theory on this forum many times and it’s never been adequately refuted.
The concept of love takes a little faith that human existence has something more than jsut survival.
Life is something more than just survival. It’s also about finding pleasure.
Qwystyria
18-04-2006, 05:29
Greater love has no one than this: that someone lay down his life for his friends.
The Fallen Dead
18-04-2006, 05:32
No, see, on some level you do want to have sex with her.
If not, the emotion you are feeling is admiration, which is the application of the very real emotion of pride to another human being. Sort of like pride to the negative first power.

Are you going to deny that? I’m fairly convinced that the vast majority of human actions are just elaborate plans to get laid. Nothing wrong with that, though.

I honestly have no sexual desire for her and the feeling is not admiration. You see she is the whole reason I didn't blow my brains out in the sixth grade.

now as for your second responce I will deny it 100% because though I know a lot of people who are horny little basterds the rest of us are more intrested in the sin of averise (greed pertaining to money usualy). and If I wanted to get layed that badly I wouldn't have joined the marine corp.
Xislakilinia
18-04-2006, 05:32
No, see, on some level you do want to have sex with her.
If not, the emotion you are feeling is admiration, which is the application of the very real emotion of pride to another human being. Sort of like pride to the negative first power.

Are you going to deny that? I’m fairly convinced that the vast majority of human actions are just elaborate plans to get laid. Nothing wrong with that, though.

I definitely agree ;) Just check out on the stats on how many young men die in ill-conceived, testosterone-driven acts of misjudgment to get their girls.

Oh well, but this thread is about the spiritualistic, inspired kind of love. Like the love I have for chocolates for example. Or Chemical Brothers.
Xislakilinia
18-04-2006, 05:35
Love is the greatest and most dangerous power of all.
And it should not be brought about lightly...

I definitely agree with this one! How many wars have been started in the name of Love my friends. How many.
Undelia
18-04-2006, 05:36
I honestly have no sexual desire for her and the feeling is not admiration. You see she is the whole reason I didn't blow my brains out in the sixth grade.
Sounding more and more like admiration, which can feel a lot like love, I'm told.
now as for your second responce I will deny it 100% because though I know a lot of people who are horny little basterds the rest of us are more intrested in the sin of averise (greed pertaining to money usualy). and If I wanted to get layed that badly I wouldn't have joined the marine corp.
Avarice and lust go hand in hand and there's nothing wrong with either.
The Fallen Dead
18-04-2006, 05:37
I definitely agree with this one! How many wars have been started in the name of Love my friends. How many.


one
Undelia
18-04-2006, 05:39
one
But it was a badass war with a giant wooden horse. That’s got to count for something.
The Fallen Dead
18-04-2006, 05:40
Sounding more and more like admiration, which can feel a lot like love, I'm told.

Avarice and lust go hand in hand and there's nothing wrong with either.

No I know what admiration is and i would not sacrifice my life for mere admiration.

thats where your wrong one or the other will win out in the end and be the dominant of the two. However one can use another persons lust or their own Averice
Poliwanacraca
18-04-2006, 05:41
http://plaatjes.hemisphere.nl/707844.jpg

Points for whoever gets the reference!

Baby, don't hurt me. Don't hurt me, no more!
Undelia
18-04-2006, 05:43
No I know what admiration is and i would not sacrifice my life for mere admiration.

thats where your wrong one or the other will win out in the end and be the dominant of the two. However one can use another persons lust or their own Averice
Hmm, I have the feeling you’re one of those people who will never accept that most of your emotion are dictated by society. You’re probably somewhat artistic or “unique” in some other way. It’s hard for you to realize just how much everyone around you and their attitudes are affecting you and in what ways.
The Fallen Dead
18-04-2006, 05:47
Hmm, I have the feeling you’re one of those people who will never accept that most of your emotion are dictated by society. You’re probably somewhat artistic or “unique” in some other way. It’s hard for you to realize just how much everyone around you and their attitudes are affecting you and in what ways.

If that were the case then I wouls not have joined the corp because at my campus they don't like the army os the corp and anyone who Joins is branded a murder in training. if I was at all influenced by the people around me then I would not have joined.
Xislakilinia
18-04-2006, 05:47
Hmm, I have the feeling you’re one of those people who will never accept that most of your emotion are dictated by society. You’re probably somewhat artistic or “unique” in some other way. It’s hard for you to realize just how much everyone around you and their attitudes are affecting you and in what ways.

Maybe he believes in free will! Like when the prefrontal motor cortex increases activity levels before the human subject reports conscious choice to move arms!

I'm just babbling. Or I in fact could be an alien specializing in anal probe procedures.
Undelia
18-04-2006, 05:50
If that were the case then I wouls not have joined the corp because at my campus they don't like the army os the corp and anyone who Joins is branded a murder in training. if I was at all influenced by the people around me then I would not have joined.
Silly, the recruiters influenced you. And yes, you are a murderer in training.
Maybe he believes in free will! Like when the prefrontal motor cortex increases activity levels before the human subject reports conscious choice to move arms!
Maybe he believes he has free will. So few of us truly do have it though...
I'm just babbling. Or I in fact could be an alien specializing in anal probe procedures.
...but I suspect you're one of them.
The Fallen Dead
18-04-2006, 05:54
Silly, the recruiters influenced you. And yes, you are a murderer in training.

The decsion I made was not ifluenced by a recruter. I signed up without ever seeing one until The actual sign up. and why do you say that I am a murderer in training?
Xislakilinia
18-04-2006, 05:58
Silly, the recruiters influenced you. And yes, you are a murderer in training.

Maybe he believes he has free will. So few of us truly do have it though...

...but I suspect you're one of them.

One of them murderers in training or one of them anal-probing aliens with insight into human neuroscience?

Either way, that sounds kinda kewl.
Dinaverg
18-04-2006, 05:59
http://plaatjes.hemisphere.nl/707844.jpg

Points for whoever gets the reference!

What is love...baby don't hurt me...don't hurt me...no more

...baby don't hurt me...don't hurt me...no more...

What is love...Yeah-heah
Undelia
18-04-2006, 06:00
The decsion I made was not ifluenced by a recruter. I signed up without ever seeing one until The actual sign up. and why do you say that I am a murderer in training?
I guess if you're one of those who don't consider "sand niggers" to be real people it may be hard to grasp why it's murder.
One of them murderers in training or one of them anal-probing aliens with insight into human neuroscience?
I smell a sitcom.
True Being
18-04-2006, 06:07
Focus people, the thread is about love, not the army and murderers in training. I just wnted to say that, so far we have a good discussion on the topic, so carry on.
True Being
18-04-2006, 06:09
Greater love has no one than this: that someone lay down his life for his friends.


Nice, straight from the mouth of Christ.
Emo Hed Hunters
18-04-2006, 06:09
love sucks ass, but true love f***ing owns...

i believe in me and my girl so i am perfectly content....
Antikythera
18-04-2006, 06:10
actualy your all wrong...love, is a figment of your imagination that you have dreamed up to give you an excuse for other wise irationaly behavior. but there is always the posibility that there really is love but mostlikely not....:cool:
The Fallen Dead
18-04-2006, 06:20
I guess if you're one of those who don't consider "sand niggers" to be real people it may be hard to grasp why it's murder.

Oh don't give me that war is murder shit.Consider where the world would be with out war. Man has always taken advantage of his fellow man and have enslaved eachother, stollen from eachother., forced their views on eachother. Whole Societies have enslaved other Societies or are enslaved by their own leaders., and the suffering is always an epidemic. what mechenism exists to restore Fairness to humanity? Reason? Man is not a rational creature, no matter what he chooses to call himself. He remaines governed by his own selfish emotions and desires. he uses Reason as a means to an end-the end of self-aggrandizement. when reason suggests that hes wrong, he dispencises with it and keeps his ill gotten gains.No, in the end, there is only one answer and that is to restore fairness by force, What we call war.
Emo Hed Hunters
18-04-2006, 06:24
love sucks ass, but true love f***ing owns...

i believe in me and my girl so i am perfectly content....


What i just said, hahaha!

since i am psycho so i hope my imagination florishes... i encourage it
if it is a figment of my imagination, its the best one i have...
Undelia
18-04-2006, 06:31
Oh don't give me that war is murder shit.Consider where the world would be with out war. Man has always taken advantage of his fellow man and have enslaved eachother, stollen from eachother., forced their views on eachother. Whole Societies have enslaved other Societies or are enslaved by their own leaders., and the suffering is always an epidemic. what mechenism exists to restore Fairness to humanity? Reason? Man is not a rational creature, no matter what he chooses to call himself. He remaines governed by his own selfish emotions and desires. he uses Reason as a means to an end-the end of self-aggrandizement. when reason suggests that hes wrong, he dispencises with it and keeps his ill gotten gains.No, in the end, there is only one answer and that is to restore fairness by force, What we call war.
Mu..Mu..Mussolini? I...I thought you were dead, but it seems you've reincarnated into the body of a malcontented adolescent. How you doing old buddy?
The Fallen Dead
18-04-2006, 06:35
Mu..Mu..Mussolini? I...I thought you were dead, but it seems you've reincarnated into the body of a malcontented adolescent. How you doing old buddy?


What? cant think of anything wrong my statement so your calling me a facist now? sigh a pitty that I have to fight to defend the freedoms of ungreatful people such as your self.
Undelia
18-04-2006, 06:44
sigh a pitty that I have to fight to defend the freedoms of ungreatful people such as your self.
A darn shame.
Dinaverg
18-04-2006, 06:50
What? cant think of anything wrong my statement so your calling me a facist now? sigh a pitty that I have to fight to defend the freedoms of ungreatful people such as your self.

Well, why do you seem insulted by the term facist? You're a fasophobe aren't you! FASOPHOBE! *general nonsensical ranting*

But yeah, what've you got against Mussolini?

P.S. Fasophobe...That sounds like you're afraid of Fass. :p
Taredas
18-04-2006, 06:50
I would pull the obvious, but it seems that everyone and their mom got to it first. :(

So... what is true love? I don't really know, but I figure that if I ever do find it, I'll know it. :)
Xislakilinia
18-04-2006, 06:51
Oh don't give me that war is murder shit.Consider where the world would be with out war. Man has always taken advantage of his fellow man and have enslaved eachother, stollen from eachother., forced their views on eachother. Whole Societies have enslaved other Societies or are enslaved by their own leaders., and the suffering is always an epidemic. what mechenism exists to restore Fairness to humanity? Reason? Man is not a rational creature, no matter what he chooses to call himself. He remaines governed by his own selfish emotions and desires. he uses Reason as a means to an end-the end of self-aggrandizement. when reason suggests that hes wrong, he dispencises with it and keeps his ill gotten gains.No, in the end, there is only one answer and that is to restore fairness by force, What we call war.

I actually kinda agree with that, in a Starship Troopers sort of way. :D

Oh well, looks like humans are still held hostage by their limbic systems. That oversized cortex sitting on top appears in charge, but in a positive feedback system like this, you can never tell where the command really originated.

But I think you really emphasized the purity of War vs the messy spineless-ness of Peace. I think many people misunderstand Peace as a passive-looking de facto state that nations naturally fall into, if not for hateful war mongers. Peace is actually more twisted than War.
The Fallen Dead
18-04-2006, 06:55
A darn shame.

quite a shame it is.
The Fallen Dead
18-04-2006, 06:59
I actually kinda agree with that, in a Starship Troopers sort of way. :D

Oh well, looks like humans are still held hostage by their limbic systems. That oversized cortex sitting on top appears in charge, but in a positive feedback system like this, you can never tell where the command really originated.

But I think you really emphasized the purity of War vs the messy spineless-ness of Peace. I think many people misunderstand Peace as a passive-looking de facto state that nations naturally fall into, if not for hateful war mongers. Peace is actually more twisted than War.

Peace has its uses but as long as we are human there will always be war.
The Fallen Dead
18-04-2006, 07:02
Well, why do you seem insulted by the term facist? You're a fasophobe aren't you! FASOPHOBE! *general nonsensical ranting*

But yeah, what've you got against Mussolini?

P.S. Fasophobe...That sounds like you're afraid of Fass. :p


.......hu?
Dinaverg
18-04-2006, 07:05
.......hu?

You seem to take exceptional offense to the Mussolini comment. You have a prejudice against facism?
The Fallen Dead
18-04-2006, 07:08
You seem to take exceptional offense to the Mussolini comment. You have a prejudice against facism?

No not at all I was mearly making a comment that Undelia seemed to be attecking me instead of trying to show me an error in my statement.
True Being
18-04-2006, 22:36
Hello? Can anyone hear me?...
The thread is about love, not mussolini. Lets try to bring it back into focus.
Galloism
18-04-2006, 22:38
Hello? Can anyone hear me?...
The thread is about love, not mussolini. Lets try to bring it back into focus.

Clearly, you don't understand NS General.
Jenrak
18-04-2006, 22:41
True Love is any love that lasts over a week, in my holy opinion.
Zakanistan
18-04-2006, 22:48
Clearly, you don't understand NS General.

rofl
Mooseica
18-04-2006, 23:07
Wow. And Undelia criticised me for psychoanalysing other people online.

I love the smell of burning boats in the morning... smells like hypocrisy :D
Jenrak
18-04-2006, 23:13
Wow. And Undelia criticised me for psychoanalysing other people online.

I love the smell of burning boats in the morning... smells like hypocrisy :D

Welcome to NS General.
Mooseica
18-04-2006, 23:16
Welcome to NS General.

:p Don't patronise me ol' timer, I'm no new kid.
Katurkalurkmurkastan
18-04-2006, 23:39
True Love is any love that lasts over a week, in my holy opinion.
i'm at four days now, and going strong!
Jenrak
18-04-2006, 23:46
:p Don't patronise me ol' timer, I'm no new kid.

I never said you were. I just like saying 'Welcome to NS General.'
Ashmoria
19-04-2006, 00:00
all love is true love

as long as the person is sincere about it (as opposed to wanting to get into your pants so he'll say anything)
Eutrusca
19-04-2006, 00:09
I guess if you're one of those who don't consider "sand niggers" to be real people it may be hard to grasp why it's murder.

I smell a sitcom.
I smell a dweeb. :p
Sumamba Buwhan
19-04-2006, 00:16
There is no definition for love that is accurate; I don't think it is possible, because as soon as you come up with one, there will be someone who doesn't see it that way -- love is too abstract and can only be known in the heart... not the head.
Dinaverg
19-04-2006, 00:20
There is no definition for love that is accurate; I don't think it is possible, because as soon as you come up with one, there will be someone who doesn't see it that way -- love is too abstract and can only be known in the heart... not the head.

Technically it's still in the head, the heart just pumps blood.
Sumamba Buwhan
19-04-2006, 00:22
Technically it's still in the head, the heart just pumps blood.

Nope, I feel it directly in my heart chakra - thats part of our energy body.
Katurkalurkmurkastan
19-04-2006, 00:22
Technically it's still in the head, the heart just pumps blood.
lol you're such a moodkiller
Dinaverg
19-04-2006, 00:23
lol you're such a moodkiller

Moodmurderer. ^_^
Katurkalurkmurkastan
19-04-2006, 00:26
Moodmurderer. ^_^
see? see? another death at your hands.
Jenrak
19-04-2006, 00:35
Moodmurderer. ^_^

How bland.
Dinaverg
19-04-2006, 00:37
How bland.

Not if you shout it randomly at people walking on the sidewalk.
Jenrak
19-04-2006, 00:39
Not if you shout it randomly at people walking on the sidewalk.

I've tried.

Note that my tone is serious. I am not joking.
Katurkalurkmurkastan
19-04-2006, 00:40
How bland.
what would you prefer? moodrapist?
Dinaverg
19-04-2006, 00:40
I've tried.

Note that my tone is serious. I am not joking.

You obviously didn't sell it.
Neo Kervoskia
19-04-2006, 00:42
I met true love once. She was a bitch so I walked away.
Jenrak
19-04-2006, 00:45
what would you prefer? moodrapist?

Sure. That sounds like it'll hit the money.
Katurkalurkmurkastan
19-04-2006, 00:46
Sure. That sounds like it'll hit the money.
it can certainly be expected to have a more pronounced effect when screamed randomly, than moodmurderer.
RomeW
19-04-2006, 00:56
http://plaatjes.hemisphere.nl/707844.jpg

Points for whoever gets the reference!

LOL! I actually like the song...*runs and hides*
Dinaverg
19-04-2006, 00:56
it can certainly be expected to have a more pronounced effect when screamed randomly, than moodmurderer.

It's in how you pronounce the 'murderer' part.
Dinaverg
19-04-2006, 00:57
LOL! I actually like the song...*runs and hides*

Indeed. *dances*
Pure Metal
19-04-2006, 00:58
Ok for those of you who were part of the long Catholic debate, you knew htis was coming. Anyways, Who on NS thinks that they really know what True Love is. I want to know whos got a real good definition of it. So lets see what the world thinks.
i don't know if love can be defined like that... love is a lot of different things to a lot of different people. what's "true" love for one person might just be a facet of love for another, or not even be considered at all by another still.

i suppose one overarching prerequisite is putting (or at least being willing to put) the one you love before yourself, however that might manifest itself. (i just wrote out a sweet example from my evening with glitziness, but i realised after typing it that nobody will care in the slightest lol :p)
Katurkalurkmurkastan
19-04-2006, 00:59
LOL! I actually like the song...*runs and hides*
What is love? Baby don't hurt me... Baby don't hurt me... no more
The Half-Hidden
19-04-2006, 01:05
“True Love” can not exist as romantic love does not truly exist as we understand it.

Love is a combination of reproductive drives in the brain and a desperate need for individuals to justify their lusts in a society that, while often open about sex, still is, for whatever reason, unappreciative of unemotional attractions. The need to justify pure lust is so strong, that in most, artificial emotions and affections are manufactured and attached to an act that should be no more intimate than any other mutual exchange.
Do you think that all emotions are social constructs?

No, see, on some level you do want to have sex with her.
If not, the emotion you are feeling is admiration, which is the application of the very real emotion of pride to another human being. Sort of like pride to the negative first power.
Why is pride real, but love artificial?

(By real I mean natural, able to exist outside a society.)

Life is something more than just survival. It’s also about finding pleasure.
Hence, love.

Hmm, I have the feeling you’re one of those people who will never accept that most of your emotion are dictated by society. You’re probably somewhat artistic or “unique” in some other way. It’s hard for you to realize just how much everyone around you and their attitudes are affecting you and in what ways.
I agree that emotions are largely created by society, on a deep level of cultural conditioning. I also think that more than most people, artists are acutely aware that their surroundings affect them.

I know this is a thread jack but I'm dying to know; why do you seem to think that capitalism is natural, and not a social construct?

Ok my definition of love:

Love. A very well known emotion and force today.
Love is indeed the most powerful force of all.
But it seems that so many people are confused about what love really is.
Often, love is used by too many teenage guys to get what they want.
Girls seem to fall in love so very often and give in.
Love is seen as wanting someone so much you can't stand it.
That's called love as desire
And it is NOT True love...
Here is a glimpse into what True love really is.
Love is not wanting someone or something.
Love is not just the happy giddy feeling around someone you like.
Love is rare and hard to find.
Not to get this wrong, love has a connection to those.
But it's not everyting...
When you really do love someone,
you want the best for them.
To claim a true love of another means you want their happiness with such passion.
When you truly love someone you'd give almost anything to make them happy and have what's right for them.
It means you'd DIE for them. And they should be willing to do the same.
Love is very hard and doesn't always make you happy.
Here's a question for those who think they are in love.
If you loved him/her and they didn't love you but someone else.
Would you be willing to let them go if it was better for them?
Could you sacrifice all your desires for yourself and let them have their tur happiness?
And the same goes for those who claim to love you.
A guy in love would NEVER ask a girl to give of her body just for so-called love.
True love is unified in marriage and can then be completed in that wonderful act of love called sex.
Such an act outside of this union is more like mutual masturbation.
So the next time you think about saying those three very powerful words
STOP
Do you really care soo much for this person that you'd die for them?
Are you sure that you can trust this person to never hurt you?
Is your love for them a love for good will?
Because True Love is for good will, not desire, not simple physical attraction, not even just becasue of compatibility.
It's the undying desire to see that person happy and well.
The strong and unbending focus on what's right for them.
So guys dont pressure your girlfriends, and girls don't say yes.
Because if he pressures you, and even if you want to,
It doesn't make it right. Sex is sacred.
Use it as it was intended, not for recreation.
Love is the greatest and most dangerous power of all.
And it should not be brought about lightly...
You seem to be fairly misandrist (anti-male). You think that only men are sexual predators, lying to get some ass? Mindless female lust is very real too.

I also don't see why sex can't be for both reproduction and recreation, besides what the Bible/Vatican may say.
Dinaverg
19-04-2006, 01:06
You seem to be fairly misandrist (anti-male). You think that only men are sexual predators, lying to get some ass? Mindless female lust is very real too.

I also don't see why sex can't be for both reproduction and recreation, besides what the Bible/Vatican may say.

You actually read that post?
Katurkalurkmurkastan
19-04-2006, 01:09
You actually read that post?
Moodrapist!!
Dinaverg
19-04-2006, 01:12
Moodrapist!!

Mood-mer-deh-rehr!!!
Katurkalurkmurkastan
19-04-2006, 01:14
Mood-mer-deh-rehr!!!
dammit i can't argue with the slightly increased font size and the extra exclamation. you win.
Katurkalurkmurkastan
19-04-2006, 01:18
Love is not wanting someone or something.
Love is not just the happy giddy feeling around someone you like.
that sounds boring, and the stuff people see sex therapists about. sex is part of love, and true love is still having sex when you're old. otherwise it's defining love as being used to having someone around.
Undelia
19-04-2006, 01:27
Do you think that all emotions are social constructs?
Any that exclusively extend beyond yourself are, such as romantic love.
Why is pride real, but love artificial?
(By real I mean natural, able to exist outside a society.)

You can have pride in yourself independant from the opinions of others.
I know this is a thread jack but I'm dying to know; why do you seem to think that capitalism is natural, and not a social construct?
I do not think capitalism is natural and it certainly takes a society to establish. I support it because it is beneficial to me. If I was shown that communism was better for me personally, then I would embrace that concept, but I have more money than the average person so that is unlikely.
Katurkalurkmurkastan
19-04-2006, 01:38
Any that exclusively extend beyond yourself are, such as romantic love.
you can be angry at yourself, you can be angry at someone else. you can be in love with yourself, you can be in love with someone else. what's the difference?

I do not think capitalism is natural and it certainly takes a society to establish. I support it because it is beneficial to me. If I was shown that communism was better for me personally, then I would embrace that concept, but I have more money than the average person so that is unlikely.
at least you're honest about it. how do you define you personally? you personally in the extreme short-term? if spiderman had tripped the burglary, his uncle would not have been shot. if you gave money to charity, X would not have been on the street with a gun and shot you (for totally random instance, maybe you do give money, it's a royal you, and i doubt you're dead).
Undelia
19-04-2006, 01:42
you can be angry at yourself, you can be angry at someone else. you can be in love with yourself, you can be in love with yourself. what's the difference?
You can’t romantically love yourself, though, not sanely anyway.
at least you're honest about it. how do you define you personally? you personally in the extreme short-term? if spiderman had tripped the burglary, his uncle would not have been shot. if you gave money to charity, X would not have been on the street with a gun and shot you (for totally random instance, maybe you do give money, it's a royal you, and i doubt you're dead).
Which is why I support mild progressive forms of poverty relief. Not too much to create a welfare class, but enough to deter crime and keep the poor from eating the rich. Ideally programs that keep the unemployed, but able bodied, working on public projects are the best.
Katurkalurkmurkastan
19-04-2006, 01:50
You can’t romantically love yourself, though, not sanely anyway.

Which is why I support mild progressive forms of poverty relief. Not too much to create a welfare class, but enough to deter crime and keep the poor from eating the rich. Ideally programs that keep the unemployed, but able bodied, working on public projects are the best.

what's romantic love got to do with it? what does that even mean, candlelight dinners? of course the definition of romance is a social construct, love is not. it's an emotional attachment. all kinds of animals exhibit single-mate lives. we just like to call it true love (at least until it ends in divorce, and then the next one is truer love).

so they have something to do with their lives. what happens when they get sick and can't afford private healthcare? then the family takes care of them, draining family resources, and sending members right back out on the street.
Undelia
19-04-2006, 01:55
what's romantic love got to do with it? what does that even mean, candlelight dinners? of course the definition of romance is a social construct, love is not. it's an emotional attachment. all kinds of animals exhibit single-mate lives. we just like to call it true love (at least until it ends in divorce, and then the next one is truer love).
Romantic love= exclusive love between a man and a women.

Animals that mate for life only do so because of instinct, so they don’t have to find a new mate every season. We humans have no need for this. Potential mates are abundant for anyone half atractive.
what happens when they get sick and can't afford private healthcare?
Then they die. That’s what poor people do. They live shorter, less productive, less pleasurable lives. Sucks to be them, but I’m not one of them. Why should I care?
The Most Holy Dragon
19-04-2006, 01:56
that sounds boring, and the stuff people see sex therapists about. sex is part of love, and true love is still having sex when you're old. otherwise it's defining love as being used to having someone around.


Boring!? It is among the greatest feelings ever in existence. When there is True Love you do not need sex. However, seeing as sex is still a great thing, within true love and within the sacred confines of marriage, sex while in True Love is also among the greatest of feelings.
Katurkalurkmurkastan
19-04-2006, 02:02
Romantic love= exclusive love between a man and a women.
Animals that mate for life only do so because of instinct, so they don’t have to find a new mate every season. We humans have no need for this. Potential mates are abundant for anyone half atractive.
well, given that women have spent the 6000 years prior to 1960 as babymaking machines, i very much doubt instinct plays no part in this. humans have babies because that's what organisms do. an example of free will is the ability to make the conscious choice not to reproduce. true love exists because when your babies take 20 years to grow up, it helps to have dad around to help.


Then they die. That’s what poor people do. They live shorter, less productive, less pleasurable lives. Sucks to be them, but I’m not one of them. Why should I care?
because God/Fate/Universe's quirky sense of humour could have put you in that position?
RomeW
19-04-2006, 02:03
You seem to be fairly misandrist (anti-male). You think that only men are sexual predators, lying to get some ass? Mindless female lust is very real too.

I also don't see why sex can't be for both reproduction and recreation, besides what the Bible/Vatican may say.

He's also extremely condescending and has the misconception that everyone who engages in sex is simply interested in sex, something I can safely say is at least 90% not true.
Katurkalurkmurkastan
19-04-2006, 02:04
Boring!? It is among the greatest feelings ever in existence. When there is True Love you do not need sex. However, seeing as sex is still a great thing, within true love and within the sacred confines of marriage, sex while in True Love is also among the greatest of feelings.
i already think sex outside of true love is among the greatest of feelings! now i can't wait to experience it inside true love!
Ashmoria
19-04-2006, 02:06
no. really

all love is true love

if you think you love someone you love them.

will you love them tomorrow? who knows? maybe you will maybe you wont

but does it make the emotion less real if it doesnt last until the day you die? i dont think so.

having love and TRUE LOVE be the deciding factor in marriage or sex or even going steady is rather short sighted. you can be completely in love with a jerk. as neo kervoskia joked "she was a bitch so i walked away". should you keep on with a bitch because you luuuuuv her? NO!

does "true" love wait? meaning if you wait until you are married for sex it must have been true love? well, no. waiting for sex doesnt mean squat about how long your love will last or how compatible you would be as a spouse for your sweetheart.
Undelia
19-04-2006, 02:19
well, given that women have spent the 6000 years prior to 1960 as babymaking machines, i very much doubt instinct plays no part in this.
Are you saying sex isn't instinct?
[true love exists because when your babies take 20 years to grow up, it helps to have dad around to help.
No, that's one of the reasons society pushes love on us. This kind of obligational is a concept left over from a time when a women couldn't support children on her own. Guess what? These days, she can.
because God/Fate/Universe's quirky sense of humour could have put you in that position?
But those non-existent supernatural forces did not, did they?
Freising
19-04-2006, 02:39
One thing I noticed is that love makes you do more extreme things that you probably wouldn't even do even under the influence of the average drug.

Love is a powerful force.
Undelia
19-04-2006, 02:44
One thing I noticed is that love makes you do more extreme things that you probably wouldn't even do even under the influence of the average drug.

Love is a powerful force.
“Love isn’t blind. It’s retarded.”~ Charlie, Two and a Half Men
RomeW
19-04-2006, 02:47
well, given that women have spent the 6000 years prior to 1960 as babymaking machines

Please. Women's rights didn't "suddenly" appear in 1960- women's rights, just like men's rights, fluctuated throughout history, and usually what rights the common woman had were not that much different than those of the common man. Furthermore, there are countless millions of societies and states throughout history that we know little- if anything- about, meaning that it's impossible to paint them as "patriarchal" when they might not. I should also mention that a lot of these states did have female rulers- certainly an indication that patriarchy wasn't *always* the dominant social theme throughout history.
Tweet Tweet
19-04-2006, 02:52
You cannot put the definition of true love into mere words. Thousands have attempted it, from Shakespeare to Josh Groban, in various languages, and not one person has come closer to what true love really is.

The only way one would now true love, is to be in it. Then, by instinct, you just 'know'.

"Words, words, words"~Pol. Hamlet
Katurkalurkmurkastan
19-04-2006, 02:56
Please. Women's rights didn't "suddenly" appear in 1960- women's rights, just like men's rights, fluctuated throughout history, and usually what rights the common woman had were not that much different than those of the common man. Furthermore, there are countless millions of societies and states throughout history that we know little- if anything- about, meaning that it's impossible to paint them as "patriarchal" when they might not. I should also mention that a lot of these states did have female rulers- certainly an indication that patriarchy wasn't *always* the dominant social theme throughout history.
you confuse women's rights with noble women's rights, which are not by any stretch of the imagination the same. men have always led in society until the last century, scattered matriarchal societies notwithstanding. and matriarchal societies for the most part had to do with protecting the family's interests in the children more than protecting the woman. matriarchal societies are so rare that they are specially commented on when they are discussed.
Katurkalurkmurkastan
19-04-2006, 03:08
No, that's one of the reasons society pushes love on us. This kind of obligational is a concept left over from a time when a women couldn't support children on her own. Guess what? These days, she can.
a woman has always been able to do that, though she might be extremely poor. "it takes a village to raise a child." communities provide for children; having a spouse simply obviates the requirement that one parent depends solely on the village. Thus it is instinctive to find a mate, and we have called this True Love.

But those non-existent supernatural forces did not, did they?
the supernatural powers were metaphor for 'empathy'. since nothing can come of this argument though, that is all.
RomeW
19-04-2006, 03:09
you confuse women's rights with noble women's rights, which are not by any stretch of the imagination the same. men have always led in society until the last century, scattered matriarchal societies notwithstanding. and matriarchal societies for the most part had to do with protecting the family's interests in the children more than protecting the woman. matriarchal societies are so rare that they are specially commented on when they are discussed.

First of all, the common male also had little rights. They were essentially just the "human resources" of the nobles. Women were not the exception.

Second of all, to assert that there was never an Empire or a powerful state that was led by women- anywhere in the world- is an argument from silence. Yes, from what we know there's a long history of male dominance- but what we know comes from a heavily European perspective and was, of course, written by males. There's still much to learn about the world outside of Europe and Asia, and even within Europe and Asia themselves- the Assyrian Annals, for one, are just a smattering of names that scholars know little about, and some of those states *were* ruled by Queens. I would also like to point out the likes of Theodora and Boudicca, strong women who certainly left a mark in Western history, indicating that people of influence weren't always male.
Ladamesansmerci
19-04-2006, 03:10
You cannot put the definition of true love into mere words. Thousands have attempted it, from Shakespeare to Josh Groban, in various languages, and not one person has come closer to what true love really is.

The only way one would now true love, is to be in it. Then, by instinct, you just 'know'.

"Words, words, words"~Pol. Hamlet

So everyone should be able to know innately whether they're in love or not without outside influence? I beg to differ, because many don't een realize they've ever been in love, even if it fits into the traditional definition of love.
Tweet Tweet
19-04-2006, 03:13
So everyone should be able to know innately whether they're in love or not without outside influence? I beg to differ, because many don't een realize they've ever been in love, even if it fits into the traditional definition of love.

But you see, there IS no 'traditional definition of love'. If you don't realize that you have ever been in love, then you obviously haven't ever been in love.
Jenrak
19-04-2006, 03:13
First of all, the common male also had little rights. They were essentially just the "human resources" of the nobles. Women were not the exception.

Second of all, to assert that there was never an Empire or a powerful state that was led by women- anywhere in the world- is an argument from silence. Yes, from what we know there's a long history of male dominance- but what we know comes from a heavily European perspective and was, of course, written by males. There's still much to learn about the world outside of Europe and Asia, and even within Europe and Asia themselves- the Assyrian Annals, for one, are just a smattering of names that scholars know little about, and some of those states *were* ruled by Queens. I would also like to point out the likes of Theodora and Boudicca, strong women who certainly left a mark in Western history, indicating that people of influence weren't always male.

How did it turn from love to this?
Galloism
19-04-2006, 03:14
How did it turn from love to this?

This is NS General(tm).

It needs no explanation.
Ladamesansmerci
19-04-2006, 03:15
But you see, there IS no 'traditional definition of love'. If you don't realize that you have ever been in love, then you obviously haven't ever been in love.

But what applied to you might not apply to everybody else. They might have been in what other people would say was love, and yet feel nothing. They might just have no connection to their emotions. Then are you saying love is subjective? And if so, then subjective love would not exist for some people.
Dinaverg
19-04-2006, 03:16
But what applied to you might not apply to everybody else. They might have been in what other people would say was love, and yet feel nothing. They might just have no connection to their emotions. Then are you saying love is subjective? And if so, then subjective love would not exist for some people.

Sucks for some people then doesn't it?
Tweet Tweet
19-04-2006, 03:17
But what applied to you might not apply to everybody else. They might have been in what other people would say was love, and yet feel nothing. They might just have no connection to their emotions. Then are you saying love is subjective? And if so, then subjective love would not exist for some people.

Love is a feeling. All feelings are subjective. No, the feeling of love may not exist for some people. This is an unexplained phenomena.
Ladamesansmerci
19-04-2006, 03:19
Love is a feeling. All feelings are subjective. No, the feeling of love may not exist for some people. This is an unexplained phenomena.

Therefore, you cannot say definitely that it exists, because it might not exist for everyone. Thus, your entire argument just disintegrated.
Jenrak
19-04-2006, 03:23
This is NS General(tm).

It needs no explanation.

Oh, no. You're not worming your way out of this one.
Tweet Tweet
19-04-2006, 03:24
Therefore, you cannot say definitely that it exists, because it might not exist for everyone. Thus, your entire argument just disintegrated.

My argument was that love cannot be defined. It means something different to everyone it encounters. It may not be a feeling that some recognize, like some people don't recognize fear. It must exist if it exists for some people. It does not have to be accessible to everyone to be real.
Katurkalurkmurkastan
19-04-2006, 03:25
First of all, the common male also had little rights. They were essentially just the "human resources" of the nobles. Women were not the exception.

Second of all, to assert that there was never an Empire or a powerful state that was led by women- anywhere in the world- is an argument from silence. Yes, from what we know there's a long history of male dominance- but what we know comes from a heavily European perspective and was, of course, written by males. There's still much to learn about the world outside of Europe and Asia, and even within Europe and Asia themselves- the Assyrian Annals, for one, are just a smattering of names that scholars know little about, and some of those states *were* ruled by Queens. I would also like to point out the likes of Theodora and Boudicca, strong women who certainly left a mark in Western history, indicating that people of influence weren't always male.
the question is not merely of legal rights. when you think the word Great Leader, what mental image do you think of? the vast majority of people will think of a male figure. this is because males have dominated society, from the militaristic perspective. until the latter part of the last century, it was considered very rare that a woman would become a professor at a university, and even now the sex ratios are often due to affirmative action.

Further, the question was not whether any matriarchal society existed, but whether a significant proportion of the 'countless millions of societies' were matriarchal. granted that lack of evidence is not evidence, it nonetheless is true that since we do not know of any great number, it follows that the majority of societies were patriarchal. certainly the societies that had any great bearing on the course of history in the last four thousand years were male dominated.
Tweet Tweet
19-04-2006, 03:26
Sucks for some people then doesn't it?

Yes. :D
Katurkalurkmurkastan
19-04-2006, 03:27
Love is a feeling. All feelings are subjective. No, the feeling of love may not exist for some people. This is an unexplained phenomena.
it is not a phenomenon at all. it is the urge to raise children and pass on genes. that's all that life is, we just happen to be hyperintelligent and came up with this thing called society. which, incidentally, is a more efficient was of passing on genes.
Katurkalurkmurkastan
19-04-2006, 03:30
My argument was that love cannot be defined. It means something different to everyone it encounters. It may not be a feeling that some recognize, like some people don't recognize fear. It must exist if it exists for some people. It does not have to be accessible to everyone to be real.
this is all kinds of threadjacking, but your logic implies that all kinds of arguments are suddenly settled. Like whether God exists.
Tweet Tweet
19-04-2006, 03:31
it is not a phenomenon at all. it is the urge to raise children and pass on genes. that's all that life is, we just happen to be hyperintelligent and came up with this thing called society. which, incidentally, is a more efficient was of passing on genes.

Are you kidding me? We are not the only animal with a 'society'. And that 'urge' is not love, it is lust. It is a hormonal thing. Love is more emotional, not biological.
Dinaverg
19-04-2006, 03:31
this is all kinds of threadjacking, but your logic implies that all kinds of arguments are suddenly settled. Like whether God exists.

Well, you'd have to show it exists for anyone, not to mention the context was about feelings.
Ladamesansmerci
19-04-2006, 03:32
My argument was that love cannot be defined. It means something different to everyone it encounters. It may not be a feeling that some recognize, like some people don't recognize fear. It must exist if it exists for some people. It does not have to be accessible to everyone to be real.

Either way. It's existence does not depend on whether people claim the feel it or not. They can trick themselves into thinking that. Besides, nobody ever said it could be defined, just like nothing in this world can be truly defined. Define love, define argument, define difference, define feeling, define fear, define recognize, define exist, define people, define real, etc. You get my drift.
Tweet Tweet
19-04-2006, 03:32
this is all kinds of threadjacking, but your logic implies that all kinds of arguments are suddenly settled. Like whether God exists.

You, obviously, have not been in love.
Tweet Tweet
19-04-2006, 03:34
Either way. It's existence does not depend on whether people claim the feel it or not. They can trick themselves into thinking that. Besides, nobody ever said it could be defined, just like nothing in this world can be truly defined. Define love, define argument, define difference, define feeling, define fear, define recognize, define exist, define people, define real, etc. You get my drift.

So all of this philosophy stuff is crap?

Yup. We should impliment Newspeak....
Katurkalurkmurkastan
19-04-2006, 03:34
Well, you'd have to show it exists for anyone, not to mention the context was about feelings.
There is plenty of evidence that God exists, it's just a matter of whether critics believe it.
And since I would argue that religion is in large part a feeling, the statement holds.
Katurkalurkmurkastan
19-04-2006, 03:35
You, obviously, have not been in love.
well we wouldn't know now, would we, since we evidently cannot define it.
Tweet Tweet
19-04-2006, 03:36
There is plenty of evidence that God exists, it's just a matter of whether critics believe it.
And since I would argue that religion is in large part a feeling, the statement holds.

So God is a feeling. Hm, I thought he was some guy who was sitting up on a cloud *smite*ing us all for our misdeeds...
Ladamesansmerci
19-04-2006, 03:36
So all of this philosophy stuff is crap?

Yup. We should impliment Newspeak....

Yes, philosophy is crap, thoughts are crap, emotions are crap, everything that you can't see, smell, taste, hear, or touch is crap. We both know that's not true. We try our best to define things, just like we try our best to define love. It might not be the absolute right definition, but at least it's a guideline for people who doubt whether they are in love or not. So you cannot use love cannot be defined as an argument.
Dinaverg
19-04-2006, 03:38
There is plenty of evidence that God exists, it's just a matter of whether critics believe it.

Again, you'd have to show it.

And since I would argue that religion is in large part a feeling, the statement holds.

Uh-huh...Religion is a concept, a belief system of some sort...I guess I could look for a dictionary, but meh.
Tweet Tweet
19-04-2006, 03:38
Yes, philosophy is crap, thoughts are crap, emotions are crap, everything that you can't see, smell, taste, hear, or touch is crap. We both know that's not true. We try our best to define things, just like we try our best to define love. It might not be the absolute right definition, but at least it's a guideline for people who doubt whether they are in love or not. So you cannot use love cannot be defined as an argument.

AH-hah!

So there IS love, as you are saying that it can be defined!

MWAHAHAHAHA! Yes, the 'W' is much more evil...
RomeW
19-04-2006, 03:38
the question is not merely of legal rights. when you think the word Great Leader, what mental image do you think of? the vast majority of people will think of a male figure. this is because males have dominated society, from the militaristic perspective. until the latter part of the last century, it was considered very rare that a woman would become a professor at a university, and even now the sex ratios are often due to affirmative action.

It is true that Western societies have been male dominated- I do not doubt that. I doubt the idea that there has NEVER been a powerful state anywhere in the world that wasn't led by females. Maybe if I asked Polynesians or anywhere else where there's a matriarchal society they'll tell me the Great Leader is a female- remember, different culture, different perspectives. You're looking at it from your own in the West.

Further, the question was not whether any matriarchal society existed, but whether a significant proportion of the 'countless millions of societies' were matriarchal. granted that lack of evidence is not evidence, it nonetheless is true that since we do not know of any great number, it follows that the majority of societies were patriarchal. certainly the societies that had any great bearing on the course of history in the last four thousand years were male dominated.

Again, argument from silence. You are asserting that because "A" no evidence, then "B" must be true- this is not the case. In places like Britain, Italy or post-colonial North America, you can make a case because there's heavy documentation (although, even here, there's still plenty of women who have achieved great power and influence). In places like pre-colonial Australia/sub-Saharan Africa, etc., you can't, simply because there's not a lot of information there. Obviously, I have no proof of the opposite either, but I'm witholding making any claims without evidence.
Grand Maritoll
19-04-2006, 03:41
Love is the root of all insanity in those who would otherwise be sane.
Ladamesansmerci
19-04-2006, 03:41
AH-hah!

So there IS love, as you are saying that it can be defined!

MWAHAHAHAHA! Yes, the 'W' is much more evil...

I did not say it exists. People have defined many things that have ... debatability in its existance, like the concept of god, for example. Just because it's been defined doesn't mean it's automatically real. Besides, I already established earlier that if it was subjective, then we can NEVER know if it truly exists. You might believe one thing, with me believing the opposite. And we don't even know if that would make a difference in its existance if it was objective. So what I'm saying is put a bit more faith in the human language and intelligence...I can't believe I just said that.
Katurkalurkmurkastan
19-04-2006, 03:45
*snip*
a single powerful empire that nevertheless had very little sway over human history does not invalidate my point. not even in matriarchal societies has it ever before been assumed that a woman could accomplish any task that a man could. outside of the home and certain religious sects there were few tasks that were considered female-only. even if my use of 'ever' has exceptions, they still remain exceptions, with insufficient impact to discredit the idea that women gained (universal) rights in the last century.
Tweet Tweet
19-04-2006, 03:46
I did not say it exists. People have defined many things that have ... debatability in its existance, like the concept of god, for example. Just because it's been defined doesn't mean it's automatically real. Besides, I already established earlier that if it was subjective, then we can NEVER know if it truly exists. You might believe one thing, with me believing the opposite. And we don't even know if that would make a difference in its existance if it was objective. So what I'm saying is put a bit more faith in the human language and intelligence...I can't believe I just said that.

Nor can I. Intelligence? Har Lady. Good joke.
Katurkalurkmurkastan
19-04-2006, 03:48
Again, you'd have to show it.
sure, here's your bible, written by commandment of God.

Uh-huh...Religion is a concept, a belief system of some sort...I guess I could look for a dictionary, but meh.
where do you think religion came from? it was required to explain humans' place in an incredibly large world, and prevent them from feeling inadequate and tiny.
Dinaverg
19-04-2006, 03:52
sure, here's your bible, written by commandment of God.

Huh? This stament seems to offer a millenias old, poorly translated, heavily modified book of undeterminate authorage (that's a word right?) as reasonable evidence for something.

where do you think religion came from? it was required to explain humans' place in an incredibly large world, and prevent them from feeling inadequate and tiny.

Or to explain what that big warm shiny thing in the sky is and why it moves. Besides, you just said it's to prevent them feeling something. Using the word 'feeling' in the sentence doesn't exactly make religion a feeling.
Ladamesansmerci
19-04-2006, 03:55
Nor can I. Intelligence? Har Lady. Good joke.

don't mock me. I truly would have some faith in humanity if the stupid people all dropped dead...
Tweet Tweet
19-04-2006, 03:59
don't mock me. I truly would have some faith in humanity if the stupid people all dropped dead...

But according to that "Bible" thing they'll all come alive again on Judgement Day...

So there's no hope!
Katurkalurkmurkastan
19-04-2006, 04:01
Huh? This stament seems to offer a millenias old, poorly translated, heavily modified book of undeterminate authorage (that's a word right?) as reasonable evidence for something.
i said you probably wouldn't like the evidence. but since the existence of the bible being evidence of God has been presented to me on numerous occasions, i assume it is valid for a large body of the population. and since it is valid for some people, by previously derided logic, it is valid for the entirety.

authorage is a word, but the OED lists its last usage in 1652.

Or to explain what that big warm shiny thing in the sky is and why it moves. Besides, you just said it's to prevent them feeling something. Using the word 'feeling' in the sentence doesn't exactly make religion a feeling.
preventing the feeling of insignificance results in feeling of, at least, adequacy. Religions generally have two components: creation, and rules for living in the creation. The first is the origin of the warm shinyness; the second is why the warm shinyness is much more important than you are, because you are nothing compared to the warm shinyness, but nonetheless the warm shinyness loves you, so you needn't feel like nothingness.
RomeW
19-04-2006, 04:01
a single powerful empire that nevertheless had very little sway over human history does not invalidate my point. not even in matriarchal societies has it ever before been assumed that a woman could accomplish any task that a man could. outside of the home and certain religious sects there were few tasks that were considered female-only. even if my use of 'ever' has exceptions, they still remain exceptions, with insufficient impact to discredit the idea that women gained (universal) rights in the last century.

Of course it could, if it hasn't been documented yet. You have to remember not everyone used writing and not every writing system we know about we can read, nor have we "found" every written document ever made. Proof of a female-led Australian or pre-colonial Canadian Empire may be in the offing and just waiting to be discovered.

You're also dancing around my points about Boudicca, Theodora, Catherine The Great, Joan of Ark, etc. Needless to say, the West hasn't *always* been influenced and/or dominated by males, since women HAVE been able to rise through the societal ranks from time to time, nor were women's rights- and, for that matter, men's rights- static. You've been avoiding my points about commoners- both male AND female- and been fixated on the idea that because men ruled, women were always second-class citizens when, in truth, several women weren't (noblewomen) and many men were. I again highlight:

you confuse women's rights with noble women's rights, which are not by any stretch of the imagination the same.

Which is the same thing I've been saying about the men. I should also point out that there are several cases of "powers behind the throne" being female- meaning that while the legal ruler was male, the *real* ruler was female. An example would be Roxelana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roxelana) and the wives of the later Ottoman Sultans. Women haven't always been oppressed, and they weren't the only ones.
Katurkalurkmurkastan
19-04-2006, 04:18
Of course it could, if it hasn't been documented yet. You have to remember not everyone used writing and not every writing system we know about we can read, nor have we "found" every written document ever made. Proof of a female-led Australian or pre-colonial Canadian Empire may be in the offing and just waiting to be discovered.
no, what i'm trying to point out is that great empires do not suddenly appear. if they existed, someone would have documented them. it turns out the Maya may have been very female-centric. However the Mayan empire did not comprise nearly as many people as other empires in North America, such as the Inca. The reason I say that your argument has no bearing is that in terms of the number of people affected by a given society's standards, we know of all the great societies. If some existed before recorded time, they had absolutely no bearing on the women's rights movement in the 1960s. Thus it is perfectly allowable to dismiss their contribution to the state of women. Even if every society before recorded time were matriarchal, we are still talking about a million humans around the planet.

You're also dancing around my points about Boudicca, Theodora, Catherine The Great, Joan of Ark, etc. Needless to say, the West hasn't *always* been influenced and/or dominated by males, since women HAVE been able to rise through the societal ranks from time to time, nor were women's rights- and, for that matter, men's rights- static. You've been avoiding my points about commoners- both male AND female- and been fixated on the idea that because men ruled, women were always second-class citizens when, in truth, several women weren't (noblewomen) and many men were. I again highlight:
Which is the same thing I've been saying about the men. I should also point out that there are several cases of "powers behind the throne" being female- meaning that while the legal ruler was male, the *real* ruler was female. An example would be and the wives of the later Ottoman Sultans. Women haven't always been oppressed, and they weren't the only ones.
i am not dancing around them, i am simply dismissing them. The women you cite were brilliant, and had to be to survive. They were very much the exception to the rule, not the rule. The role of some women such as Joan of Arc is disputed anyways, since some historians place her as a figurehead, not a leader. She would never have been given command of the army, if it weren't for the fact that the French had already attempted every possible military strategy, and failed. She was burned as a heretic, the official charge being that she masqueraded as a man (apparently there are biblical passages dictating how women may dress).
The Ottomans kept Harems. An elite few were chosen as wives, and they *might* have had some sway over their husband's decisions. The rest might be slept with once, and then never see the man again. Despite whatever protections were afforded to women in Harems, you would be hardpressed to suggest that being kept as a sextoy is an expression of rights.
Grand Maritoll
19-04-2006, 04:19
Love is the root of all insanity in those who would otherwise be sane.

Oops, I got it wrong. It should say ""Love is the root of insanity in those for whom there is no biochemical explanation for that state."

An ambiguous statement...
Dinaverg
19-04-2006, 04:23
i said you probably wouldn't like the evidence. but since the existence of the bible being evidence of God has been presented to me on numerous occasions, i assume it is valid for a large body of the population. and since it is valid for some people, by previously derided logic, it is valid for the entirety.

authorage is a word, but the OED lists its last usage in 1652.

Okay, let me try that again. Is there anything that would suggest that the bible is a dependable source, beyond the bible itself?

preventing the feeling of insignificance results in feeling of, at least, adequacy. Religions generally have two components: creation, and rules for living in the creation. The first is the origin of the warm shinyness; the second is why the warm shinyness is much more important than you are, because you are nothing compared to the warm shinyness, but nonetheless the warm shinyness loves you, so you needn't feel like nothingness.

So religion makes you feel adequate. It's not a feeling of adequacy.
Katurkalurkmurkastan
19-04-2006, 04:25
You've been avoiding my points about commoners- both male AND female- and been fixated on the idea that because men ruled, women were always second-class citizens when, in truth, several women weren't (noblewomen) and many men were.
missed this one. I grew up largely in a peasant village. Men work at dawn in the fields, and then sit in the cafe for the rest of the day, while women look after everything else. Men simply assume the superior role, and let women do the work. This affords women a certain measure of power around the house, but as a woman, that is all she has to look forward to, besides making more babies. I missed the point directly because part of women developing equal rights was the ability to choose any profession, which i discuss elsewhere. since they did not have this ability, with rare exceptions, they were secondclass citizens.
Katurkalurkmurkastan
19-04-2006, 04:29
Okay, let me try that again. Is there anything that would suggest that the bible is a dependable source, beyond the bible itself?
God's word. The priesthood's word. The fact that life is a spectacularly unlikely occurence.

So religion makes you feel adequate. It's not a feeling of adequacy.
religion was invented to make one feel adequate, a feeling of adequacy. that's what i said.
Undelia
19-04-2006, 04:35
The fact that life is a spectacularly unlikely occurence.
I am so sick and tired of hearing this lame argument. Sure, the likelihood of life developing is very low, but you know what? There are at least trillion of planets in the universe!
The priesthood's word
That’s right boys and girls, listen to the priests. Do exactly what they say and believe everything they tell you. They’d never do anything to hurt you.
Katurkalurkmurkastan
19-04-2006, 04:36
i must now turn to exam studying. toodleoo, au revoir, ciao, auf weidersein.
Dinaverg
19-04-2006, 04:36
God's word. The priesthood's word. The fact that life is a spectacularly unlikely occurence.

If you're hearing God, get that checked. I say it's not dependable, and I imagine many others would as well, if all it takes to convince you of something is someone saying it's true. sure it's unlikely, but keep in mind how vast (both space and time wise)the universe is, and even if the chances of life were 10^-1000 it'd probably have happened anyways. Not to mention the fact that, even if it were more likely not to happen, it obviously did. It's like winning the lottery then saying "my chances of winning were so low, it must have been rigged".

religion was invented to make one feel adequate, a feeling of adequacy. that's what i said.

Ice cream makes me feel cold. Ice cream is not a feeling of coldness.
Katurkalurkmurkastan
19-04-2006, 04:39
I am so sick and tired of hearing this lame argument. Sure, the likelihood of life developing is very low, but you know what? There are at least trillion of planets in the universe!
very likely. incidentally, i study evolutionary biology, and am not religious. i merely point out the incredible appreciation for life i have gained, knowing that it is orders of magnitude less likely of occuring than convincing someone on General of an opposing viewpoint.
Galloism
19-04-2006, 04:39
I am so sick and tired of hearing this lame argument. Sure, the likelihood of life developing is very low, but you know what? There are at least trillion of planets in the universe!

[thread hijack]
I have a question about that.

They say that when light exits the universe, it is slowed down and eventually drug back into the universe by the entire universe's gravity. Now, given that that is probably the case (if the universe is finite), how do we know that the stars that we see are not really reflections of stars in the other direction? After all, it could be light that has exited the universe, turned around, and come back - where we just now are seeing it.

So, how do we know the universe is as big as we think it is?
[/thread hijack]
Grainne Ni Malley
19-04-2006, 04:40
I won't pretend to know what true love is, but I'll submit some basic ideas I have about it.

To me true love is where you can accept someone for who he or she is and want to support them even at the cost of great sacrifices to yourself.

You are willing to help them to be the best person they possibly can be without expecting something in return.

You realize the other person's faults and flaws and are able to look past those no matter what to see the good things about that person.

You can disagree about something and even be hurt by that person and still be able to turn around, hug that person and tell that person you will be there for him or her no matter what.
Grand Maritoll
19-04-2006, 04:41
Ice cream makes me feel cold. Ice cream is not a feeling of coldness.

Experiencing ice cream produces a feeling of coldness. Experiencing religion produces a feeling of adequacy. That's how feelings work. They build off of the experience instead of the actual object, like the way vision builds off of reflected light instead of the actual object.
Dinaverg
19-04-2006, 04:43
[thread hijack]
I have a question about that.

They say that when light exits the universe, it is slowed down and eventually drug back into the universe by the entire universe's gravity. Now, given that that is probably the case (if the universe is finite), how do we know that the stars that we see are not really reflections of stars in the other direction? After all, it could be light that has exited the universe, turned around, and come back - where we just now are seeing it.

So, how do we know the universe is as big as we think it is?
[/thread hijack]

The light still traveled at least as far as we think the star is from us. assuming it simply turned around, the universe still has to be at least half that distance wide...
Katurkalurkmurkastan
19-04-2006, 04:43
If you're hearing God, get that checked. I say it's not dependable, and I imagine many others would as well, if all it takes to convince you of something is someone saying it's true. sure it's unlikely, but keep in mind how vast (both space and time wise)the universe is, and even if the chances of life were 10^-1000 it'd probably have happened anyways. Not to mention the fact that, even if it were more likely not to happen, it obviously did. It's like winning the lottery then saying "my chances of winning were so low, it must have been rigged".



Ice cream makes me feel cold. Ice cream is not a feeling of coldness.
oh god i just can't leave this alone. cold is physiology, not emotion. ice cream makes me feel happy. the idea of ice cream is happiness. similarly, the idea of religion makes happiness, not an act of God.

and my point against the first part remains that the original argument that if it is true for some people it is true for everyone is dumb. since for some people there is clearly enough evidence to accept God, it would follow that everyone should accept God. Or Ice Cream, whatever makes you happy.
Undelia
19-04-2006, 04:44
[thread hijack]
I have a question about that.

They say that when light exits the universe, it is slowed down and eventually drug back into the universe by the entire universe's gravity. Now, given that that is probably the case (if the universe is finite), how do we know that the stars that we see are not really reflections of stars in the other direction? After all, it could be light that has exited the universe, turned around, and come back - where we just now are seeing it.

So, how do we know the universe is as big as we think it is?
[/thread hijack]
Interesting. Personally, I’ve been busy considering that it might be bigger than we think.
Evidence of the expanding Universe is seen and scientists say a Big Bang occurred trillions of years ago, “beginning” the Universe, but what if that was just from one single explosion. What if there have been multiple “Big Bangs” at different places in the Universe?
Dinaverg
19-04-2006, 04:44
Experiencing ice cream produces a feeling of coldness. Experiencing religion produces a feeling of adequacy. That's how feelings work. They build off of the experience instead of the actual object, like the way vision builds off of reflected light instead of the actual object.

Okay, but Turkey here said religion was a feeling, like love and boredom.
Katurkalurkmurkastan
19-04-2006, 04:45
[thread hijack]
I have a question about that.

They say that when light exits the universe, it is slowed down and eventually drug back into the universe by the entire universe's gravity. Now, given that that is probably the case (if the universe is finite), how do we know that the stars that we see are not really reflections of stars in the other direction? After all, it could be light that has exited the universe, turned around, and come back - where we just now are seeing it.

So, how do we know the universe is as big as we think it is?
[/thread hijack]
light does not leave the universe. there is nothing outside of the universe. the Big Bang model suggests that both space and time were created with the Bang; the universe was not filling up some kind of space that was already there, it was the space.
Galloism
19-04-2006, 04:46
The light still traveled at least as far as we think the star is from us. assuming it simply turned around, the universe still has to be at least half that distance wide...

Not absolutely. It could pass through the universe multiple times and keep getting pulled back in.
Katurkalurkmurkastan
19-04-2006, 04:46
Okay, but Turkey here said religion was a feeling, like love and boredom.
well what i said was that where it started from, why it exists at all. the rest is in the dictionary you threatened to pull out.
Grand Maritoll
19-04-2006, 04:47
Okay, but Turkey here said religion was a feeling, like love and boredom.

I'll let him defend himself then, because that's not my view.

;)
Galloism
19-04-2006, 04:48
light does not leave the universe. there is nothing outside of the universe. the Big Bang model suggests that both space and time were created with the Bang; the universe was not filling up some kind of space that was already there, it was the space.

That's why I added the "if the universe is finite" clause.
Katurkalurkmurkastan
19-04-2006, 04:49
Interesting. Personally, I’ve been busy considering that it might be bigger than we think.
Evidence of the expanding Universe is seen and scientists say a Big Bang occurred trillions of years ago, “beginning” the Universe, but what if that was just from one single explosion. What if there have been multiple “Big Bangs” at different places in the Universe?
this is alternately part of the Multiverse and Bang Bang Bang theories. in the former, universes should eventually 'collide' and i have no sure idea what happens then. possibly, since the property of matter is defined within a universe only, and may not be the same in other universes, colliding universes would simply not interact. alternately, they blow each other up in a matter-antimatter type reaction.
Bang Bang Bang suggests the universe expands, contracts, expands, contracts.
Xislakilinia
19-04-2006, 04:49
If you're hearing God, get that checked. I say it's not dependable, and I imagine many others would as well, if all it takes to convince you of something is someone saying it's true. sure it's unlikely, but keep in mind how vast (both space and time wise)the universe is, and even if the chances of life were 10^-1000 it'd probably have happened anyways. Not to mention the fact that, even if it were more likely not to happen, it obviously did. It's like winning the lottery then saying "my chances of winning were so low, it must have been rigged".



Ice cream makes me feel cold. Ice cream is not a feeling of coldness.

This part about probability always confuses me. In my country there is a lottery game based on six combinations of 45 numbers. The chance of getting exactly the right combination is 45 to the sixth power, or one in 1 in 8.3 billion. On some days, nobody wins the prize. On occasion though, a few people strikes the same combination. How can this be? We certainly have no where near 8.3 billion contestants.

When the probability of something occurring is so low that it should not even appear, when it does appear, does it mean that the initial probability estimate is wrong? Or do these figures have any significance at all?
Katurkalurkmurkastan
19-04-2006, 04:56
That's why I added the "if the universe is finite" clause.
sorry, i never got that far. light neither slows down nor exits the universe. the universe expands at the speed of light.
Dinaverg
19-04-2006, 04:57
This part about probability always confuses me. In my country there is a lottery game based on six combinations of 45 numbers. The chance of getting exactly the right combination is 45 to the sixth power, or one in 1 in 8.3 billion. On some days, nobody wins the prize. On occasion though, a few people strikes the same combination. How can this be? We certainly have no where near 8.3 billion contestants.

When the probability of something occurring is so low that it should not even appear, when it does appear, does it mean that the initial probability estimate is wrong? Or do these figures have any significance at all?

If the chances are...well, let's make this easy on me. Let's say the chances are 1 in 8. The chance of losing would be 7 in 8. So, the probability of no one winning on a day is .875 (7/8) to the power of the number of people playing. The chances of 3 people winning would be .125^3 times .875^the number of people playing minus three.

Well, that was pointless. Sorry, let me answer the question. No matter how low the probability, if it's not zero, it's possible. You can figure out the probability of a few people winning, assuming they're independent events. My guess is it's a very low number, but it's gonna happen sometimes. If every other day three or four people win though? That's nigh impossible, check for lottery rigging...


P.S. I think I've said absolutely nothing in this post.
Katurkalurkmurkastan
19-04-2006, 04:59
If the chances are...well, let's make this easy on me. Let's say the chances are 1 in 8. The chance of losing would be 7 in 8. So, the probability of no one winning on a day is .875 (7/8) to the power of the number of people playing. The chances of 3 people winning would be .125^3 times .875^the number of people playing minus three.

Well, that was pointless. Sorry, let me answer the question. No matter how low the probability, if it's not zero, it's possible. You can figure out the probability of a few people winning, assuming they're independent events. My guess is it's a very low number, but it's gonna happen sometimes. If every other day three or four people win though? That's nigh impossible, check for lottery rigging...

P.S. I think I've said absolutely nothing in this post.

given that i'm studying for a stats exam, you'd think i could give some kind of better answer. alas...
so, what he said.
Katurkalurkmurkastan
19-04-2006, 05:01
wow I just realized this thread has put me at Sometimes Deadly! yay me and everyone with the patience to haggle!

*hands out pies and cookies*
Maineiacs
19-04-2006, 05:01
The question cannot be answered, as true love does not exist.
Valori
19-04-2006, 05:03
For me personally, true love is keeping my attention. I fall head over heels very quick, however, I also lose interest just as fast. True love for me, will be the woman who manages to give me the "car crash in the stomach feeling" everytime I think about her rather than just the first week.
Galloism
19-04-2006, 05:03
sorry, i never got that far. light neither slows down nor exits the universe. the universe expands at the speed of light.

Interesting theory. However, it stands to reason that, as the universe expands, it would also slow its expansion, as the gravity of the rest of the universe would drag it backwards. Eventually (whether present time or not), the universe's expansion would slow below the speed of light, and light would exit the universe, turn around, and come back.
Katurkalurkmurkastan
19-04-2006, 05:06
Interesting theory. However, it stands to reason that, as the universe expands, it would also slow its expansion, as the gravity of the rest of the universe would drag it backwards. Eventually (whether present time or not), the universe's expansion would slow below the speed of light, and light would exit the universe, turn around, and come back.
All galaxies in the universe are moving away from each other. Hubble's law shows that the speed of separation increases with the separation between the galaxies. not my theory. physics does not stand to reason, it's a major in bashing your head against the wall.
Galloism
19-04-2006, 05:10
All galaxies in the universe are moving away from each other. Hubble's law shows that the speed of separation increases with the separation between the galaxies. not my theory. physics does not stand to reason, it's a major in bashing your head against the wall.

Hmm. Now let's back this up just a second. The speed of light is 186,282 miles per second - based on the position and relative movement of the object which generated it. This means that as the universe expands, it expands at the exact rate of which its outermost systems expand. Thereforre, the light gains the (from our perspective) speed of the outermost systems + 186,282 miles per second. Therefore, the light, at least of the very outermost systems, must exit the universe, only to be pulled back in.
Katurkalurkmurkastan
19-04-2006, 05:14
Hmm. Now let's back this up just a second. The speed of light is 186,282 miles per second - based on the position and relative movement of the object which generated it. This means that as the universe expands, it expands at the exact rate of which its outermost systems expand. Thereforre, the light gains the (from our perspective) speed of the outermost systems + 186,282 miles per second. Therefore, the light, at least of the very outermost systems, must exit the universe, only to be pulled back in.
nothing moves faster than c (which is properly 2.998E8 m/s). Light does not move at 2c if it is ejected from an object moving at c, it is still moving at c. That is a basic tenet of special relativity.
Galloism
19-04-2006, 05:16
nothing moves faster than c (which is properly 2.998E8 m/s). Light does not move at 2c if it is ejected from an object moving at c, it is still moving at c. That is a basic tenet of special relativity.

So, an object moving at c only shines light in one direction?

And on what object do we use as a center point when determining c? After all, all speeds and time (that we use) are based on relative position to a given object.
Xislakilinia
19-04-2006, 05:21
If the chances are...well, let's make this easy on me. Let's say the chances are 1 in 8. The chance of losing would be 7 in 8. So, the probability of no one winning on a day is .875 (7/8) to the power of the number of people playing. The chances of 3 people winning would be .125^3 times .875^the number of people playing minus three.

Well, that was pointless. Sorry, let me answer the question. No matter how low the probability, if it's not zero, it's possible. You can figure out the probability of a few people winning, assuming they're independent events. My guess is it's a very low number, but it's gonna happen sometimes. If every other day three or four people win though? That's nigh impossible, check for lottery rigging...


P.S. I think I've said absolutely nothing in this post.

To be super picky, nothing is impossible. An electron that is supposed to be in my body has a non-zero probability of being somewhere else 10 billion light years away. Of course the probability is vanishingly small. But non-zero nonetheless.

What I'm getting at is, sure, life exists on Earth. That is 100% probability. If we find life often elsewhere in the galaxy, maybe statistics has some meaning. But what if we are the only one planet in the Universe with life? Or two? Which planet was trying to create life anyway? Do the p=0.bunch of zeroes1 values have any meaning at all? If the electron I think is in my body is in fact on Alpha Centauri right now, does it make it any special, or not special?
Katurkalurkmurkastan
19-04-2006, 05:22
So, an object moving at c only shines light in one direction?

And on what object do we use as a center point when determining c? After all, all speeds and time (that we use) are based on relative position to a given object.
it shines in every direction, resulting in the Doppler Effect.

the universe has no centre. relativity exists in relative frames of reference. and don't ask how a universe that originated from a dot has no centre.
Galloism
19-04-2006, 05:25
it shines in every direction, resulting in the Doppler Effect.

the universe has no centre. relativity exists in relative frames of reference. and don't ask how a universe that originated from a dot has no centre.

That seems like a contradiction: the first part, not the second part.

If the star at the edge of the universe is traveling outwards (expanding it), and is shining light in all directions, this means that the light is shining out past the edge of the universe, after which gravity must force it to turn around and come back.
Dinaverg
19-04-2006, 05:29
To be super picky, nothing is impossible. An electron that is supposed to be in my body has a non-zero probability of being somewhere else 10 billion light years away. Of course the probability is vanishingly small. But non-zero nonetheless.

What I'm getting at is, sure, life exists on Earth. That is 100% probability. If we find life often elsewhere in the galaxy, maybe statistics has some meaning. But what if we are the only one planet in the Universe with life? Or two? Which planet was trying to create life anyway? Do the p=0.bunch of zeroes1 values have any meaning at all? If the electron I think is in my body is in fact on Alpha Centauri right now, does it make it any special, or not special?

1) Hence the word "nigh"

2) Us being the only planet with life is unlikey, but it could happen. and I don't think planets "try" much of anything.

But yeah...point exactly?
Dinaverg
19-04-2006, 05:29
That seems like a contradiction: the first part, not the second part.

If the star at the edge of the universe is traveling outwards (expanding it), and is shining light in all directions, this means that the light is shining out past the edge of the universe, after which gravity must force it to turn around and come back.

Do you know how a sonic boom works?
Galloism
19-04-2006, 05:31
Do you know how a sonic boom works?

Yes - a plane passes its own sound, and sound only occurs behind the plane. A plane that is traveling faster than the speed of sound cannot be heard until it is past, due to the fact that sound is traveling slower than the plane is.

Essentially, for all practical purposes, it is only projecting sound in one direction.
Katurkalurkmurkastan
19-04-2006, 05:33
That seems like a contradiction: the first part, not the second part.
like i said, the wonder of physics. it is an extreme example of the different pitch you hear from an ambulance approaching or moving away. it's almost (but not quite) like a jet that moves faster than the sound it makes. the object simply moves as fast as the light it emits.

if you were inside the object and shone a flashlight, you would still think you were illuminating a wall in front of you, and from inside it might seem like the speeds were additive. an observer outside would not be fooled. thus is relativity. don't forget that all kinds of wackiness start happening at the speed of light, such as a complete stop of time.
Dinaverg
19-04-2006, 05:33
Yes - a plane passes its own sound, and sound only occurs behind the plane. A plane that is traveling faster than the speed of sound cannot be heard until it is past, due to the fact that sound is traveling slower than the plane is.

Essentially, for all practical purposes, it is only projecting sound in one direction.

Well, I'm talking about the part where it's travelling right at the speed of sound, along with the sound it's making...big pile-up of sound-pressure in front of it and all? Do that, but with light.
Galloism
19-04-2006, 05:35
Well, I'm talking about the part where it's travelling right at the speed of sound, along with the sound it's making...big pile-up of sound-pressure in front of it and all? Do that, but with light.

So therefore - supposing that somehow you pulled this off against all known physics and whatnot - you actually got out past the furtherest star in the universe in a given direction, and slowed down (relative to the edge of the universe), you would never see the star coming until it slammed right through you?
Dinaverg
19-04-2006, 05:37
So therefore - supposing that somehow you pulled this off against all known physics and whatnot - you actually got out past the furtherest star in the universe in a given direction, and slowed down (relative to the edge of the universe), you would never see the star coming until it slammed right through you?

Yeah, pretty much...well, except for the incomprehensibly hot wave of light in front of it. although since none of it's radiation gets beyond there, it wouldn't melt you to be a few feet away from it.
Galloism
19-04-2006, 05:39
Yeah, pretty much...well, except for the incomprehensibly hot wave of light in front of it. although since none of it's radiation gets beyond there, it wouldn't melt you to be a few feet away from it.

I feel slightly more intelligent.
Katurkalurkmurkastan
19-04-2006, 05:40
So therefore - supposing that somehow you pulled this off against all known physics and whatnot - you actually got out past the furtherest star in the universe in a given direction, and slowed down (relative to the edge of the universe), you would never see the star coming until it slammed right through you?
and by metaphor, you don't see True Love until it slams right into you.

aargh that was weak, but i tried...
Galloism
19-04-2006, 05:41
and by metaphor, you don't see True Love until it slams right into you.

aargh that was weak, but i tried...

You can't make these two thoughts come back together, no matter how hard you try.
Katurkalurkmurkastan
19-04-2006, 05:42
You can't make these two thoughts come back together, no matter how hard you try.
bah, well at least i got the words True Love back in. throw off the Mods' scent...
Galloism
19-04-2006, 05:48
bah, well at least i got the words True Love back in. throw off the Mods' scent...

I think we're done.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/threadslayer.jpg
Dinaverg
19-04-2006, 05:49
I think we're done.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/threadslayer.jpg

So totally PhotoBucket'd.
Xislakilinia
19-04-2006, 06:07
1) Hence the word "nigh"

2) Us being the only planet with life is unlikey, but it could happen. and I don't think planets "try" much of anything.

But yeah...point exactly?

What I'm saying is that even if we are the only planet in the Universe with life, this can't be used as an argument for special creation. Because if it was all preordained, then the prob of life in the Universe would be 100%. Not zero-point-zero-recurring-one.

Besides, rare doesn't mean special anyway. Maybe like every other planet starts with ingredients suitable for life, but our current Universe is so against the establishment of living systems, that only one out of two trillion worlds make it.

The Universe could be strongly against life, rather than supportive of it.
Dinaverg
19-04-2006, 06:09
What I'm saying is that even if we are the only planet in the Universe with life, this can't be used as an argument for special creation. Because if it was all preordained, then the prob of life in the Universe would be 100%. Not zero-point-zero-recurring-one.

Besides, rare doesn't mean special anyway. Maybe like every other planet starts with ingredients suitable for life, but our current Universe is so against the establishment of living systems, that only one out of two trillion worlds make it.

The Universe could be strongly against life, rather than supportive of it.

Umm...yeah...Why you telling me this?
RomeW
19-04-2006, 08:04
no, what i'm trying to point out is that great empires do not suddenly appear. if they existed, someone would have documented them. it turns out the Maya may have been very female-centric. However the Mayan empire did not comprise nearly as many people as other empires in North America, such as the Inca. The reason I say that your argument has no bearing is that in terms of the number of people affected by a given society's standards, we know of all the great societies. If some existed before recorded time, they had absolutely no bearing on the women's rights movement in the 1960s. Thus it is perfectly allowable to dismiss their contribution to the state of women. Even if every society before recorded time were matriarchal, we are still talking about a million humans around the planet.

First of all, what makes a society "great"? What parameters are we talking about here? "Great" is one of those ambiguous terms that needs an application from the utterer before it gains any meaning. Most likely, in this context, "great societies" means those societies which we view as having contributed to Western development- i.e., Egypt, Israel, Babylon, Rome, Christendom, Britain, the US, etc.- because Western history is, after all, ultimately interested in Western history. This is why the bulk of our historical information is based upon these places, and information on places like Great Zimbabwe and the Olmecs are scant, because both contributed very little to Western civilization. To the Westerners' credit, they're starting to research the pre-colonial world a little more and are starting to understand it a little better, but there's still a lot left to be learned. Like I said, one day we may discover the presence of a 600-year female Australian Empire that could be comparable in stature to Rome- just because we haven't heard of it yet doesn't mean that we won't find out about it.

Regardless, you're assuming that the study of history is essentially complete. This is FAR from the case. In fact, it'll never be done- history always happens.

i am not dancing around them, i am simply dismissing them. The women you cite were brilliant, and had to be to survive. They were very much the exception to the rule, not the rule. The role of some women such as Joan of Arc is disputed anyways, since some historians place her as a figurehead, not a leader. She would never have been given command of the army, if it weren't for the fact that the French had already attempted every possible military strategy, and failed. She was burned as a heretic, the official charge being that she masqueraded as a man (apparently there are biblical passages dictating how women may dress). The Ottomans kept Harems. An elite few were chosen as wives, and they *might* have had some sway over their husband's decisions. The rest might be slept with once, and then never see the man again. Despite whatever protections were afforded to women in Harems, you would be hardpressed to suggest that being kept as a sextoy is an expression of rights.

Regarding the Ottomans- slaves in the Muslim world DID in fact have rights. Slaves were required to be well-treated by their slave owners, they were allowed to sue their owners and act as witnesses, and they were given property rights. Muslim slaves were not the same as their Atlantic brethren, who were mistreated and oppressed.

I will finish by saying that I do not intend on diminishing the role of the Civil Rights' movement of the 1960s or the women's rights movements throughout the 20th century- there *were* injustices that needed to be sorted out and still need to be sorted out, because what the society believed in (equality and liberty) contradicted the reality. What I am contending is the belief that these injustices *always* happened in history and were only corrected recently- this is a common misconception and wildly inaccurate. Since our values change, what "repression" means also changes, and furthermore, even by our own standards, there were periods when it didn't happen. If Catherine the Great was able to be one of Russia's most successful and well-received monarchs, if Boudicca could have been a thorn in the Romans' side and if Agrippina could have successfully orchestrated the ascension of her son Nero to the Roman throne, there *had* to have been periods when society tolerated powerful women. Thus, the case cannot be made that female oppression was *always* there because it plainly wasn't.

EDIT: This is an odd thread. Should we ask that this gets split into several different topics?
Zatarack
19-04-2006, 08:12
How did we get here?
Galloism
19-04-2006, 08:14
How did we get here?

Some say creation; some say evolution.

Oh you meant the thread? An interesting bout from true love, to the vastness of the universe, to creation, back to the vastness of the universe, and then physics, and then back to true love.
Zatarack
19-04-2006, 08:16
Some say creation; some say evolution.

Oh you meant the thread? An interesting bout from true love, to the vastness of the universe, to creation, back to the vastness of the universe, and then physics, and then back to true love.

And the debates on history?
Galloism
19-04-2006, 08:16
And the debates on history?

Not sure where those came from. I wasn't participating in that subsection of the thread.
Zatarack
19-04-2006, 08:20
Not sure where those came from. I wasn't participating in that subsection of the thread.

How many subsections are there?
Galloism
19-04-2006, 08:21
How many subsections are there?

3 or 4.

Goodnight - I must sleep.
Ellanesse
19-04-2006, 08:27
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10737613&postcount=42

I posted it here, and it's just too much to retype :)
That's what I feel is the best way to explain it. Hope it's clear.
RomeW
19-04-2006, 08:56
And the debates on history?

I admit, I started it. Katurkalurkmurkastan stated that women had always been oppressed and I stated that isn't the case. I think I've let it fester for too long- hence why I think it should be split.

I don't know. This thread has mutated quite wildly.
True Being
20-04-2006, 00:21
I admit, I started it. Katurkalurkmurkastan stated that women had always been oppressed and I stated that isn't the case. I think I've let it fester for too long- hence why I think it should be split.

I don't know. This thread has mutated quite wildly.


Indeed, this thread has reached far off from its origianl intent as this is my third attempt to redirect the thread back towards true love. So lets try to stay focused here.