Community Thread - Printable Version +- Music Talk Board (https://www.musictalkboard.com) +-- Forum: Off Topic (https://www.musictalkboard.com/forum-16.html) +--- Forum: General Discussion (https://www.musictalkboard.com/forum-30.html) +--- Thread: Community Thread (/thread-292.html) Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
|
RE: 2 pÉÂÇÂɹɥʇ ʎʇıunɯɯoɆ- crazysam23 - 03-27-2014 (03-27-2014, 03:06 AM)JoelCarli Wrote:The phrase is "hard work". What I mean is, people don't always feel like they love someone. But if they and the other person work at it, then it pays off. Love is odd, in that it's the one emotion that isn't always expressed in an emotional way. Sometimes, it's just sticking it out through all the bullshit, man.(03-27-2014, 01:58 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: I was mostly using that phrase to regard someone you'd consider marrying.Mhm, I assumed that's likely what you meant after I posted. Honestly though, I think you're letting a lot of your past color your outlook. Love nihilism might be ok for you. But such an outlook may be unhealthy. (I'm not going to bother judging your mental state in this matter, as that'd be rather presumptuous. I'm just saying, be careful with how you see it and recognize how it may or may not color your actions.) (03-27-2014, 03:06 AM)JoelCarli Wrote: I doubt even a mother can consistently love her child after he or she spits in her face enough times.You'd be surprised. (03-27-2014, 03:06 AM)JoelCarli Wrote: I sure as hell have endured a lot of crap and have lost the ability to give a shit about the other person, whom I once thought I loved unconditionally.Well, you did love them unconditionally. But the saying goes, "Don't throw pearls to swine". In other words, if someone's not being receptive towards your loving actions (romantic or platonic), then it isn't worth your effort. That doesn't mean you don't love the person. It just means that you couldn't keep throwing yourself out there. If your emotional health suffers for your efforts, then it's not worth it. (03-27-2014, 03:06 AM)JoelCarli Wrote: And concepts like "compassion" and "empathy" are not "love", as far as I can tell. I still don't get why people call them love, when they're compassion and empathy. Yes, they are definitely important, perhaps two of the most important aspects to humanity, but when I donate to the blood drive, I most often don't/can't love the person I'm donating to, clearly, because I most likely don't even know them. I do it out of compassion and moral duty, because I should. Then there's also the cynicism that comes into the picture.I would say that love can sometimes be expressed in acts of compassion or empathy. But love is NOT compassion or empathy. I can give my kidney for my father, because I love him. But I could also give my kidney to a stranger, because of compassion and moral duty. (03-27-2014, 03:06 AM)JoelCarli Wrote:No, I think I understand...at least, partially. When people you love hurt you, it feels a lot worse than if someone random dude off the street hurts you. You value the opinion of someone you love a lot more. You care about how they think and feel about you. And it scars you when they don't show something reciprocal.(03-27-2014, 01:58 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: Most of that is true. BUT don't let yourself get too jaded by your experiences and the loose way people treat love. I've found that a lot of people grow out of treating love that way. There's always a rare few who never treat love that way, too.Of course. This is why, though, I mentioned a person you are 100% certain are legit and are for keeps, but then winds up becoming the greatest disappointment you've ever had. Not that I want to be a downer or despair-mongerer to anybody here, certainly not. (03-27-2014, 03:06 AM)JoelCarli Wrote:Really nothing wrong with that. I know society acts like there is. But there's not. If you're happier being single, be single!(03-27-2014, 01:58 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: Of course, everyone changes. The key is working at it to keep going (romantically or in a platonic sense), despite the changes. And that takes effort on the part of both people. If the other person isn't willing to extend that effort, well...you did your part...hrug:Of course. I already didn't really care for a relationship before I was screwed over (by a platonic love, mind you), though, so it's not really a big deal that I don't want to have a significant other. If I could be this era's artistic and perhaps philosophical analogue to Tesla (hopefully minus the whole someone-rips-me-off-and-gets-all-the-credit part), I'd be OK with that. Glory over romance. (03-27-2014, 03:06 AM)JoelCarli Wrote: Heck, as weird as it sounds, I'm not sure I'd even want a sexual relationship with a significant other if I ever get one. Simply because of the way people treat love and sex, I sometimes feel that a sexual relationship with someone I love would somehow 'tarnish' my relationship with them, or, best-case scenario, equate them with everyone else I've ever slept with or been in a relationship in, even those I may currently hate (the "I" in this case refers to anybody, not me specifically. I've never had a girlfriend or sexual congress, nor do I like saying I "hate" anybody). Yeah. Go figure. Even I'm not sure I "get" my reasoning.Well...it's kind of hard to have a romantic relationship with someone without any physical intimacy. Women really feel that kind of thing more than us men. (Even though, a lot of girls just disregard that feeling by sleeping around.) In a significant other type of relationship, if there's no physical signs of affection...that can make your significant other feel pretty shitty. Like they're not good enough. So, I get what you're saying. Just, it's not just about you, when it comes to a romantic relationship. The other person will probably need some sort of physical validation. hrug: As I said before though, there's nothing wrong with being single either. RE: 2 pÉÂÇÂɹɥʇ ʎʇıunɯɯoɆ- JCizzle - 03-27-2014 (03-27-2014, 03:35 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: The phrase is "hard work". What I mean is, people don't always feel like they love someone. But if they and the other person work at it, then it pays off. Love is odd, in that it's the one emotion that isn't always expressed in an emotional way. Sometimes, it's just sticking it out through all the bullshit, man.Someone who doesn't love another person will not put in the effort for them, precisely because they don't love them. Instead, they usually say "sorry, it's not working" and move on. I'm probably just being pessimistic/cynical at this point, though. (03-27-2014, 03:35 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: Honestly though, I think you're letting a lot of your past color your outlook. Love nihilism might be ok for you. But such an outlook may be unhealthy. (I'm not going to bother judging your mental state in this matter, as that'd be rather presumptuous. I'm just saying, be careful with how you see it and recognize how it may or may not color your actions.)Definitely. I can't not allow my past to color my outlook to at least a certain degree, or else I wouldn't learn from my mistakes. It's okay, I don't take it personally. I certainly don't "like" love nihilism. At all, even. It's just what I've concluded. (03-27-2014, 03:35 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: You'd be surprised.I'm open to that possibility. Though the phrase "you are no longer my son" is a famous one. Apparently many people who come out of the closet wind up hearing it, for example. (03-27-2014, 03:35 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: Well, you did love them unconditionally. But the saying goes, "Don't throw pearls to swine". In other words, if someone's not being receptive towards your loving actions (romantic or platonic), then it isn't worth your effort. That doesn't mean you don't love the person. It just means that you couldn't keep throwing yourself out there. If your emotional health suffers for your efforts, then it's not worth it.It was not unconditionally then, by definition. I don't love them anymore. In fact, they're the closest I've gotten to truly hating somebody. The biggest reason the whole thing messed me up royally is precisely because she once was extremely receptive, then closed off suddenly, without explanation for over a year and a half, and even then it's not as satisfying as I had hoped (I still am incredibly skeptical of her). But I digress, I'll take what I can get. (03-27-2014, 03:35 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: I would say that love can sometimes be expressed in acts of compassion or empathy. But love is NOT compassion or empathy. I can give my kidney for my father, because I love him. But I could also give my kidney to a stranger, because of compassion and moral duty.Of course. This is essentially what I'm saying. (03-27-2014, 01:58 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: No, I think I understand...at least, partially. When people you love hurt you, it feels a lot worse than if someone random dude off the street hurts you. You value the opinion of someone you love a lot more. You care about how they think and feel about you. And it scars you when they don't show something reciprocal.Basically you said that there are people you want to have around because they actually care about you... I pretty much retorted that I can only be skeptical of everyone. (03-27-2014, 01:58 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: Really nothing wrong with that. I know society acts like there is. But there's not. If you're happier being single, be single!That's one thing that scares me, though. I'm just afraid that when I reach 40, still a celibate, I'll feel like I've wasted my life because I could have spent it with a special someone (okay, maybe not intrinsically special, anyway). Maybe, despite the fact that I'll have friends and family, a life of mostly just making music and art doesn't turn out to be what I expected. Grass is greener and what not, you know? (03-27-2014, 01:58 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: Well...it's kind of hard to have a romantic relationship with someone without any physical intimacy.I don't really see why though. The girl who hurt me has been in a long-distance relationship for nearly as long as I've known her, which is longer than pretty much any short-distance relationship I've seen on behalf of my friends and colleagues. In fact, she's told me she doesn't even like physical contact (which is one reason I'm skeptical of her, unless she's a rare type like me). Even then, intimacy doesn't even really exist (yet another criticism on my part about relationships). What with easy-access porn completely obliterating the whole point of intimacy, and how everyone and their mothers (especially their mothers) feels the need to talk about their sex life publicly. Even though I really couldn't give less than half a shit about it and certainly would rather not know. (03-27-2014, 01:58 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: Women really feel that kind of thing more than us men. (Even though, a lot of girls just disregard that feeling by sleeping around.) In a significant other type of relationship, if there's no physical signs of affection...that can make your significant other feel pretty shitty.Good thing I'm cool with cuddling. (03-27-2014, 01:58 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: Like they're not good enough.That's what I'm saying. They're just like everyone else you've ever had a physical relationship with, including those you now resent. In a way, it would make more sense if we all had sex with everyone but our significant others (and our family, ideally). There would be no jealousy, and looks (something we are born with and have little control over) would really not be a big deal. Plus, people would cheat less. (03-27-2014, 01:58 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: So, I get what you're saying. Just, it's not just about you, when it comes to a romantic relationship. The other person will probably need some sort of physical validation. hrug:Of course not, but I think many people inadvertently see it that way. They look for a significant other to get something out of it, not to give in everything. (03-27-2014, 01:58 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: As I said before though, there's nothing wrong with being single either.Of course. I'm my college's Dalai Lama :3 RE: 2 pÉÂÇÂɹɥʇ ʎʇıunɯɯoɆ- Danjo - 03-27-2014 Your quoting has escalated quickly. Although I'm admittedly inexperienced is such matters, I would say that theres a huge difference in the physical relationship of a couple which is mostly physical, and the physical relationship of a couple that is actually dedicated to the other person. Having sex because you love the person as opposed to just because its fun. RE: 2 pÉÂÇÂɹɥʇ ʎʇıunɯɯoɆ- crazysam23 - 03-27-2014 (03-27-2014, 04:29 AM)JoelCarli Wrote:Yes...that's the flipside to it. Most people don't want to do the work. They want to feel good without having to do any work.(03-27-2014, 03:35 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: The phrase is "hard work". What I mean is, people don't always feel like they love someone. But if they and the other person work at it, then it pays off. Love is odd, in that it's the one emotion that isn't always expressed in an emotional way. Sometimes, it's just sticking it out through all the bullshit, man.Someone who doesn't love another person will not put in the effort for them, precisely because they don't love them. Instead, they usually say "sorry, it's not working" and move on. (03-27-2014, 04:29 AM)JoelCarli Wrote:Yeah. Agreed.(03-27-2014, 03:35 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: Honestly though, I think you're letting a lot of your past color your outlook. Love nihilism might be ok for you. But such an outlook may be unhealthy. (I'm not going to bother judging your mental state in this matter, as that'd be rather presumptuous. I'm just saying, be careful with how you see it and recognize how it may or may not color your actions.)Definitely. I can't not allow my past to color my outlook to at least a certain degree, or else I wouldn't learn from my mistakes. (03-27-2014, 04:29 AM)JoelCarli Wrote: It's okay, I don't take it personally. I don't "like" love nihilism. At all, even. It's just what I've concluded.Fair enough. (03-27-2014, 04:29 AM)JoelCarli Wrote:Yeah, I'm not saying parents always are what they should be. But there's a lot of examples of parents who take absolute fucking abuse from their kids and still love them.(03-27-2014, 03:35 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: You'd be surprised.I'm open to that possibility. (03-27-2014, 04:29 AM)JoelCarli Wrote:They do say love and hate are two sides of the same coin. It's very easy to turn from one to the other. So, I don't blame you.(03-27-2014, 03:35 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: Well, you did love them unconditionally. But the saying goes, "Don't throw pearls to swine". In other words, if someone's not being receptive towards your loving actions (romantic or platonic), then it isn't worth your effort. That doesn't mean you don't love the person. It just means that you couldn't keep throwing yourself out there. If your emotional health suffers for your efforts, then it's not worth it.It was not unconditionally then, by definition. I don't love them anymore. In fact, they're the closest I've gotten to truly hating somebody. (03-27-2014, 04:29 AM)JoelCarli Wrote: The biggest reason the whole thing messed me up royally is precisely because she once was extremely receptive, then closed off suddenly, without explanation for over a year and a half, and even then it's not as satisfying as I had hoped (I still am incredibly skeptical of her). But I digress, I'll take what I can get.The bolded is probably a good step, man. Also, I would maintain a certain level of skepticism towards her, because you do need to make sure it's not all give on your part and all take on hers. (03-27-2014, 04:29 AM)JoelCarli Wrote:Cool. Just making sure we were on the same page.(03-27-2014, 03:35 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: I would say that love can sometimes be expressed in acts of compassion or empathy. But love is NOT compassion or empathy. I can give my kidney for my father, because I love him. But I could also give my kidney to a stranger, because of compassion and moral duty.Of course. This is essentially what I'm saying. (03-27-2014, 04:29 AM)JoelCarli Wrote:I would venture to guess that the reason you're skeptical is because of this friend you've talked about. And I can understand that attitude. But I'd advise you to be cautious and not take that kind of attitude too far.(03-27-2014, 01:58 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: No, I think I understand...at least, partially. When people you love hurt you, it feels a lot worse than if someone random dude off the street hurts you. You value the opinion of someone you love a lot more. You care about how they think and feel about you. And it scars you when they don't show something reciprocal.Basically you said that there are people you want to have around because they actually care about you... I pretty much retorted that I can only be skeptical of everyone. I guess...try not to let it twist your view towards other people too much. I mean, let the actions of others speak for them, without any preconceived bias on your part judging them beforehand. Your skepticism makes perfect sense toward this friend of yours, but don't let that spread to how you view other people. (03-27-2014, 04:29 AM)JoelCarli Wrote:Well...you have to make a choice. Do you risk loving (and getting hurt, again)? Or are you content with being single?(03-27-2014, 01:58 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: Really nothing wrong with that. I know society acts like there is. But there's not. If you're happier being single, be single!That's one thing that scares me, though. I'm just afraid that when I reach 40, still a celibate, I'll feel like I've wasted my life because I could have spent it with a special someone (okay, maybe not intrinsically special, anyway). Maybe, despite the fact that I'll have friends and family, a life of mostly just making music and art doesn't turn out to be what I expected. Grass is greener and what not, you know? By that second question, I don't mean, "are you comfortable?" or "does being single cause you the least amount of fear?". I mean, could you see yourself as truly content with the single life? For myself, I don't think I could say yes, and I have respect for people who truly can say yes. By the way, you have time to make this choice. Don't stress out about it now. Take things slow. Deal with Joel and Joel's goals for now. That may seem a bit selfish, but sometimes you have to focus on yourself. You can't really decide if you want to share an important part of yourself with someone (romantically or in the platonic sense), if you're not decided on what you partially see. (03-27-2014, 04:29 AM)JoelCarli Wrote:I'm sure that, when her boyfriend is around, they both do at least minor things, like holding hands or kissing. Those things can be a form of physical intimacy, though they aren't always so. Sex is hardly the ONLY form of physical intimacy.(03-27-2014, 01:58 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: Well...it's kind of hard to have a romantic relationship with someone without any physical intimacy.I don't really see why though. (03-27-2014, 04:29 AM)JoelCarli Wrote: The girl who hurt me has been in a long-distance relationship for nearly as long as I've known her, which is longer than pretty much any short-distance relationship I've seen on behalf of my friends and colleagues. In fact, she's told me she doesn't even like physical contact (which is one reason I'm skeptical of her, unless she's a rare type like me).Well...that may be something personal on her end. I can't say; I don't know her. I won't try to judge that. hrug: But I can see how that would be a point of skepticism for you... (03-27-2014, 04:29 AM)JoelCarli Wrote: Even then, intimacy doesn't even really exist (yet another criticism on my part about relationships). What with easy-access porn completely obliterating the whole point of intimacy, and how everyone and their mothers (especially their mothers) feels the need to talk about their sex life publicly. Even though I really couldn't give less than half a shit about it and certainly would rather not know.In a way, I suspect the people who have to tell EVERYONE about "how they fucked this one chick" or "how they and their boyfriend did this move last night" are probably searching for true intimacy and not finding it. Imho, intimate details (sexual or not) should remain private between oneself and one's significant other. It's not for everyone else. And it ruins it when you drag it out for everyone, as if there's some need for popular validation of one's actions. That's the reason that I and my fiancee are the only ones who know about certain details of our relationship. It's no one else's business. All of that said, just because it seems like everyone else is basically ruining any potential intimacy they have/had, that does not mean you have to do that. If you decide to enter a relationship with someone, you two should find your own boundaries in regards to what you tell others about your relationship. That should obviously be something that preserves the sense of intimacy for both of you. I just don't think it preserves intimacy very well if you're telling everyone what sex positions you tried out and every other damn detail. (03-27-2014, 04:29 AM)JoelCarli Wrote:lol(03-27-2014, 01:58 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: Women really feel that kind of thing more than us men. (Even though, a lot of girls just disregard that feeling by sleeping around.) In a significant other type of relationship, if there's no physical signs of affection...that can make your significant other feel pretty shitty.Good thing I'm cool with cuddling. (03-27-2014, 04:29 AM)JoelCarli Wrote:I don't follow. Shouldn't, if one is seeking true intimacy with one's significant other, it be that the significant other is the only person one has sex with? What I'm getting at is that there's a deeper emotional connection under such circumstances. It's not "just sex" under those conditions. It goes a bit deeper than that.(03-27-2014, 01:58 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: Like they're not good enough.That's what I'm saying. They're just like everyone else you've ever had a physical relationship with, including those you now resent. In a way, it would make more sense if we all had sex with everyone but our significant other (and our family, ideally). I'm not condemning having sex because you want sex. (That would be judgmental and make me an asshole.) But I am saying that, in a committed romantic relationship, it feels deeper. (03-27-2014, 04:29 AM)JoelCarli Wrote:Well, look at how their relationships are...is there any true sense of love in their relationships? My point is, there needs to be more give than take. Otherwise, it's not love, it's just selfishness.(03-27-2014, 01:58 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: So, I get what you're saying. Just, it's not just about you, when it comes to a romantic relationship. The other person will probably need some sort of physical validation. hrug:Of course not, but I think many people inadvertently see it that way. They look for a significant other to get something out of it, not to give in everything. (03-27-2014, 04:29 AM)JoelCarli Wrote::lol:(03-27-2014, 01:58 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: As I said before though, there's nothing wrong with being single either.Of course. I'm my college's Dalai Lama :3 (03-27-2014, 04:38 AM)Danjo Wrote: Although I'm admittedly inexperienced is such matters, I would say that theres a huge difference in the physical relationship of a couple which is mostly physical, and the physical relationship of a couple that is actually dedicated to the other person. Having sex because you love the person as opposed to just because its fun.Well said, Danjo. Well said! RE: 2 pÉÂÇÂɹɥʇ ʎʇıunɯɯoɆ- ln cognition - 03-27-2014 (03-27-2014, 01:44 AM)JoelCarli Wrote: (...) the sexual revolution pretty much ultimately screwed up society from a romantic standpoint (not that it didn't bring some good things, but it's comparable to Nazi Germany being responsible for Fanta and Volkswagen).Wow... I won't even enter the rest of the discussion here, but wow. Nazi Germany was not responsible for Fanta, a german (during the third reich, yes) division of Coka-Cola was. RE: 2 pÉÂÇÂɹɥʇ ʎʇıunɯɯoɆ- Danjo - 03-27-2014 (03-27-2014, 01:11 PM)ln cognition Wrote:(03-27-2014, 01:44 AM)JoelCarli Wrote: (...) the sexual revolution pretty much ultimately screwed up society from a romantic standpoint (not that it didn't bring some good things, but it's comparable to Nazi Germany being responsible for Fanta and Volkswagen).Wow... Because they couldn't have coke, because of the Nazis. So if the Nazis hadn't existed, Fanta wouldn't have been invented. RE: 2 pÉÂÇÂɹɥʇ ʎʇıunɯɯoɆ- Grungie - 03-27-2014 So after whoring out that we reached 30k posts, apparently it's unusual that we have that many posts with only 68 members registered. I guess it's because we're pretty active compared to other forums, and also how I purge a lot of spambots, unlike most forums. RE: 2 pÉÂÇÂɹɥʇ ʎʇıunɯɯoɆ- Danjo - 03-27-2014 And its not like 68 people even post, haha. There are only like 10 of us with more than a couple hundred posts. I think we've already been over the fact that our forum is unusually active for its size. Probably helped greatly by the fact that there aren't many rules so we can all come in and bullshit and be friends. RE: 2 pÉÂÇÂɹɥʇ ʎʇıunɯɯoɆ- ln cognition - 03-27-2014 (03-27-2014, 03:03 PM)Danjo Wrote: Because they couldn't have coke, because of the Nazis. So if the Nazis hadn't existed, Fanta wouldn't have been invented.Yes, but that doesn't make them responsible for it's existence, just a contributing factor. RE: 2 pÉÂÇÂɹɥʇ ʎʇıunɯɯoɆ- Danjo - 03-27-2014 A big contributing factor. Not that having fanta in the world really makes a difference though. |