Music Talk Board
Community Thread - Printable Version

+- Music Talk Board (http://www.musictalkboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic (http://www.musictalkboard.com/forum-16.html)
+--- Forum: General Discussion (http://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


RE: 2 pɐǝɹɥʇ ʎʇıunɯɯoɔ - crazysam23 - 03-27-2014

(03-27-2014, 03:06 AM)JoelCarli Wrote:
(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.

Still, I feel that, because I don't believe in soul mates, relationships are ultimately empty and don't objectively or inherently "mean" anything. Which is really depressing when you think about it. Love comes in small doses and is ephemeral. Love nihilism, so to speak. Yes, it might happen that you find love that lasts, but that's just sheer luck with some external factors.
The phrase is "hard work". Tongue 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.

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:
(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.

And the really loving people -- the ones you want to keep around, so to speak (romantic or platonic or even family) -- will never treat you that way.
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.
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, 03:06 AM)JoelCarli Wrote:
(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...Confusedhrug:
Just try not to let your past experiences keep you from future happiness. Easier said than done, right? But you'll be happier in the long run if you can learn to do that.
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.
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, 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. Confusedhrug:

As I said before though, there's nothing wrong with being single either.


RE: 2 pɐǝɹɥʇ ʎʇıunɯɯoɔ - JCizzle - 03-27-2014

(03-27-2014, 03:35 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: The phrase is "hard work". Tongue 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. Confusedhrug:
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 pɐǝɹɥʇ ʎʇıunɯɯoɔ - 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 pɐǝɹɥʇ ʎʇıunɯɯoɔ - crazysam23 - 03-27-2014

(03-27-2014, 04:29 AM)JoelCarli Wrote:
(03-27-2014, 03:35 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: The phrase is "hard work". Tongue 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.
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, 04:29 AM)JoelCarli Wrote:
(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.
Yeah. Agreed.

(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:
(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.
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, 04:29 AM)JoelCarli Wrote:
(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.
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, 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:
(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.
Cool. Just making sure we were on the same page.

(03-27-2014, 04:29 AM)JoelCarli Wrote:
(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 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.
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:
(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?
Well...you have to make a choice. Do you risk loving (and getting hurt, again)? Or are you content with being single?
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:
(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.
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, 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. Confusedhrug:

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:
(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.
lol

(03-27-2014, 04:29 AM)JoelCarli Wrote:
(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 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.

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:
(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. Confusedhrug:
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.
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, 04:29 AM)JoelCarli Wrote:
(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
:lol:

(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 pɐǝɹɥʇ ʎʇıunɯɯoɔ - 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 pɐǝɹɥʇ ʎʇıunɯɯoɔ - 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...

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.

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 pɐǝɹɥʇ ʎʇıunɯɯoɔ - 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 pɐǝɹɥʇ ʎʇıunɯɯoɔ - 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 pɐǝɹɥʇ ʎʇıunɯɯoɔ - 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 pɐǝɹɥʇ ʎʇıunɯɯoɔ - Danjo - 03-27-2014

A big contributing factor. Not that having fanta in the world really makes a difference though.