|
Post by OblivionSorceress on Jul 28, 2009 10:32:22 GMT -5
Eventually you'll get tired of looking for a girl, give up, and then find one because you're no longer trying and women love that for some reason. Strange, majestic creatures. Discovery channel should do a special on them. Hahahaha!! Yeah, us women are very strange. If there ever is a special on us I'm watching it.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Emoticon Man, TF Fan on Jul 28, 2009 10:51:41 GMT -5
I like to think I'm a nice guy, and I also like to think I'm fairly confident in myself, and I still seem to have a bad batting average with the ladies. I'm not overly concerned about it, though, as I kinda want to have a career and a home of my own before I get into anything serious anyways.
|
|
The QC Loser
Hank Scorpio
Come on follow my Twitter I'm cool!
Posts: 6,241
|
Post by The QC Loser on Jul 28, 2009 14:29:56 GMT -5
The one thing I see in a lot of guys that they are then blamed for is the self defeating attitude of thinking they are not worth and so on like discussed earliar. The only problem with someone just going you're wrong for feeling that way now stop is it doesn't work that way. As someone that for the first 18 years of my life never had a woman even hug me cuz I was the unpopular guy in high school then move on to the after school time of nothing but women cheating and running around and generally treating me like shit. I then joined the military and every guy I came in contact with had stories of ya my girl cheated ya every girl I have dated cheated also type stuff. Now compile all this over years and years and you are basically traumitezed much like someone who has been abused for many years. The example I have always used that makes a lot of sense is the dog that the last owners beat it. When you go to pet it even out of love it is going to shy away and be scared. Don't blame the dog and tell it thatit is wrong and it feelings are wrong. Maybe try to help them with it and work through it. Show them you're not going to abuse them of course why do that when you can just say I wn't date you cuz you may require a little effort even though you will treat me good.
Ok this wasn't really directed at anyone or anything just kind of ranting as I have had a lot of experience of the being screwed over and also some of the being down on my self. I did notice that attitude didn't matter when I worked out so take that for what it is worth. If you are in shape a woman will put up with your "down on yourself" attitude a lot more than she would if you are out of shape.
/this rant is all based on my personal opinion and experiences. In no way am I saying every is or is not like this.
|
|
Millie D
El Dandy
Something VERY special.
I Love Glee!
Posts: 8,923
|
Post by Millie D on Jul 28, 2009 14:51:41 GMT -5
my whole life i liked the nice guys but they only saw me as a friend...I still like the nice guys..hell i am with one...so to all the guys out there i say..there is hope somewhere they some non shallow chick will come along and see you for you and fall for you and you will see nice guys do finish first
|
|
|
Post by thesunbeast on Jul 28, 2009 14:55:46 GMT -5
It is about the relation. Everything that is apart of the world is devided, and everything that is devided isn't just a "thing", but also has to ralate to another "thing", and therefor, all the things that exist are transcended by their interrelationships. That is to say, that all things work by way of relationship, how one thing relates to another, all the way from molecules to human beings, and it all works in such a way that without relationship, things don't work at all. If anything, "possession" itself is a kind of relationship status. There are good ones and bad ones, all "possession" is not the same. "Want you" and "have you" are different than "love you". The "want you" is an action someone is trying to take because of the feeling of "love you". An action driven by a feeling. Love can indeed be understood without ever conquering anything. You don't need to aquire something to love something. I love my mother, I didn't aquire her. I could love a woman without aquring her either, and I could feel heartbroken if I didn't "have her", but the fact of me feeling heartbroken is proof that I would understand Love without aquasition. What you are talking about is an entirely different feeling, a feeling of getting what it is that you love. There may not be a word to describe this feeling in the English lanuage, lets call it "Love aquirement", the rewarding feeling of achieving companionship of the one you love.
Love is a feeling, not an "act" at all. Your actions are based off of the feeling of love, but love is behind the action, it isn't the action itself. Love is not subjective, it is objective, it only looks subjective. What makes someone have a feeling is subjective. If I say "chocolate icecream" tastes good, that is subjective, because I am talking about what makes me feel good. However, the existance of tasting good is objective, It's tricky. It's about what it is that makes someone have the feeling of tasting good that is subjective. the difference between objectivity and subjectivity is never about the thing, it's about the statement. statements are subjective, everything else is objective. If I'm talking about icecream, If I say "chocolate icecream tastes good", that is a valid subjective statement. If I say "I like chocolate icecream", that is a valid objective statement, it is either true or it isn't. In this case, it is true that I like chocolate icecream, there is no "that fact is true for you but not for your brother". You can gather 100 people together and the fact that thesunbeast likes chocolate icecream is the same for all 100 people, and you would plan a surprise party for me operating under the universal facts of what everyone knows I like and dislike.
The statement "chocolate is better than vanilla" is not a valid subjective statement although it is often called as such. It is actually a logical fallacy. It is absolutism (distinction on "ism") where I am falsely injecting objectivity into subjectivity, or, making an objective statement about something that is subjective, but the statement itself is not subjective, it is a wrong objective statement.
The relationship induced feeling called Love is the same way. The feeling is an objective feeling, "I love you" is saying "I like chocolate", an objective statement that is either true or false. Someone can say they love someone when they really don't, and it could be objectively true. It's actually really difficult to come up with a valid subjective statement about a feeling itself, but not for things that make you have a particular feeling. If I were to say "Ashley makes me feel love", that would actually be an objective statement. If I were to say "Ashley makes people feel love", THAT would be a subjective statement.
People are already seperated in the first place, and that's where language comes from, it comes from division. Language is a for of mathematics. It's not that language shapes reality, that is an illusion, it's that language identifies reality. It is not a joined reality that exists by default and then language seperates reality and forms or reforms it. It is the other way around, it is an already seperated reality that exists by default, and then that reality is what actually forms language.
You see, not to be mean, but the notion of language forming reality and only meaning what we want it to mean is poison. I will attempt to deal with his by first giving poison myself, and then exposing why it is poison. It is better to show certain things than to just tell about it.
Words are just words. Words are noises that me make but they don't really mean anything. When you say "boat", I can just say "shoe", but the noise I made that we call a word doesn't mean anything differently than the noise you just made that you called a word.
Now, everything I just said in that last paragraph was completely incorrect. It seems enticing and seductive, but even the simplest of closer looks reveals the fallacy of it. There is a difference between a surface and a concept. Alot of people are surface dwellers, that is, they spend all their time and energy on the surface and don't understand the concept behind anything. The real language is in concept. When I talk about different languages, I sometimes like to use the word "tongues", which is different languages.
When you use a word, you are describing a concept, it isn't about the word itself, the word is just the medium between your mind and the concept. the mind already exists independantly, and the concept also exists independantly. Yes, your mind and your will can make things in reality, but it has nothing to do with language, it has everything to do with the ideas you had in your head. the ideas you had in your head were gained by way of language, but again, language was the medium.
When someone says "hurricane", they are talking about the concept of the thing of wind that spins around and around. When someone says "grass", they are talking about the concept of the strings that grow out of the ground. In another language, someone can say "huracano" or "spoon", but they are still talking about the concept of the thing in the wind that sipns round and round, and someone can say "cesped" or "sugar" but they are still talking about the concept of the strings that grow out of the ground. It's always the concept that matters, not the surface. You can use many different worss to communicate the same concept, and that's why not only do we have many different languages, but that's the reason why we can translate any language to another language, because of a shared universal concept. it that weren't true, we would never understand each other. the language isn;t the words at all, it's the concept, the word, or the tongues, are the medium to universally understand the same, already existing concepts so we can transport them from one mind to another. The rooms in the hotel are the mind, the stuff in the room like teddybears are the ideas, but if you want to carry the teddy bear from one room to another, you may need an elevator that works. The elevator is the language. The bear already existed in the room. You have to percieve something in your mind first before you can then have a language to identify it with, but you can't percieve something that doesn't exist.
Relationships work the same way. You may have two rocks, one gray and one brown. The gray rock may have a little hole in it, and the brown rock may have a peg, so they "fit" nicely. When someone says "these two rocks like each other", you can define like as a "fitting" all you want to, it doesn't change the concept that you are talking about how the brown rock relates to the gray rock in a specific way. And "like" becomes a specific concept, a pre-existing concept that you were smart enough to identify. Someone else on another planet can use the word "ghghgh", but it's the same exact concept, and therefore translatable. If however the gray rock had splinters and the brown rock had a smooth texture, you could say these two rocks despise each other. You could define despise as "cumbustable" all you want to, but it doesn't change the concept that you're talking about the relationship of the two rocks in a specific way, but a much different way than the first example, and "despise" becomes a specific concept. Another pre-existing concept that you were smart enough to identify. Someone on another planet can call it "jkjkjkjk", but it is the same exact concept, and therefore translatable.
We make things in material that already exist in concept. Physical mediums represent concepts. Superficial mediums also represent already existing concepts.
When we use the word "Love", we have to look past the surface, the word, and look at the concept of what we're talking about. it is then that we'll see that only the word used to desctibe the concept is relative, but the concept is not relative.
Yes, it's true that language doesn't have enough words to decribe all concepts or even certain concepts, but that doesn't negate the existence of that concept. Things don't just pop into existence when we figure them out, although alot of people in high places seem to think that way.
Love is not an action. So you can't "make" love, and you can't "make" love work. You can make a relationship work or not that contains love, or you can learn to cope in situations with love, but love itself is not the thing or feeling that you are shaping, you are shaping the outer circumstances that surround love. People who don't understand that don't know what love is in the first place. Adding words itself doesn't further complicate things, it's whether or not the words adequately describe the "new" concepts (the concepts already existed beforehand) that are now recognized that matters and may make things complicated.
You're making an awful lot of assumptions here. You first look at what is done, and then you define things and apply based off of that standard. What you need to do is define things first, then apply to why those things are done. Just because an animal does this or does that in nature, that doesn't mean that this is right and that's how we should act. An animal in nature who is smarter could just look at our social constructs and just determine that 'this is correct" and they would try to apply what it is that they saw. It all starts with a faith of what you think is the right or wrong way.
People will look at a dog, see them pee to mark their territory, and think that this means that people can just run outside and pee outside whenever they want and they are acting like the dog is. this isn't true. Just because people have social constructs doesn't mean that they are "just" and therefore they are equally as legit as any other action. A mouse acts in certain ways to the best of it's ability to survive, as do all animals. A dog will do the same. Now, when a dog pees on a fire hydrant and marks It's territory, it is doing something to the absolute best of it's abilities to survive, it will not just look at a mouse and do things the mouse' way just because they see a mouse doing it. It is right for the mouse because it is to the best of the mouse's ability. The dog doing a mouse action is wrong for the dog. A human operates under the best of our abilities by establishing cretit to justify trust, to paying back loans with it and abiding by interest rates, payable by work. If we run outside and piss on the street, it would be the equivelent to a dog randomly acting like a mouse. It won't even cross his mind. A dog pisses on things because it is the best of his ability with what he has physically and mentally. It shouldn't cross our minds to act like a dog either, but we do, Becaue of our intelligence and our feelings combined. Our feelings say to act out against society because of our anger, or thinking sees a dog peeing and uses that to justify a way to carry out our feelings.
As far as animals not being able to live with civilizations and therefore this being magical proof that civilizations don't really matter, This is a testament to the imperfections of the animal kingdom to be able to do all of the right things where as humans have that ability, much more than this is a testament to humans supposedly doing the wrong things by us acting with our social constructs. With our social constructs, we are figuring out slowly the right concepts to live life the right way to make the most of reality. You have a "maker's' life and a "non maker's" life. the animals are forced by their limitations to live a non maker's life, and therefore involve no social constructs. We humans are the only ones who truly live a maker's life at a macro level, and therefore, not only use, but require, social constructs.
Monogamy is the perfect example. Nature is the most highly abused word concept in all of language. Nature is bad, and nature is destructive. nature is "unarrainged", that's all it is. If you make a piece of pizza, and then you stop touching it, the pizza is now in a natural state, whatever happens to the pizza is natural, because it is now in a natural state, an unarrainged state sinse the time you stopped dealing with it. Furthermore, nature is easily defyable. people say that to defy nature is very difficult, but it isn't that difficult. Defying nature is actually necessary for survival, because nature is a killer. We define nature, we can't let nature define us.
Monogamy is easily found to be the best way for a maker's life to grow. If you want to be a maker, a subduer of nature, then you have to have a stucture. To have a structure is to defy nature. A simple thing like language and a conversation is a structure. A conversation itself defys nature. So, to be a subduer of nature, you have to have a structure, to have a structure, you have to have a civilization, and to have the best, strong, civilization, you have to start growing it with monogomy. Only after the civilization has been built can some people get away with polygamy or premiscuity.
Nature is not mean for makers, or subduers of nature. To do so you have to defy nature from the get-go. You start by defying nature by having a simple structure, like drawing pictures on a wall to actually "help" your "rightful" enemies according to nature. After a structure, you have to build multiple structures that all benefit each other in order to have a civilization. When a civilization is fully built you have a society that is a maker and subduer of nature. Only if you want to be either #1 a non maker/subduer who is slave to the nature kingdom, or #2 a piggybacker of the builders of civilization can you say that our social structures are no better than the natural animal kingdom. Today we are all the piggybacker type, we can all get away with what we can do now all because of the work of our early forefathers, that had to have operated under vastly different circumstances than what we do today.
Here's the thing, the entire animal kingdom are not as advanced as humans. We are more advanced than every other living thing combined. Here's why. Every other living animal on the face of the Earth operates primarily under feeling. Yes, they think, but if there is ever a contradiction between thinking and feeling they are choosing feeling. Problem is, sometimes you feel like a nut and sometimes you don. No animal makes it's decisions on how they think, only feeling. Feeling is the natural way, feeling is natural. Thinking is not. We humans though, unlike any other animal, operate with both feeling and thinking, and most of us make our decisions off of thinking. Look around, tell me who wins?
When we go out and look at things like DNA and nature itself, we are only analyzing how to feel, or how we should feel. When we watch animals in the natural world, we are watching what things would be like if we operated just under feeling, like nature says. It does not speak for how we should act, it does not speak for those creatures who have the power of both thinking and feeling.
*sigh* (I have to type so much, my fingers a numb!)
Firstly, it depends on your definition of better. If you're talking about an individual reaching a place where he can operate more efficiently in constructive tasks, then "better" is an objective term, although it isn't politically correct. If you are talking about "better" as if more suitable to your personal tastes, then "better" is a subjective term. You, here, used the term in an objective sense but acted as if it were subjective.
Secondly, things are done out of love, Love itself is not "done" or "persued".
Thirdly, as I have outlined above, all things in all existence operate off of some kind of relationship. Now, just because one is alone doesn't mean he is "bad" for society, but, it does mean that he will have to operate to please himself and not please others. This is a dangerous way to go. I can ask someone how happy they feel, and they'll tell me they feel terrific, but if I ask what major impact they have made on someone else, they will remain silent. This may feel right for him, but if everyone acted soley on what benefits themself, everyone would be dead, because the first thing that the self serving person does is redefines "right" based off of feeling, and then what feels good to them, at the expense of others. If you keep getting rid of the weakest, there will always be a next in line that is concidred the weakest, and sooner or later only you will be left, left to die. It's a bad philosophy that can only be applied piggybacking off of the reverse philosophy of others. It is true that if you are against yourself that you stunt your own growth, but to defy relationships is to be against yourself.
I completely agree with your view on the homosexual issue. I don't even like the term "sexual" being used there to describe it. I have alot of social conservative views and i am in no way opposed to anything homosexual as distinct from heterosexual. I believe that things that are right or wrong in the outside world regarding civilization are defined based off of whether or not everyone can do it. If everyone can't do it, then what you are doing is piggybacking off of what others are doing, and that's wrong.
Despite all that, I am for homosexual rights in every respect. When it comes to reproducing, it goes both ways. You have to have 2 standards, not one. Everyone would die with one standard regarding reproduction and Love. if everyone were gay, we would all be dead. if everyone had kids, we would all be dead. You have to have a filter in nature. people say that homosexuality has a purpose in nature but we just don't know what it is. I know what it is. We can't have everyone on earth having kids when they reach of age,,because we would use up all forms of utility and overpopulation would kill us all, we would die in the middle of trying to reinvent all of the recources that we lost. So, we need to have a filter. There are 3 filters: #1 death. #2, infertility, and #3 homosexuality. #3 is the best one. Death is bad for nature, despite overwhelming popular opinion. Infertility tortures you into being denied the choice have a child with the one you love, and #3 brings all of them together for happiness and Love.
|
|
|
Post by sunwukong on Jul 28, 2009 16:54:10 GMT -5
The one thing I see in a lot of guys that they are then blamed for is the self defeating attitude of thinking they are not worth and so on like discussed earliar. The only problem with someone just going you're wrong for feeling that way now stop is it doesn't work that way. As someone that for the first 18 years of my life never had a woman even hug me cuz I was the unpopular guy in high school then move on to the after school time of nothing but women cheating and running around and generally treating me like s***. I then joined the military and every guy I came in contact with had stories of ya my girl cheated ya every girl I have dated cheated also type stuff. Now compile all this over years and years and you are basically traumitezed much like someone who has been abused for many years. The example I have always used that makes a lot of sense is the dog that the last owners beat it. When you go to pet it even out of love it is going to shy away and be scared. Don't blame the dog and tell it thatit is wrong and it feelings are wrong. Maybe try to help them with it and work through it. Show them you're not going to abuse them of course why do that when you can just say I wn't date you cuz you may require a little effort even though you will treat me good. Ok this wasn't really directed at anyone or anything just kind of ranting as I have had a lot of experience of the being screwed over and also some of the being down on my self. I did notice that attitude didn't matter when I worked out so take that for what it is worth. If you are in shape a woman will put up with your "down on yourself" attitude a lot more than she would if you are out of shape. /this rant is all based on my personal opinion and experiences. In no way am I saying every is or is not like this. If you keep picking girls that are cheating on you, you're picking the wrong kind of girl. And honestly, the military isn't exactly the best place to get relationship advice from. More military marriages fail than any other profession. What you're saying doesn't change anything. You're letting past events define your present and letting things other people have said color your outlook. It's completely the same as anyone else in this thread. There is no excuse for downing yourself, just rationalizations.
|
|
|
Post by tap on Jul 28, 2009 17:35:19 GMT -5
To thesunbeast: you do know we're discussing this matter on an entirely different register than this thread calls for. I want to reply to your post at length, but I may just do it in a PM some time (I'm working on my thesis right now) because it may deemed off-topic (I wouldn't say so personally, but others might, so for simplicity's sake I may just avoid risking such criticism altogether).
|
|
Grendel
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
But ... why is all the rum gone?
Posts: 17,593
|
Post by Grendel on Jul 28, 2009 19:09:45 GMT -5
I'm always the nice guy, and I'm very sure that guys like never get the girl is because they assume that we are gay, if that makes any sense, because god forbid no straight guy can ever be that nice. Quite a few girl mates of mine have indeed said this. We should all follow the teachings of Sir David Mustaine: I would prefer the teachings of Alice Cooper, but this version is good too. All I can say to the nice guys is hang in there. It will eventually turn around for you. Just don't change who you are for the lure of tail, it cheapens who you are. If you want to change, change because you want to. Not because you want some.
|
|
Grendel
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
But ... why is all the rum gone?
Posts: 17,593
|
Post by Grendel on Jul 28, 2009 19:11:01 GMT -5
Eventually you'll get tired of looking for a girl, give up, and then find one because you're no longer trying and women love that for some reason. Strange, majestic creatures. Discovery channel should do a special on them. Hahahaha!! Yeah, us women are very strange. If there ever is a special on us I'm watching it. I'm hoping it's narrated by Gilbert Gottfried. ;D
|
|
theryno665
Grimlock
wants a title underneath the stars
Kinda Homeless
Posts: 13,571
|
Post by theryno665 on Jul 28, 2009 19:25:49 GMT -5
I hate to say it, but I'm kinda glad I'm not the ultimate sadsack on this forum. And this is coming from a guy who had a 100+ page thread about me and my women problems (or lack thereof) on another forum, only to leave because I felt embarrassed after one of the ladies on the forum had drunkenly told me that she would come visit me and de-virginize me in about 2 years if I had gone to medical school (in a supposed effort to do something with my life, I guess), all at the risk of cheating on her wheelchair-bound husband, only to back out the next day.
Yup, can't make this stuff up, folks.
Though I never experienced anything on the level that Hakuna did, I do know how he feels. But all of my problems come from inside, I just don't know how to shut that self-defeatist voice in my head off. And I hope that whatever I post doesn't come off as being a sad sack or depressed. In my eyes, I'm just stating cold hard fact that just so happens to be negative.
I'm also in the camp of "stop looking and you'll find it". Because of what little I'm making and that I'm barely able to support myself right now, let alone afford to make the changes necessary in my life, I haven't really been looking, though I've been keeping my eyes open. Unfortunately, it hasn't worked for me yet. Possibly there's a difference between "not looking" and "not trying".
But yeah, I'm really beginning to think that girls just see me as some asexual device that is only good for sometimes giving advice and making other guys look better.
|
|
|
Post by "Playboy" Don Douglas on Jul 29, 2009 1:12:58 GMT -5
My belief is that the fault does not lie with the women not wanting the nice guys, nor with the nice guys themselves, nor the douchebag guys that have been mentioned.
The problem is that we are all people, and as a general rule, people will go about doing things in the dumbest, most difficult way possible.
|
|
H-Fist
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,485
|
Post by H-Fist on Jul 29, 2009 3:44:37 GMT -5
And the rest of your stuff, MaDaBa, as the thread progresses, makes me think (having never seen you and with no knowledge of what you look like/sound like/stink up a room like) that you might not be able to get past this by yourself. Consider, you know, seeing somebody about it. When self-esteem issues make the future seem hazy or impossible, something that in one are is to be void, you risk running into a point where some other even in another facet of your life has a similar beginning to the embarrassment and pain of the "never deserve" meme, with your brain conditioned to that sort of hopeless response. Depression, anxiety, and other feelings of self-fulfilling prophecy are no way to live.
This is the funniest thing in this thread. Bravo.
I'm currently struggling with the same issues, with the added bonuses of being a recovering drunk and, on account of a prescription, can't even drink coffee/tea/anything caffeinated. I'm in a big city, where there are lots of Cheap Things to do, or at least expensive ones that can last. You aren't alone in this specific issue. But you do need to learn to manufacture stuff. Even if it's forming a habit of going alone to a bookstore or newspaper stand or whatever. Have some Place in your weekly/every-other-day itinerary.
You have successfully defined the Tao of CM Punk. Amazing. After all these years of wondering, it boils down to this.
Remember The Usual Suspects, that line that Spacey had: "The greatest trick the Devil ever played was convincing us that he didn't exist?" Whenever we tell ourselves a comforting lie, we live that quote. When I was a drinker, I thought I was lying to myself when I told myself I could quit at any time I wanted to. Basically, I thought that I knew that it was a lie, up until the afternoon I woke up and realized it had been true all along. I've been dry since. But at the same time, there are some things that don't just go away. I couldn't "make myself" come out of my socially anxious shell. I sought out help and am now at the point where (through early stages of medication and counseling) I can take as a goal breaking down the obstacles. I no longer feel the anxiety, but I do have...phantom pains of it. I recognize it had been there simply because I don't know how to engage the world without that brick wall standing in the way. My behavior remains the same, despite a different mental observation of the world.
In putting blame on MaDaBa (not using blame in a pejorative sense), you forget that there is this void of many years in which nothing has existed. That painful rejection, for all intents and purposes, exists in a vacuum. A 16-year-old kid can easily be scarred by the traumatic event, even to the point of being a legitimate source of PTSD (yes - for some people embarrassment is deeply traumatic, beyond sensitivity). At some point, the idea of blame needs to go away. Just look at it for what it is and accept it as real. The Devil's in the details, not the definition.
Caveat: one has to keep playing in order to win. Sitting back and hoping doesn't put him in a position to win. See below for the "it'll happen" argument.
Look vs. try seems to be a big difference. Not trying implies you shut off even paying attention for what few social queues might make it through. Not looking means you might notice something, but you aren't the one to initiate it. Or so it seems. "Stop looking and find it"? That seems to work a lot better for women. Supply and demand. As Chris Rock put it, every guy who's talked to a girl since she was 12 was offering her some dick. Ride to school? How 'bout some dick? So something can happen for the average woman because even the below-average men are trained to be in pursuit. But for guys, Generally it appears that those things that happen require a random event. Not random in a role of the dice sense, but in the sense that you put yourself in a position where positives may occur. You go to a library instead of stay home. Flip-of-a-coin event. But one side of the coin offers the possibility of social interaction. "Luck is the residue of design," said Brooklyn Dodgers GM Branch Rickey many years ago. And that is more true for men than for women. Since women really do appear to be, on the whole, less likely to be an active pursuer, there is less of an opportunity for a man to sit back and see what happens. You have to show up first, at the very least.
Example: How many fat and ugly guys honk their car horns when a hot woman walks through a crosswalk in front of them? How many women do the same to a good-looking guy, excluding those who do it with a sense of irony? That's "trying" at it's most basic. The conversation opener is a damn car horn. Guys try that, just on the 1-in-a-million odds it works. Women don't NEED to do that, generally.
We live in a rational universe obeying rational physical laws. We act in a wholly rational manner. However, we see our antics as irrational because we are tuned in to the self-as-body as opposed to self-as-survival-machine. The survival machine is there for the genes, the little strands that are what life is all about. When something misfires and we act "irrationally," it's like a poorly copied codex from a drunk Irish monk's cell in the 7th century. Sometimes something great happens: Picasso and Dali, for example; sometimes something awful happens: someone is stuck alone. Lost in translation.
|
|
|
Post by thesunbeast on Jul 29, 2009 4:14:09 GMT -5
I am not talking about attention to the object over the relation. I am saying that you ARE part of the relation. "You" can't value the relation, as if you have a choice of choosing to value the relation over the object. There is always a relationship regardless of what you do. I was making the argument that non-material forces are stronger than the material because there is a difference between the material existing and what the material does, and when the material does do something, there is now relationship between them. Pointing out how the percieve each other is besides the point, my point is that they percieve. You say that they percieve based off of the individual, so what? What's that showing? It shows that people percieve Love differently? And this is an opposition to love how? Your point is that people feel love 100 different ways. Regardless of how you word it, that is your point. My point is that unless you are talking about 100 different feelings altogether, then my point is still valid. If there is 100 different ways to feel love and 100 different ways to feel hate, it is obvious that there are still 2 sides to the fence here. Your argument would make more sense if it were defending the position that we wouldn't be able to tell the difference between love and hate, but since we can, there is atleast some objective line crossed at some point. Your overwhelming bias against love is apparent. Would you make the same argument for hate, without hesitation? That because what it is that makes someone hate another can be sujectively percieved, that this some how negates the objective existence of hate alltogether? I think not. And therin lies the self-defeating, hypocrite style of your argument here. What makes someone hate varies person to person, but the feeling of hate is still the same. I think you would readily admit that, unless your bias against love is so religiously strong that you would venture into that territory. Now to answer your question about how I would feel, I'll do it with another question. If a man killed your kids, would you cry about it 5 years later when they aren't here anymore? Now, let's take another guy named jack, if a man killed his kids, would he cry about it 5 years later? Mabe you would, mabe he won't, but mabe he'd stop crying after only 3 years. My point is, is that you would both feel the same feeling. It doesn't matter how you describe the feeling, as possession or loss of possession or whatever. Relativism is self defeating. I made the argument already that, yes, while someone can love someone and want to possess them out of love, that it was also possible to love someone without ever wanting to possess them. I love my mother and I don't want to possess her. Despite what i say, you assume that people use possessive language first to debunk my notion that language in relation to love is not possessive, but their intents are and are seperate from love. You beg the question in response by assuming the conclusion first. There is a whole lot of dress up here, but based off of what I've read in text books it sounds like your argument is straight out of the text book. You leep assuming a definition of Love that is cattering to action, when I am talking strictly about feeling, not action. If I love Eddie Guerrero and I never met him, and I cry when i find out he dies, I am talking about why I cry, I am not talking about why I want to hook up with a mate. Your argument, as confusing as it is, is still based off of people wanting to act out of love. You assume that first within your answer here. Firstly, it seems to me that you make arguments about there being no absolutes, but then you make absolute statements, and the chalk it all up to language being bad. (It ain't languages fault bro, I have a philosophy where I can understand things without much further stress and I have no problem with language). This is based off language just being words, despite you saying that you don't mean it that way. You say love is incorrect, are you absolutely sure? Also, you are vastly confusing the points of "subject-subjective", "subject-objective", and "objective" with the points of objective reality vs a subjective perception of objective reality. That is to say, that you seem to think that just because there is an object that can be percieved subjectively, that this some how magically negates the fact that the object is objective. You automatically and religiously assume that there is no such thing as a subjective perception of objective reality, which there is. "subject-subjective" is really "subjective", "subject-objective" is really "subjective perception of objective reality", and "objective" really does mean "objective". The lamp is either there or not. I cam subjectively percieve it to be different than what you can subjectively percieve it to look like, this notion though does not magically mean that there is no lamp, therfore, the lamps existence is not "purely based off of the perciever". What the objectively existing lamp is to be subjectively percieved to be may be up to the perciever, but not the objective qualities of it, like it's existance. If you continue to not address these points, then anything you say is operating under the framework of believing that these points are true, and then your arguments will just defeat themselves over and over again, just like relativism does anyway. All of the things you said conribute to the line of thinking that your subjective perception of objective reality can change. The thoughts that you have, the experiences you go through, the decisions you make, the consequences of all of them as well as their interrelationships, and the continuance of these after time and a period of history, together, will alter your subjective perception of objective reality. Where you make your mistake, is your assumption that any of this means anything about objective reality, and it doesn't. You assume, from the get-go, that subjective perception of objective reality is the same thing as objective reality, but anyone can easily prove (as I already did in my first post) that this isn't so, and to disagree with this would be literally insane, you would have to believe that the car isn't really there (no matter how you perceive it) but that you just think it's there, and that the one who believes that it isn't there, has an equally legit opinion as anyone else. This line of thinking would incorrectly seek to negate the existence of all mental illness. It is literally insane, if you really believe it, that is. Therefore, in assuming that subjective perceptions of objective reality are some how the same thing as objective reality, you then mistakenly conclude, that #1, that Love is derived from these two realities, and #2 that Love does not exist (you won't say it, but if one looks closely at your argumemts, this is what you're saying) because it is derived from only a subjective perception of objective reality (because any evidence you see of anything being a result of objective reality, you just immediately say is subjective because you assume that objective reality is really just the same as subjective perception of objective reality). #1, in reality (regardless of how I perceive it) Love is derived from objective reality (as I showed way back in my 1st post), and #2, our subjective perception of objective reality then shapes our subjective perception of love (the love that objectively exists). As a matter of fact, most of the points that you've been trying to make can be refuted by proving the difference between subjective perception of objective reality and objective reality itself. It doesn't matter how we make meaning from senses, the senses are there. It doesn't matter how we percieve the object, the object is there. the varying perceptions that we do have (and yes, we do have them) are so small they aren't even worth mentioning. There is a constant status, and the rest is what changes due to perception. But this is all besides the point anyway. Nothing in the world would ever be the same according to your philosophy, you ever here about 100 different people all say that a papercut is worse than a deep cut? It couldn't be that they're feeling the same pain, now could it? Nah, that's too politically incorrect. There is universal truth atleast at some level, and it starts with the feelings. Objectivity is not the world as it exists, and if it is defined as that in the text books, it needs to change. It is universal truth, applied to anything where there is universal truth, as percieved by us, yes, but just pointing out that we have perceptions is not an opposition to the matter. I don't want to define it again, as I already did without an opposition to that definition, only an opposition to the textbook definition. Not only does love not exist ENTIRELY by it's absence, it is not absent. You are still talking about a different definition of love than I am. I already spoke on your definition of love that has no defintion, why don't you speak on mine. Love is to commit violence? Wow how new age and catchy. I won't call you insane, but wherever you got that from sure was insane. I'll say for the last time, you can't "commit" love. You are using 1 situation to define all others. It's good to have a good philosophical talk, but don't make such outrageous claims without a source. you can "commit" things based off of love, as I've said before, and you come back and just assume your same point without giving an opposition to mine. As far as I'm concerned, my last post before is still in opposition to your post now. You also said that in certain situations that the surface is the concept, but I don't consider that to make sense. There is always a surface and then a concept, not just one thing. If it were true that the surface was the concept, there would be a concept behind that. It's like i have to be vary careful not to use words with you as to avoid a dictionary definition of the words and how they apply instead of having an argument focusing on the points i'm trying to make. It's a piggy-backing philosophy using the semantics from people's deep thought. I'm using deep thought, not info from others who did the work of deep thought. So, I'll have to use extreme abstract language now to avoid usage of dictionary words. What I'm saying is that there is a 1st level and a second level (and 3rd). The word is the 1st level, the mental image is the second level, and there is a connection between the two that makes language possible. Yes, you can change the 1st level 100 different ways, but that doesn't mean that the person doesn't have the same 2nd level in mind, because they do. So it doesn't matter if you say that the "word" is the same as a "concept", because even if it is, that in no way means that the 1st level is the same as the 2nd level. When I said "surface" I meant "1st level", and when I said "concept" I meant "2nd level". I guess I should have communicated that idea without the dictionary words as to avoid any possible semantical games. Also, I made the point that language (ofcource you mean mere words even though you say you don't) is shaped by reality, just because I said that in no way means I'm agreeing with you on the other points that you made. You just interpret what I say the way you want to interpret them. I also made the point that language shaping reality is an illusion. I'm not saying that it doesn't look that way. I'm saying that when language shapes reality it does so INDIRECTLY. You come up with a name for something, to better understand it, then, because you can now understand it better, you can use it to shape reality, there is always a medium inbetween when it comes to language (indirectly) chaping reality, but it is always direct when it comes to reality shaping language (concept, not words. Yes, words are concepts too, but i think you know better that this isn't what I'm talking about. You should know that I'm talking about a distinction between the two, and one above the other. A concept sharing multiple principals, and a principal sharing multiple surfaces. there is a pyramid, the higher you go, the more exclusive and governing the concept, principal, whatever you want to call it). I could go all day about the self-defeating philosophy of relativism. I emphasize "ism" because there is a difference between relative and relativism. There are things in the universe that are relative. Relativism is basically a religious belief that ALL things are relative. that is the basic nature of "ism's", you take a real, true premise, and you try to apply it to EVERYTHING. There are relative things, and there are objective things. You seem to give an appeal to ignorance, which is to say that if you can't perceive something properly, than it isn't there to be perceived, but I've been showing that this is bogus. Just because I look at a car and I see what I think I see, and someone else sees what they think they see, that in no way proves that thre isn't something there to be perceived or that there isn't a right way for it to be perceived, it simply may mean that no one's mind is perfect enough to properly perceive it. That's what I and most semanticists define Objective to be, like I said, it isn't a "thing", it's a statement. You seem to think that onjective has to be "right", but that's bogus. I say that I put a pink elephant in my trunk of my car. This is an objective statement, it is either true or false. It's not "it may be there for you but it isn't there for me". It is false because i did not put a pink elephant there. I've already defined this earlier though, and I think it's the correct definition as this is the best way for man to communicate ideas, which is how semantics is determined. You keep assuming that objective is supposed to be "right". Then, you show me reasons why we can't accurately percieve reality, and then say that this is some how magically an opposition to objective reality. Reality may be #9, we may percieve #4, the fact that we percieve #4 is not an opposition to the existence of #9. It is an objective fact that we percieve #4, and therefore, is worthy of any semantical idea that we assign to it, because the concept of #4 is already there and given to us by reality (I'm not defining reality as civilization like you are, I'm defining it as unchanging reality outside of our minds, like the laws of nature, ect.) If love is really #9, and you give me reasons why we only percieve #4, first of all this is not an opposition to the existence of #9 although we won't fully understand it, and second of all you can't say that love doesn't exist because just because we have a partial perception of it doesn't mean there isn't an "it". Thirdly, Love is an idea, an objective idea (based off of the definition I have given of objective over and over again) and if #4 is a perception of #9, so what, #4 is still an idea. You are assuming that the identity that is meant for #4 should be moved over to #9 and therefore leave #4 identity-less. And even if #4 were identity-less, that is no argument for being a real feeling based off of it's perception worthy of an identity anyway, and even IF #4 were given a new identity, now all we're doing is just moving words around to catter to your semantical tastes (like me saying potato and you saying potaato, and this magically proves that potatoes don't exist ) and even if THAT were so the idea has still remained through it all. Cultures change how feelings come and go, but they're still the same feelings. Our ancient history was filled with magical feelings (which is how I define magic, as a feeling you get when you experience something wonderous and mysterious) when they didn't know why the sun moved or what the stars were like. Unfortunetely that feeling has gone away in todays culture for the most part, but that doesn't change what the feeling is, because we still get the same feelings when we see a pregnant woman fall from a plane 10,000 ft high and bother her and her baby survive. In reality, when we perceive #9 to be #4, we go by #4 as the best way to understand #9. #4 exists, it may exist as a medium, but it still exists, and it is definitely worthy of a semantical identity that is worthy of describing it by people especially if multiple people feel the same #4, even if it is #4, which, as I have outlined regarding all feelings including sadness, people do. When we discovered the emotion that we call love, we discovered #4 (when in reality it may be #9). When we discovered #4, we gave it a name in all languages that essentially mean the same thing, the name is meant to describe the feeling we have of #4. We call it love. When we discover the feeling of #5 after out minds enhance and move even closer to reality, we may call that "super love". At that point, "regular love" will still exist, because feeling #4 will still exist. We used to think that the stars were specs of dots, we felt small "magic" when we saw them. Today we know they are gigantic, we still feel the same "small magic" today when we see a hologram in real life. 50 years of TV and cell phones have deminished the magical feeling of holograms from what would have been "big magic' to "small magic". However, all those feelings are exactly the same, it's just different things that bring those feelings out. It is objective perception (again, don't assume that objective means "the outside world, that's a farce) objective is a statement. Do people have "this" perception of "that"? Yes or no, it is still an objective question. There is science of love too: www.thesmartdollar.com/forum/index.phpI'm done for now, but I do want to continue and I hope that next time you can please respond to me in english. I do get sophisticated, but I don't go so far that I require a magnifying glass.
|
|
"Magic" Mark Hurr
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Here, have some chili dogs
Not related to Phantasmo
Posts: 15,784
|
Post by "Magic" Mark Hurr on Jul 29, 2009 5:57:21 GMT -5
I think my eyes are bleeding from the last few post.
Anyway could the mods do me a favor and find a way to put this thread in some sort of hall of fame of explanatory dialogues on human behavior.
We shall then only answer questions from future threads inquiring matter with a page and post number that specifically deals with whatever new question arises.
And to answer the original question. One poster said that it's basically a modernization of humans first natural instincts to gravitate to the supposed dominant member or most aesthetically desirable member of society based on learned behavior of the our most primal ancestors and conditioning by those who understand what can easily cripple our means of appreciating individualism and further development outside of what can get us noticed by the opposite sex. This has translated through generations where foresight of what people "should want" of life and what is outmatched, but only balanced by hindsight of what "we should have done" in the first place if that hasn't caused enough psychological and physical damaged that one can't regain composure from. Some can succeed in life without conforming but that percentage is very low when placed against those who are afraid to be seen as an outsider.
So with that said. It's really not the girls fault, it's just that within this argument a woman's most basic and natural behaviors have triggered actions by the opposite sex that have caused a figure eight clusterf*** of infinite ruin until either the male or the female snap out of that mental block. It just so happens that guys who know how easy it is to get what they want from women just project what it is that gets them that desired attention. And unfortunately both sexes rarely grow out of it.
It's quite simple really.
|
|
Mecca
Wade Wilson
Posts: 25,100
|
Post by Mecca on Jul 29, 2009 6:07:08 GMT -5
I'm going to be frank here for a moment.
I don't care what you look like, if you have no money, no car, no job no nothing.
If you are a person with an awesome personality that has self confidence that people like to be around you will find a woman that likes you for you. You are not going to hit a homerun everytime because that's life. It's like baseball a 300 hitter is still out 7 out of 10 times.
In short you need to be a confident person that everyone likes to be around. If you consistently show self doubt and loathing why is a woman going to want to spend time with you? Be up front about what you want and don't be nervous or shy. Above all else a woman will be attracted to you if she thinks you are fun and confident.
|
|
|
Post by Red 'n' Black Reggie on Jul 29, 2009 7:42:20 GMT -5
wow, this thread is still going?
here's my advice: pretend to be a model for those ipod commercials with the dancing sillouhettes. that'll get some lady action.
|
|
darthalexander
Hank Scorpio
I have a feeling I may end up getting banned soon.
Posts: 7,030
|
Post by darthalexander on Jul 29, 2009 9:12:26 GMT -5
Girls do like the nice guy. Guys do like the nice girl. It's just matter of the two of them hooking up. Men go through crap, girls go through crap...
|
|
The QC Loser
Hank Scorpio
Come on follow my Twitter I'm cool!
Posts: 6,241
|
Post by The QC Loser on Jul 29, 2009 10:32:30 GMT -5
The one thing I see in a lot of guys that they are then blamed for is the self defeating attitude of thinking they are not worth and so on like discussed earliar. The only problem with someone just going you're wrong for feeling that way now stop is it doesn't work that way. As someone that for the first 18 years of my life never had a woman even hug me cuz I was the unpopular guy in high school then move on to the after school time of nothing but women cheating and running around and generally treating me like s***. I then joined the military and every guy I came in contact with had stories of ya my girl cheated ya every girl I have dated cheated also type stuff. Now compile all this over years and years and you are basically traumitezed much like someone who has been abused for many years. The example I have always used that makes a lot of sense is the dog that the last owners beat it. When you go to pet it even out of love it is going to shy away and be scared. Don't blame the dog and tell it thatit is wrong and it feelings are wrong. Maybe try to help them with it and work through it. Show them you're not going to abuse them of course why do that when you can just say I wn't date you cuz you may require a little effort even though you will treat me good. Ok this wasn't really directed at anyone or anything just kind of ranting as I have had a lot of experience of the being screwed over and also some of the being down on my self. I did notice that attitude didn't matter when I worked out so take that for what it is worth. If you are in shape a woman will put up with your "down on yourself" attitude a lot more than she would if you are out of shape. /this rant is all based on my personal opinion and experiences. In no way am I saying every is or is not like this. If you keep picking girls that are cheating on you, you're picking the wrong kind of girl. And honestly, the military isn't exactly the best place to get relationship advice from. More military marriages fail than any other profession. What you're saying doesn't change anything. You're letting past events define your present and letting things other people have said color your outlook. It's completely the same as anyone else in this thread. There is no excuse for downing yourself, just rationalizations. Well as for the "your picking all the wrong girls arguement" that one has never really flown with me as you don't know really until it is to late. You don't know a girl is going to cheat on until she does, yes there are the few times with red flags where you eject fast. Yes Iknow the military is a bad place but also I wasn't full time Army I was Army national guard. Meaning all these stories were coming from people in the community basically. Of course past events will define how you act. You touch a stove and it burns you so you realize that you don't touch stoves when they are hot. Trust me I am not stuck in the rut of being down on my self and sad I am just pointing out my views on a lot of the points brought up based on my personal experiences. I can also say that the time I was able to get women the easiest in my life was actually when I was the most down on myself and started going to the gym, which I really need to get back into (the gym not being down on myself lol). I always talked about how bad I thought I looked no matter how good of shape I was getting in. Hell I even had abs starting to show and still thought I was fat.
|
|
|
Post by paulbearer on Jul 29, 2009 17:33:53 GMT -5
"Don't stare. Staring is creepy" *Undertaker , Eastwood & Chris Walken stares you down and then beats the holy hell out of you* Epic WIN
|
|
|
Post by paulbearer on Jul 29, 2009 17:35:43 GMT -5
Be a true man....like Borat
*puts on a moustache and a silly grin , 2 thumbs up*
|
|