I refuse to believe that the normal person isn't dumb af. So listen to this people (in my family, friends...

I refuse to believe that the normal person isn't dumb af. So listen to this people (in my family, friends, people I know) say they love each other but when I ask them why they get stumped on the spot. They say this all the time and think it all the time but when you ask them "what does that mean" they are like herrrrrrr... you are smart and funny... very kind... (general characteristics found in 99% of the population)
In my view, either they think about this and are evil so they consciously suppress and repress it OR they don't think about this (what am I saying when I'm saying it) and that just means they say things constantly without knowing their meaning = they dumb af.
So either evil or dumb, I prefer to think they are dumb because that makes me feel better.

Other urls found in this thread:

autismspeaks.org/what-autism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_bonding
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_bond
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternal_bond
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

autism

get fucked in your toxic relationships where no one knows why or what they are doing to sustain it

looks like someone read "what we talk about when we talk about love"

No, I am reading another different book. Book about philosophy where definitions are important because in a debate a conversation they are important.
Love is just an example so ample that everyone can understand. I could talk about motherfucking being but that would leave a whole proportion of youse at bay.
Most people say they love and that they are loved. Or at least most people pursue love and want to be loved. Thing is, no one fucking knows what it is besides the general dumb comment about "being kind" or caring. Most people want to find that qt3.14 or that handsome guy and fall in love (or even love family members of friends) but thing is no one dares even think about defining that shit.
So they are either DUMB AF or EVIL

what is love?

baby

When people say they love someone and then don't know why it's because they don't know what is worthy of being loved (even in themselves).
So it's ignorance (no moral responsibility) or they know they themselves are bad (dishonest, manipulative, power hungry) but decide to suppress it instead of changing = evil. So they can't say exactly what they love on the other person (or in themselves) because they would need to contrast it with what they don't love, so they would need to change. So they just decide never to mention it and keep their dialogue at a 2 year old level when dealing with this issue (and others alike)
I think the cognitive dissonance present in saying/thinking something every day and not being able to define it is so much that only a retard would be capable of it. Hence most people = retards

>denying the voice of your body/the feelings of your heart

Go back to plebbit, fag. You'd all be much happier and not shit at sex if you weren't so fixated on words and numbers.

>no one dares even think about defining that shit
sounds to me like you're projecting dismissive personal responses into an wild assumption of the overall mental state of your peers

Most people realize at a basic level that love is a summation of positive traits, convenience, opinion of one's peers, and estimation of duration and potential benefits, and there's nothing wrong with that. Loving someone because you can see that they derive satisfaction from being around you is natural as well as mutually beneficial.

You say stuff like "they don't know what is worthy of being loved," which is in a way true. The unconscious plays a huge role in what makes you care about someone deeply, but your extrapolation into the 'self' frantically trying not to view itself as evil and unworthy of love is very questionable given you are generalizing the entire population.

people defining the minutia of attraction will not necessarily lead to the frank appraisal of one's own flaws. this is a poor argument, as people are quite honest about what they dislike in a partner, even if they share this trait themselves. You may claim there is a mental disconnect between someone who desires one thing in a lover but does not possess it themselves, but even if true this is not necessarily a sign of inferior intellect.

Is not the act of desiring something you do not presently deserve at the very core of your own thinking? Can you honestly say you do not wish this yourself? Self-improvement is an admirable trait, but a devotion to self-improvement is not congruous with your statement of "intellectual inferiority" and it falls to you to explain how you came to that conclusion.

you are wrong let me tell you why
>sounds to me like you're projecting dismissive personal responses into an wild assumption of the overall mental state of your peers
I didn't assume anything, I proposed 2 things. I'm not projecting either because I can define myself and what I find lovable.
>Most people realize at a basic level that love is a summation of positive traits, convenience, opinion of one's peers, and estimation of duration and potential benefits
Yes that's what I said they say smart and funny every time as traits and basing love on the opinion of one's peers is retarded and by the duration/benefits no one knows this (no one can say I love you because our relationship will last 3 years). My problem with this "reasoning" for love is that it doesn't touch even the base of what defines people (people aren't defined by being smart/funny) but rather makes them a generic which can and will be traded by another generic soon enough.
>The unconscious plays a huge role
This is just another way of saying people have no idea of what they are doing which means they are dumb. "what are you doing? I don't know, my unconscious does. Yea you are retarded"
>people defining the minutia of attraction will not necessarily lead to the frank appraisal of one's own flaws. this is a poor argument
oh-oh this is where you get fallacious on me. I said love, not attraction. Attraction is biology and people can be attracted by a cute face and act on that alone (which is what happens most of the time).
>as people are quite honest about what they dislike in a partner, even if they share this trait themselves
No they don't. If it's like "I hate it when you tickle me!" and then tickle back than ok, but please this is a philosophic discussion.
>You may claim there is a mental disconnect between someone who desires one thing in a lover but does not possess it themselves, but even if true this is not necessarily a sign of inferior intellect.
It is inferior intellect to desire something you don't deserve. It's like saying I desire ice cream and waiting for it to appear in front of you without having the trouble to go to your freezer. It's not congruent with reality = dumb
>Is not the act of desiring something you do not presently deserve at the very core of your own thinking?
I agree. We desire things we don't deserve. To deserve them we have to change. But what is happening is people don't change and still desire said thing, so they mask what they are and what they desire so they don't have to self-improve.
>Self-improvement is an admirable trait, but a devotion to self-improvement is not congruous with your statement of "intellectual inferiority" and it falls to you to explain how you came to that conclusion.
And people don't devote themselves to self-improvement. They might say they do (Oh I need to read more or exercise more or stop smoking etc etc etc) but in reality they talk about it and never do it. Why? Well that's another can of worms.

>yes baby hit me with irrationality one more time, I love having false beliefs and not having to justify them to my rational self and live in denial, fuck yesssss give me fucking drug
normie gtfo

YOU SHOULD DESIRE TO BE A CAVEMAN

>i proposed 2 things
that most people do not seek to understand their desires, and that most people are unintelligent? If that's not what you're saying than i must have misunderstood.
>basing love on the opinion of one's peers is retarded
Why? It's just one factor, but i don't see the issue you have here, given that other people may see things you do not.
As for duration and benefits, don't be absurd. i was never claiming anyone could see the future, but people end relationships if they see it won't last long, like if it becomes long distance for example. all in all its just an estimation, a small factor overall that falls more on the logical side than the emotional side.
>My problem with this "reasoning" for love is that it doesn't touch even the base of what defines people
Actions define people. At least, in the eyes of others, your actions are what make you desirable, and your actions will reflect on your intentions and mentality.
>but makes them a generic which can and will be traded by another generic soon enough.
I think I see what you're complaining about. You are stating that the simplification of love into simple statements such as "humor" "wit" "kindness" make it easier for relationships to end, and for people to find others - due to one's criteria for a partner being simple and easily reproduced.

What doesn't seem to follow for me is that the phenomenon of many consecutive relationships as a direct result of the mentality being discussed. One may call "humor" a generic criteria, but the range of what an individual finds funny is anything but generic, and in my experience I have found that finding someone reliably humorous is often a result of the pre-existing bond between them. And the same follows for

what I'm saying by this is that the statements like "I like them because ____" can often be a statement of the ways affection manifests itself, and not the root cause of said affection.

Holy shit, I've never seen something so autistic on this website, and I mean that seriously. I actually feel bad for you, OP. Have you never felt an emotion in your entire life? People don't decide to love each other because it is a logical thing to do, why would you expect them to explain it logically?

Not being able to define and explain every single aspect of an emotion you have does not make you stupid, it makes you a person.

Go outside and meet a girl instead of arguing about love on a Japanese image board, for the love of christ.

>that most people do not seek to understand their desires, and that most people are unintelligent? If that's not what you're saying than i must have misunderstood.
I proposed that people either 1) don't think about why they love other people so they are dumb because they don't know what is lovable in themselves, which means they don't know what is wretched either (good being opposed to bad) OR 2) they know there are such characteristics as lovable and hateable (normally people would say kindness is lovable while selfishness is hateable) BUT they don't say they love people because of these characteristics because they themselves are bad people so for them to feel deserving of love their only chance is to keep love a very superficial term (hence the smartness/witty/kind)
>Why? It's just one factor, but i don't see the issue you have here, given that other people may see things you do not.
That is saying you don't have a sense of self that's able to decide what is good/bad. Relying on other people's opinions without a brain of your own is what leads to wars, etc. People need a moral compass of their own
>As for duration and benefits, don't be absurd.
If people truly knew each other they would wait years to be reunited. Imagine a couple that know each other's history and personality and moral stance and they connect. 2-3 years away from each other would be nothing in the long run. But people that are together for shallow reasons could find another mate in 1-2 months, so they prefer to not wait because there are plenty of fish in the sea (people are just fish for them because they have the mental capacity of fish)
>Actions define people.
Yes
>in my experience I have found that finding someone reliably humorous is often a result of the pre-existing bond between them. And the same follows for
I agree
>what I'm saying by this is that the statements like "I like them because ____" can often be a statement of the ways affection manifests itself, and not the root cause of said affection.
But they don't know the root cause. The thing I'm trying to say is people need to find the root cause but they don't and then when the going gets tough relationships end. When there is a conflict they find out they are incompatible and they don't even know why. This is because people don't connect in deep levels, they don't find that root. And why they don't find that root, what defines themselves and others, is because they are deeply ashamed of themselves, so they can't analyze others because that would mean analyzing themselves and that wouldn't be pleasant and they would have to change.

I'm sure you have never read the little prince.
Antoine explains it very well there.

ahha good luck on your relationships if you find a mate with half a brain and try to have any sort of reasonable conversation.
>user, do you approve of X behaviour
>no
>why?
>my feelings say it's wrong
>ok but mine say it's right
>seems like we just gotta have a battle of feels now
stupid cunt

if you read it just explain it to me

okay i can't take your sophomoric posturing seriously anymore, all you're doing is pointing out flaws in the outcomes of scenarios and claiming to be intellectually above those involved in them. It's childish.

>people must act in a way i morally oppose because they hate themselves and don't want to try to be better
>people must not be thinking for themselves because they don't subscribe to my personal view of what would be good for them
wew lad

Don't hurt me

Are you saying I am childish without pointing to a specific instance in my argument where I was childish?
The phrases are all there but you couldn't pick one could you? Because it all makes sense.
>pointing out flaws in the outcomes of scenarios
I point out flaws with people's way of thinking and then their behaviors and then their outcomes
>>>people must act in a way i morally oppose because they hate themselves and don't want to try to be better
I never said this. People don't hate themselves they love themselves but for bad reasons, so they are evil (evil = loving bad things). OR they are dumb, which was my first proposition
>>people must not be thinking for themselves because they don't subscribe to my personal view of what would be good for them
They are thinking for themselves but they are thinking badly, hence being stupid.

For someone that thinks he thinks right you sure made the retarded decision to ask them why they love each other.
A smart person could know it would come off as autistic but I guess this flew over your head.
Or they already know you're autistic and this is just one of your many moments.

I just know this because I asked and then I try to find out why people do it. I didn't know it before I asked. This is empirical evidence and then I try to make a theory surrounding my empirical findings and I post it here to see if anyone either agrees and gives more insight or disagrees in which case I'll defend my theory
Saying I'm autistic is saying every philosopher ever is autistic because he tries to define things. hurr durr don't worry bout nutin and just fuck girls and work on macdonalds. No thank you I'd much rather have a happy fulfilled life where I know what I'm doing and why and where I'm going and why

I'm seconding this. OP reminds me of myself when I was around 14 years old and thought questioning love was the most brilliant and insightful thing ever. I suspect however OP is far older than 14 and this is therefore extremely embarrassing for him, though he likely lacks the self-awareness to fully appreciate his self-humiliation here.

>I didn't know it before I asked.
dumb, anyone here on Veeky Forums could have known this would happen.

Any person with an emotional IQ above a grade schooler would have known.

Lol you're right. How dare anyone talk to anyone else. If you can't discern everything from just looking at someone's face, you're an autistic retard. Literally anyone who communicates verbally is an autist virgin creep.

oh oh, OP just got mad!
You're not as smart as you think you are, you're only just figuring out some stuff regular people always have known

I mean exactly what I said. It's the behavior of a self absorbed child. Were you a 10 year old I wouldn't think much on this but your articulation shows you're much older so I can only conclude you're developmentally stunted.

isn't me
I'm the real OP
lol
You all just prove my point when I say 99% of people are dumb this is what I mean. People always think they are in the 1% but when confronted with their utter inability to define something they claim to be aware of every day (love friends, family, wife, themselves) they can't explain it and attribute to the realm of emotions that can't be defined. newsflash: people are characterized by behaviors. You can define behaviors as right or wrong. If you say you love a wrong behavior you are evil. Saying you love a person isn't the same as saying you like coffee (ie unexplainable, it just tastes good), because you are saying the sum total of someone's behavior is good rather than bad. The problem is most people don't think of it in these terms because then they would have to define good and evil and see that they themselves are bad and therefore would have to change or they are undeserving of love in the first place. So they just say "yea he's funny/witty" or whatever and refrain from further analysis on something as important as who you are going to spend most of your life with or are going to connect with, influence by, etc

You're right, people are characterized by behaviors, in your case autistic behaviors ;)

>You can define behaviors as right or wrong

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and autism are both general terms for a group of complex disorders of brain development. These disorders are characterized, in varying degrees, by difficulties in social interaction, verbal and nonverbal communication and repetitive behaviors.
from autismspeaks.org/what-autism

I think you are the one with autism because you are not able to have a conversation and you repetitive point out my autism instead of addressing my argument.

this is the second most autistic post I have ever read. This is the first:

The question is, OP, why do you even care?

wow that looks like a cool t-shirt.
And yea you can define behaviors as right or wrong if you reasonable. A=A, life is better than death, truth trumps falsehood. If you don't have those assumptions I don't even want to argue with a person like that because they can claim at any time that they've won the argument without any right to do so

It's an interesting topic on how to live life and I'm very interested in how people are erroneous in the various aspects of living life so I don't make the same mistakes. Essentially I want to create a better world for me and for everyone

And you failed.
Your family thought it was awkward, you feel misunderstood and this board is annoyed with an autistic thread.

No shit, when galileo said that the earth is round everyone lost their shit too, doesn't mean he was wrong.
You just have to keep on persevering in the face of opposition. You have your numbers in people, I have logic, let's see who wins at the end

You're not galileo senpai.
You could have avoided all 3 mistakes by wording it better, you just failed badly and it was an embarrassment for everyone

It's funny how in lit board people should be really smart and have deep insights about life and people's motivations and desires and all that shit but when I pose a question they are all like
>YOU AUTISTIC FAGGOT NO ONE QUESTIONS THAT
lol serves to prove my point about cognitive dissonance

what 3 mistakes? Right now I'm laughing at my OP but if you have any brains you know what I'm talking about, even if it's badly worded

Might help if you don't start the thread by saying
>I refuse to believe that the normal person isn't dumb af.

If you had any ''brains'' you would know what the outcome would be from your badly worded arguments, but I guess that's hard for you to do. sad!

Maybe the issue is simply vocabulary? The average person does not read very much, and even if they do, nothing with anything other than the common vernacular. Perhaps they simply don't have the words to describe the 'why' of love. This is also an issue of language. I read a book once that said that English is an excellent language for actions, for things. But on feelings it falls flat. It then went into some feminist stuff about 'feelings traditionally being the realm of women and thus not worthy of note', but the idea is an interesting one.
>if you say you love a wrong behaviour you are evil
Also OP, Kant is calling, he wants his Autistic absolutism back. You want everything to be black and white so the world and social interactions make sense?

that was my initial proposition and for someone to disprove.
instead of saying my arguments are "badly worded" tell me where they are wrong, where I make a contradiction for example.
No the issue can't be vocabulary because people don't acknowledge the foundations I'm talking about, that love is only possible if you agree/think good of the other person's behavior. It's very simple, but people don't think about it and say they love for very silly reasons, for reasons that are so silly that I can compare someone's love for their wife for my liking of a chocolate cookie. It isn't a vocabulary issue, it's just people not being able to think. (or, as I pointed out, their refusal to think).
>Also OP, Kant is calling, he wants his Autistic absolutism back.
Kant was right when he said moral is absolute
>inb4
>poor man stealing

All moral absolutism aside, what you're coming up against is that most people don't really want to think. Be it about feelings, or politics, or philosophy, in my experience, the vast majority want to walk around wrapped in cotton wool, insulated from anything too confronting or unanswerable. It's why most people read John Green over Shakespeare or Dostoevsky, and why they look at Buzzfeed over genuinely peer reviewed journal articles. It's just easier to walk around with a head full of garbage and gossip than to actually sit down and confront any of the essential questions of humanity.

>autism

see a doctor

I know I hate it man. I just wish there was a facebook group or something that would unite everyone against buzzfeed and john green and sophists so people would get to know each other because being smart is a very lonesome business.

Start one maybe. Also *woman, not 'man'.

>implying doctors don't abide by the same wrong misconceptions as society does
all of you say autism like autists are wrong. nigga do you even society? everything is backward

yea but what would I call it?
dumb people gtfo?
definitions are a must? (daam)
please state your argument?
120+ IQ circlejerk?
there are so many options

>I'm not wrong, the world is!

Misanthropes anonymous?

this garners a reply; here it is

also I should say it demands reply because it's a good post, that probably nobody read.

>My opinions never diverge from the norm
you are scum
I don't like that word, sounds insect-like

you know that saying 'itsthe little things that count'?

Thats what love is. something found only within the intamacy of a relationship. With parents and siblings its more, for whatever reason (probably a biological one) they protect and turture you more than many strangers would. This in built part of us is why familes exist at all in the modern age i belive. a place that fills that natural longing.

Sexual partners are the same. I love my Girlfrind stronger than many love there partners I belive because she fills the void of my absent parents/dead brother.

In short, your a faggot who doesent appreciate the subtle yet beautiful diffrences between befriending someone and likeing them to loving them.

What do you mean?
(not OP, just not quite understanding what you're getting at, possibly due to writing. Could you rephrase?)

>definitions
lol get the fuck out you fucking analytic autist

dude did your mom fuck a physcian or smth lol

thanks, have a smiley face
you say you love your gf, but why do you love her? what does she do that makes you love her? If you don't know/can't explain that then how do you know you aren't just a lonely cunt grabbing on to whatever semblance of companionship you can get your pathetic claws on and call it love to justify your need for moral righteousness? I mean come on.
>you know that saying 'itsthe little things that count'?
>Thats what love is.
gr8 definition m8. So deep. Be sure to say to your gf you started to love her when the count of little things you found cute passed 30. You are a proper mate, you wait until 30 little things are met and then you love her. And if she doesn't do these little things anymore your love will start to fade away.
>With parents and siblings its more, for whatever reason (probably a biological one)
Love between parent and child is just as socially construed as any love. No definitions = no go. I won't be biology's puppet
>In short, your a faggot who doesent appreciate the subtle yet beautiful diffrences between befriending someone and likeing them to loving them.
yes I don't understand those nuances because they don't exist. If I don't love a person I'll never befriend them. Why would I have people in my life that I don't love? Small talk? fucking normie

>they can't explain it and attribute to the realm of emotions that can't be defined.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_bonding
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_bond
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternal_bond

Look, think of it like this. Sometimes the love is too hard to name, to sum up. For example I love my boyfriend, but when confronted with why, it's impossible to name they way we complement each other, the way we connect on emotional, physical and intellectual levels, the way we are something of a cure for the crushing loneliness we have both felt over the years. But it's impossible to describe properly, as its something felt so deeply. So you resort to the simple phrases and deeds that demonstrate that feeling, like 'they make me laugh' or 'they are clever' or 'they're kind'.

>as soon as you define it, it loses its essence!
you get the fuck off relativist scum, you don't even know you exist right? lol
my mom fucked a drug addict that abused me psychologically for 18 years, that's why I need to put a definition on love besides "that's just what people have for their parents"

Read late Wittgenstein. He managed to overcome this exact type of autism.

right so you agree with me there are definitions but most people don't know what they are
>we complement each other, the way we connect on emotional, physical and intellectual levels, the way we are something of a cure for the crushing loneliness we have both felt over the years
this tells me nothing about your boyfriend. This only says you are alone and someone understands that and they are similar to you. But if you don't know why they connect with you then you don't even know yourself
My question is what does your boyfriend DO or HAS that makes him your boyfriend instead of another person?
People listen to yourselves, if your significant other was reading this he would think: jesus, he/she doesn't know me at all! It's just superficial gibberish about how we connect but nothing of substance is actually said. It's like a prison inmate could describe any relationship on the planet without even knowing the people involved because every relationship between everyone is the same.

You expect normal folks to decipher their vernacular to a more precise language to you and you call them evil/dumb when they are unable to? This is autistic on at least three different levels.

yea I too hate it when I read a book and I think I know that shit and then a very specific subject about that comes up and I can't really explain anything and just refer the person to said book.
Really makes you think if you are learning something or just indulging your belief on your intelligence
did I use any strange big words? I am expecting folks be able to justify their actions, that's all. But yes I guess that is too much to fucking ask of this insane world. So yea if people can't answer basic things that they have thought their whole life I am right in calling them dumb. I can't say someone is dumb for not knowing rocket science but I can say they are dumb if they hold a belief for all their life and they actively pursue love and claim they love family and friends and their gf/bf and then when asked what it means they respond like a 2-year-old would.

>right so you agree with me there are definitions but most people don't know what they are
What baffles me is why you expect a precise definition in what seems to be non-academic context. Maybe you are entertained by doing philosophical inquiry? That's cool and all but why would you get pissed at normies and berate them for not playing along?

You come across like a shitty bitchy Socrates without any charisma whatsoever. That's how I'm picturing you right now lol.

My point was simply pointing out that love isnt as cut and dry as terms me or the misery-guts OP can articulite.

I'm guilty in my youth of being a hopeless romantic yet im also a staunch realist in my day-to-day.

Ultimatly, love have its 'honeymoon' period, where for at least one of the party it is good in every sense. It wanes and fluxuates however yet if it is there, it can be found and burn just as bright as when first found.

Which is to say, love can be hard work.

No doubt, if OP is still a teen and living with his parents, acting out on them because of his fear of not being truly loved, no doubt it would indeed take a strain on his families love of him. Yet the bonds still remain. Even in his absence his parents will remince, possibly long for his voice, character quirks even smell. This is paticually found in mothers as part of the maternal insinct.

Fathers love tends to be more earned however. This is not father being evil merely the trait found in most men. It might not even paticularly difficult to acive unless your dads a natural arse and his expectations are too high.

Your brothers and sisters love is that of a common bond. Of growing up toghter if you like. even within age gaps this is possible as long as absence is not to previlent (one being so old he's at work/college whilst the other is still in diapers.


Reading through your response it feels you are having a personal issue/dilemma thrust in your life and thus you deemed this question worthy of a thread. certain things you've said allude to this.

Most of my points ive explained to the other user in detail Ill condense this for you if you like, feel free to ask ask a follow up question if you don't follow:

Friends: A love for a friend can only morph if you (mutually) accend the initial pact of friendship (similar intrests,similar goals ect) to something of , but not as strong, as a love for a partner. real, loving friendships can be so strong you become brothers all but in blood. Think of how, if you've been on a date, its starts out small but evolves into constantly wanting each other around.

GF/BF/Partner/Significant Other: this is intermediate love. like i said, something you work on. or rather, craft. Like all crafts, it can be a fine piece of art or turn into shit. The great thing is there are many, many diffrent canvases for you to work with.

In fact, just read up oin thois for the rest, its basic stuff. Oh and me and my missus are still toghter after 5 years. yeah its not easy but she's worth my time And im worth hers i should think. another 5 years and we'll both be 30 so ill let you know if we still like each other then huh?

What the FUCK is going on in this thread?

I want a precise definition for love the same way I want a precise definition for the content of what I eat (calories, protein, etc) because I want to know what I'm ingesting so I don't get sick/fat/sub-nutrition and with love I want to know why I'm trusting the other person with my life and vulnerabilities and joy etc.
I get pissed because people have shit for brains and can't even see that 2+2=4 and seems like I have to explain the whole reality every time some topic comes up (literally, it isn't just love, I have to explain the whole of how reality exists whenever I talk about any deep topic with a normie). It's just tiring, I just wanted to find smart people and say jokes and make fun of normies but all I find is said normies

You know, the more i learn of OP the more i can appreciate his longing to understand what love is, sure its a tad autistic but you could say that about most here on various subjects.

All im saying is OP: your not OBLIDGED to love your parents and if you only come off as a little shit to your folks, dont worry, there love for you will wear thin.

However.

It feels like you got a rough hand in the paternal/maternal department. you have that right to be cautious of love. You dont have the right to poison other potential lovers you have with your warped view on love.

Love is a combination of many things. Lust, longing, anger, fear. Every emotion you can muster.

Its worth having though. the feeling of ectasy comes from being desired by someone, in any sense. It makes you feel like saying: I am here world and I am needed here, if only by one person.

I hope you experince this, if you dont you might just grow old and bitter about the whole thing.


Good luck, dont want to read up on you getting busted in a tiawanese brothel strangeling a prozzie with a belt whilst fucking her because that was what your 'love' transformed into...

dude wtf that is no definition of love whatsoever.
how can a father's love be different from a mother's
and siblings' love be just a bond
Then you are using different words to describe the same thing.
There is a bond sure. But that bond isn't love. That bond is a bond. That's why there are different names for this.
Then between mother/father and child there is attachment. Again, different from love. You can say you love your parents but wtf does that mean if you only talk with them once a month?
>GF/BF/Partner/Significant Other: this is intermediate love.
this is the best part LOL
goddamn it you crack me up
>Oh and me and my missus are still toghter after 5 years. yeah its not easy but she's worth my time And im worth hers i should think.
why are you worth her time and she is worth yours? why not becky next door? do you understand this? and please no "deep connection", give me a specific thing she does that is imperative for your relation to work. Protip: you don't know. No one (99%) knows. Because people just get together with whoever is lonely like them at the time.
>Love is a combination of many things. Lust, longing, anger, fear. Every emotion you can muster.
Yea no I won't fear or resent or hate people I love. Love is exactly the opposite of this
>Its worth having though. the feeling of ectasy comes from being desired by someone, in any sense. It makes you feel like saying: I am here world and I am needed here, if only by one person.
Ok I agree with this, but what makes you desirable and what are the traits that you desire on other people? That's what I'm talking bout
>Good luck, dont want to read up on you getting busted in a tiawanese brothel strangeling a prozzie with a belt whilst fucking her because that was what your 'love' transformed into...
lol no I'm pretty keen on a nice girl with strong conservative values and an out of this world ambition for greatness, I don't want a crushed being to impose my power on

This thread is literally autistic people talking about emotions confuse them.

Hey man all im trying to do is be sympathetic to your plight. I'm sorry if im being confusing/fruity in language.

Like some others here have said, love is hard to define and is diffrent for many. Me personally? I sewed my wild oats and found someone who was the comple opposite of what id got accoustomed to in women. Smart, abitious and morally rightous. i was the complete opposite. A complete 'chad' forgive the term. I relied on wooing women with my body and they theres. sexually satisfying but emotionally i was void. Then this woman comes into my life and even in my dark moments, my finacial ruin, ect she sticks with me. I was a cynicial bastard like you (still am in alot of ways) yet she shawed me the 'light at the end of the tunnel' as it were. I asked her why recently, she said she loved me in such a way she wanted to watch me grow and succeed. Shes a no nonsense bitch in alot of ways but she shows a side of herself to me, this tender side, and it is both humbling but also thrilling. In return i gave her material things companionship (she was very lonely when i met her) and constant, satisfactory sex life (she was a virgin before i had her ;))

In its way, love is a transaction. It isnt free regardless of what hippies might tell us. So yes, your right, unconditional love is a farce but the fact is it does exist. 'dumb' people as you origially put it are probably the most loving people around because unlike fuckers like you and me, they expect less in return for there love. Oh and 'evil' people love too. Some people just arnt capable o0f love because theres a chemical inbalance. there the abnormal ones. I take it you arnt one of those, your just having an introspective crisis in matters of the heart...
I hope thats nbot true but your probably right.

Initially, she was only into you because of you body dude, just like all the other girls.How can you say 'she showed me the light at the end of the tunnel' and that she stick to you and then later say love is a transaction? She only did stick because you're hot or whatever the fuck else not because she 'loves' you, nobody loves anyone beyond maybe their parents. And she being a virgin doesn't help convincing me either.

kill yourself