No really, I'm still here.

Aug 08, 2006 03:01

A confirmation to you all that I am in fact still around ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 28

th3k1d August 8 2006, 13:55:48 UTC
Interesting point of view, Greg. I do see what you're saying.

Reply

th3k1d August 8 2006, 13:57:42 UTC
And for the record, I know a lot of people (myself included) who own up to their internalised prejudices and privileges. Airing that shit out and talking about it is the best way to get rid of it.

Reply

guntar August 8 2006, 20:40:42 UTC
Hello, small world. How are the lasers coming along?

Reply

th3k1d August 9 2006, 18:14:48 UTC
Dude! How do you know Greg???

Reply


anonymous August 8 2006, 23:41:06 UTC
You raise a lot of good points here Greg. I think that a lot of intelligent people do indeed know this, but are compeled by one reason or another not to admit it.

But your view on love itself is the real key to this. I think the word is over used. I think that you can deeply care for someone and not love them.

For me, love and lust are not seperate. I can't love someone unless I lust for them as well.

- Scott

Reply

kagiri9 August 9 2006, 00:09:29 UTC
Well, I can respect that view, but if you cannot seperate love from lust, is love lust to you, or is lust love?

What IS love to you?

Reply

anonymous August 10 2006, 21:09:14 UTC
My idea of love is simple. What most people considar to be love + What most people considar to be lust = My idea of love.

Easy.

- Scott

Reply


Part one--got a bit rambly guntar August 9 2006, 01:38:34 UTC
I think the part where I disagree with you is your conception of rationality/logic. Rationality is a tool. Given certain presuppositions, it can form the logical consequence. Given certain desires, it can discover the best way of meeting those desires ( ... )

Reply

Part two guntar August 9 2006, 01:41:10 UTC
So, then, what are your assumptions for the basis of your stance on love? Mainly that love is entirely to do with personality, and that love is more desirable than lust. Well, the second assumption I agree with. But you call the second logical with no basis--only assumptions that are, themselves, alogical (not illogical. They are not against logic--they are outside of it ( ... )

Reply

Part three guntar August 9 2006, 01:43:19 UTC
It's just not a matter of prejudice. It's a matter of desires. I can love people of the opposite sex just fine. But why would I want a relationship with them ( ... )

Reply

Part four guntar August 9 2006, 01:43:51 UTC

You ask why we would reject someone who's perfect in every other way except this one critical point. I say that that's like asking why I shouldn't use brussel sprouts as a staple, which are healthy but taste horrible. I respond that there are things that are almost as healthy, but also taste great--and I'll have a happier life than someone who is completely into self-denial (and also live longer, since happiness is related to life expectancy). You can't just dismiss one category and then say the person's a better choice--that category is just as fundamental as the others. Romance depends upon that category.

The body just doesn't release these chemicals with the sex you're not attracted to. Lust is intimately attached to romance; lust is intimately attached to relationships. Love is separate from these. I can love a person fully without having any physical connection whatever. But romance?

It just doesn't work that way.

Reply


chemical_lover August 9 2006, 13:24:19 UTC
Since you asked me to comment I'm going to say this and not respond to anything anyone else puts in response to it.

1. You are trying to make an emotion rational. Which I find very very difficult to accept.

2. I am bisexual, everyone knows it. But the only woman I have ever been in love with was my best friend. I lust for other woman, but as a general rule I only ever fall for guys ( ... )

Reply


Leave a comment

Up