Death

Death?
Relationships?

I don't want death right now
I would like a relationship right now

That's about it for me

JLocke wrote: So, just because I happen feel differently about something, you think that's juvenile and immature? I never realized how overly proud of yourself you must be in order to think you know what's going on inside my head, or to assume that you know something I do not on the sheer grounds that you experienced things in life a little sooner than I. What's worse is how you predict I will be one of the 'loneliest souls on the planet' if I don't subscribe to your 'experienced' outlook on what love is.  For the record, I don't think I could ever bring myself to speak in such a pandering way to someone I genuinely considered as friend or had respect for. Sure, I'm brutally honest at times, but to me there is a fine line between brutal honesty and pompous lecturing. At least now I know what you really think about me.  Now, you'll simply laugh this off in your response and lecture me some more, no doubt; pointing out how I didn't address what you were really talking about, etc. etc. How about I just save you the effort right now, aye? I don't give a sh*t about how you think I should live my life. What I do give a sh*t about, however, is whether or not you respect me or consider me a friend. The more I talk to you, however, the more I wonder about that.  This was supposed to be a discussion about opinions, not a place for you to get all superior on me and state how much smarter you think you are.

Never mind.  I should know better by now than to try to get into a "discussion" with you.  You dish out plenty of talk but act like a victim every time someone challenges your own view.  I've seen it time after time:

"Sure, I'm brutally honest at times, but to me there is a fine line between brutal honesty and pompous lecturing. "

Yeah, it's brutal honesty when you do it, but it's pompous lecturing from anyone else.  I pay attention to your posts, even if I don't participate in the discussion.

You don't allow the "your experience is equally valid as my experience" gambit in religious discussions, so why should I make the same allowance for you when it comes to relationships? 

Me thinking the same as you at your age = me being smarter.  It seems you ignored what I actually said for a third time in a row. 

That's all right.  I'm used to being asked for my opinion and then told I'm being insulting after I've given it.  No big deal I reckon.

This discussion has a serious lack of balloons.

JLocke wrote: Finnforest wrote: JLocke wrote: *sigh*  I guess I'm just soulless, then.  Well you shouldn't feel bad over anything I wrote.  I was just trying to explain this guy and what I observe.  It matters not.  Well, it matters a bit, I'd say. I don't wish to come across as some a****le without empathy or understanding for another's pain.  I simply don't see the logic in wrapping your emotions so much in another human being that you would end up in such a way. But I understand it on an emotional level. I don't see the two as the same thing. I did in fact feel this way about someone once upon a time; it was horrible after we ended the relationship, and I couldn't imagine how much worse I would have felt had it ended as a result of something tragic. But after the whole thing was over, I felt like I had been under a spell of sorts. Love is a type of madness where emotion often gets in the way of logic. For that reason, I try to keep myself looking at things from a realistic, practical angle. I just worry that I'm coming off as some smart-ass who thinks he knows it all. That's certainly not how I feel.

ExittheLemming wrote: JLocke wrote: Finnforest wrote: JLocke wrote: *sigh*  I guess I'm just soulless, then.  Well you shouldn't feel bad over anything I wrote.  I was just trying to explain this guy and what I observe.  It matters not.  Well, it matters a bit, I'd say. I don't wish to come across as some a****le without empathy or understanding for another's pain.  I simply don't see the logic in wrapping your emotions so much in another human being that you would end up in such a way. But I understand it on an emotional level. I don't see the two as the same thing. I did in fact feel this way about someone once upon a time; it was horrible after we ended the relationship, and I couldn't imagine how much worse I would have felt had it ended as a result of something tragic. But after the whole thing was over, I felt like I had been under a spell of sorts. Love is a type of madness where emotion often gets in the way of logic. For that reason, I try to keep myself looking at things from a realistic, practical angle. I just worry that I'm coming off as some smart-ass who thinks he knows it all. That's certainly not how I feel.  I do feel a great deal of empathy with this statement but I think it's a very slippery idea to put across without being construed as the perspectives afforded by self-centredness or 'contingency' pessimism. The idea of being inseparable from a loved one is contradicted by millions of critters the world over since primordial soup was a menu choice. Yes, it would be heart-breaking and cause much suffering but even in the worst case scenario of bereavement, the ones taken from you would want more than anything, the opportunity for you to grasp another crumb of happiness in the world. Look at the logistics of who we choose to be with for the greater part of our lives in a pragmatic way: There are circa 6,874,500,000 humanoid critters in the world - you will only ever meet a minuscule fraction of them - of that minuscule fraction you will only speak to a minuscule fraction of those - of those you speak to, you will only get close to those who you actually like and that remain within practical proximity to you - of those in practical physical proximity to you that you like, you might connect with a handful on a romantic level if you are really, really  lucky. Now tell me, are you still gonna say that 'fate threw you into each other's arms' or that you were always meant to be with the one you chose for ever and ever notwithstanding the 6 billion or so you passed over ? It's bollocks ain't it?

Textbook wrote: Epignosis: I have a wife and three kids and share JLocke's position. And I'm two years older than you so I WIN!

I think that the correct answer is that one hopes never to have to make a choice but if it happened one would hope to make the correct choice.

I don't think there's any black and white logic that suggests that sacrificing the wife is the correct thing to do.

Textbook wrote: Well you know, there's always that "choice" in movies where the hero has to pick between his kid and his wife. I've never really gotten that, the child is obviously the correct choice. Children are the future.   Discussions like this show how illogical most people are. Some people will get furious at me for saying the above, saying "WHAT DOES THAT SAY ABOUT YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH YOUR WIFE?" or something, so I say "Oh I should kill the kid then?" and they say "No" so I say "What, both?" and they say "No..."   It seems the correct answer to these people is "Ooh I couldn't decide." What a copout. People can't cope with the basic realities of life, eg that it is right for the older to die before the younger.

Mmm..all these 'lifeboat scenarios' are cropping up again.

They say 'women and children first' (but we're allowed to haggle over the order ain't we?)

Textbook wrote: Well you know, there's always that "choice" in movies where the hero has to pick between his kid and his wife. I've never really gotten that, the child is obviously the correct choice. Children are the future.

I think it could be called a "logical" or "rational" choice ... but somehow I don't like the word "correct" in this situation, since at least to a certain degree it applies some kind of approval of the situation. I think that there may be situations where no "correct" choice can be made. The correct thing to do would be to not make a choice at all, but it is not available.

Textbook wrote:   Discussions like this show how illogical most people are. Some people will get furious at me for saying the above, saying "WHAT DOES THAT SAY ABOUT YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH YOUR WIFE?" or something, so I say "Oh I should kill the kid then?" and they say "No" so I say "What, both?" and they say "No..."   It seems the correct answer to these people is "Ooh I couldn't decide." What a copout. People can't cope with the basic realities of life, eg that it is right for the older to die before the younger.

Not necessarily - take abortion issues as an example. Sometimes the life of the mother is regarded to be more important than that of the unborn child.

I was watching the Atheist Experience the other day (don't remember which episode) and a caller posed the question "Can you think of a situation where it would be morally justified to kill 6,000,000 people?". Obviously the theist caller was planning to make the "argument from Naziism" ... but the atheists responded "yes". And of course they're right ... for example, in a war someone might make a choice to sacrifice a city with 6 million people to save one with 12 million people. Assuming that when no action is taken they will all die, it would be morally justifiable to sacrifice 6 million people.