+- Music Talk Board (https://www.musictalkboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic (https://www.musictalkboard.com/forum-16.html)
+--- Forum: General Discussion (https://www.musictalkboard.com/forum-30.html)
+--- Thread: Community Thread (/thread-292.html)
(03-28-2014, 03:21 PM)debbie Wrote: That guy looks like a nerdy less psyco version of my friend Andrew.
D'oh! I didn't know I had progeny in SA. How the hell did that happen?
(03-28-2014, 03:37 PM)Grungie Wrote: So you know someone that looks like Sam?
Poor Debbie...
HEY!
RE: 2 pÉÂÇÂɹɥʇ ʎʇıunɯɯoɆ- wwf - 03-28-2014
Holy shit Paul and Sam really do look alike
I'm getting really tired of lifebuzz articles spamming up my facebook feed. They're all really obvious crap but the way they promote them is pretty smart actually.
They're the ones that will say, 'number eleven is so heartwarming' or something like that so I can't help but click it just to see what they're talking about. I have to mentally stop myself from clicking their articles every time they pop up on my facebook feed.
WARNING: GIANT EFFING POST CONTAINED WITHIN A SINGULAR SPOILER
(03-27-2014, 05:17 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: Yes...that's the flipside to it. Most people don't want to do the work. They want to feel good without having to do any work.
I don't call that love. I call it laziness and a sort of Cinderella mentality in that everything will be delivered to you on a silver platter.
(03-27-2014, 05:17 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: Yeah, I'm not saying parents always are what they should be. But there's a lot of examples of parents who take absolute fucking abuse from their kids and still love them.
Right, I guess there are some exceptions.
(03-27-2014, 05:17 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: They do say love and hate are two sides of the same coin. It's very easy to turn from one to the other. So, I don't blame you.
+1 to the pile of arguments for love nihilism.
(03-27-2014, 05:17 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: The bolded is probably a good step, man.
Also, I would maintain a certain level of skepticism towards her, because you do need to make sure it's not all give on your part and all take on hers.
Way ahead of you. There are still plenty of inconsistencies that she still hasn't cleared up and I still think she's likely bullshitting me about many things. We're at a truce now, but she knows very well that I'm skeptical of and am no longer taking shit from her.
The fact that, when we finally reconciled, she told me that I didn't have to apologize for anything (her thus implicitly taking all the blame for single-handedly screwing up the best friendship she's likely ever had) was a good start though.
(03-27-2014, 05:17 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: I would venture to guess that the reason you're skeptical is because of this friend you've talked about. And I can understand that attitude. But I'd advise you to be cautious and not take that kind of attitude too far.
I guess...try not to let it twist your view towards other people too much. I mean, let the actions of others speak for them, without any preconceived bias on your part judging them beforehand. Your skepticism makes perfect sense toward this friend of yours, but don't let that spread to how you view other people.
Well most of the reason I'm cynical has little to nothing to do with her. She merely gave me trust issues. In fact, a marginal part of the reason I look down at society in general is because I have this (admittedly grossly) idealized version of her (and she was typically different from the average individual) and literally nobody else I've met is even close to whom I once knew in any way. Note that this "idealized" version is basically exactly whom she was before she changed, in actuality.
That said, I look mostly at the way individuals behave with others and their mentality, and from that I am skeptical. For the most part, I'm cynical because I just am. When it comes to romantic relationships, I simply answer that friends don't leave each other because they were only ultimately interested in each other's bodies or money, they don't get jealous if you hang out with other friends sometimes, and they can have as many friends as they like. The best part is that this allows the best of friends, i.e. people who aren't total cunts, to stick together through thick and thin, and in the end, it filters out all the parasites disguised as friends.
I can only live so long. I'm not gonna go one by one for romantic partners.
(03-27-2014, 05:17 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: Well...you have to make a choice. Do you risk loving (and getting hurt, again)? Or are you content with being single?
By that second question, I don't mean, "are you comfortable?" or "does being single cause you the least amount of fear?". I mean, could you see yourself as truly content with the single life? For myself, I don't think I could say yes, and I have respect for people who truly can say yes.
1) No. Certainly and absolutely not worth it. Not that I have the psychological capacity or philosophical ideology to love like that ever again.
2) I am absolutely comfortable. In fact, one argument against being in a relationship is that I'm more comfortable being single than even thinking about the notion of being with a person. Like I've said, I've never cared for being in a relationship in the first place. These events merely confirmed to me that I am not made to be in a relationship. For now at least. The only thing I really fear is whether I'll regret staying single later on, but that'll just be part of many other questions I'll pose myself during my mid-life crisis.
I'm not against the notion that I will some day be in a committed relationship and hey, I might live to be 100 with advancing technology, making it hard to stay the same for so long. I might definitely change my mind one day. But that day certainly is NOT in the foreseeable future.
(03-27-2014, 05:17 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: By the way, you have time to make this choice. Don't stress out about it now. Take things slow. Deal with Joel and Joel's goals for now. That may seem a bit selfish, but sometimes you have to focus on yourself. You can't really decide if you want to share an important part of yourself with someone (romantically or in the platonic sense), if you're not decided on what you partially see.
Yeah. I'm trying to find myself right now anyway. I have the tendency to silently criticize almost everybody for opinions they have or actions they commit even if they have the same opinions as me or behave the same way I do, merely because I think they may have said opinions or act in certain ways for the wrong reasons.
Admittedly, one of my biggest vices is being judgmental, while I also preach that nobody can really be held as "evil" or "bad" because everyone has a different history or environment that could have affected them in different ways. It's not really "right" to call someone a "bad" person because of it. Despite that, it's still difficult not to be pissed at some people. In a way, I have a sort of social-Marxist deterministic philosophy that I've had long before I even learned Marx's philosophy on man in college (i.e. very recently).
(03-27-2014, 05:17 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: I'm sure that, when her boyfriend is around, they both do at least minor things, like holding hands or kissing. Those things can be a form of physical intimacy, though they aren't always so. Sex is hardly the ONLY form of physical intimacy.
But try to have a long-lasting marriage without sex. Nowadays, it's practically unthinkable, and fucking EVERYBODY tells you that "everyone needs sex" (it drives me fucking insane), even though to me it would prove that, almost without a shadow of a doubt, my wife actually probably gives a shit about me for whom I am and doesn't like me a single bit for my body, fame or money.
That's a paradox I've had on my mind for a long time. If you can have a wholly unphysical, un-hedonic relationship with someone, that would signify that your love for one another is truly meaningful. In a way, it's the best kind of relationship you can have. The most selfless one.
10 points for Gryffindor theism.
(03-27-2014, 05:17 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: In a way, I suspect the people who have to tell EVERYONE about "how they fucked this one chick" or "how they and their boyfriend did this move last night" are probably searching for true intimacy and not finding it. Imho, intimate details (sexual or not) should remain private between oneself and one's significant other. It's not for everyone else. And it ruins it when you drag it out for everyone, as if there's some need for popular validation of one's actions.
That's the reason that I and my fiancee are the only ones who know about certain details of our relationship. It's no one else's business.
Well, that's what "intimate" means.
(03-27-2014, 05:17 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: All of that said, just because it seems like everyone else is basically ruining any potential intimacy they have/had, that does not mean you have to do that. If you decide to enter a relationship with someone, you two should find your own boundaries in regards to what you tell others about your relationship. That should obviously be something that preserves the sense of intimacy for both of you. I just don't think it preserves intimacy very well if you're telling everyone what sex positions you tried out and every other damn detail.
It's just that society has completely killed intimacy. And I'm not talking "the NSA is infringing on our privacy rights". "Intimacy" has become completely trivialized to the point that I just don't really give a shit anymore about it.
(03-27-2014, 05:17 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: I don't follow. Shouldn't, if one is seeking true intimacy with one's significant other, it be that the significant other is the only person one has sex with? What I'm getting at is that there's a deeper emotional connection under such circumstances. It's not "just sex" under those conditions. It goes a bit deeper than that.
Maybe it's my lack of ehm... "experience" talking, but I honestly don't see any real difference between, and forgive my rawness, sticking it in a stranger and sticking it in someone you know well.
Even if there is a difference between the two, having a one-night stand or fuck buddy completely trivializes sex in general, and having multiple "deep emotional connections" in your life completely trivializes deep emotional connections.
Because of this, it's as if sex, being of course the most banal and un-intimate thing in the world, should be reserved to literally everyone BUT whom you want to be "intimate" with. Why give your lover something so unspecial and typical like sex? Buy them a tie on Valentine's Day while you're at it.
This is, of course, hyperbolic and hypothetical, so I wouldn't go as far as, for example, create a counter-culture that practices this mentality or something (I would oppose it), but I feel like it makes a whole lot of sense sometimes.
(03-27-2014, 05:17 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: I'm not condemning having sex because you want sex. (That would be judgmental and make me an asshole.) But I am saying that, in a committed romantic relationship, it feels deeper.
Maybe... but, say, cooking dinner with a lover or a friend also feels deeper than cooking dinner with a stranger, even if that stranger is really good at it. Like, a master chef, or something.
(03-27-2014, 05:17 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: Well, look at how their relationships are...is there any true sense of love in their relationships? My point is, there needs to be more give than take. Otherwise, it's not love, it's just selfishness.
That's a good point. I'm just more concerned with the underlying intentions of being in a relationship. Sure, superficially, someone may look like they're dedicating their life to another person, but it's easy to hide an ulterior motive, even if it's not conscious.
(03-27-2014, 04:38 AM)Danjo Wrote: Although I'm admittedly inexperienced is such matters, I would say that theres a huge difference in the physical relationship of a couple which is mostly physical, and the physical relationship of a couple that is actually dedicated to the other person. Having sex because you love the person as opposed to just because its fun.
But then again, love nihilism. Sex to express love is just as meaningless.
Wow. That took a long time to finish.
RE: 2 pÉÂÇÂɹɥʇ ʎʇıunɯɯoɆ- Hank Hill - 03-29-2014
(03-27-2014, 05:17 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: Yes...that's the flipside to it. Most people don't want to do the work. They want to feel good without having to do any work.
I don't call that love. I call it laziness and a sort of Cinderella mentality in that everything will be delivered to you on a silver platter.
That's the point. It's not love; it's laziness.
(03-29-2014, 03:40 AM)JoelCarli Wrote:
(03-27-2014, 05:17 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: Yeah, I'm not saying parents always are what they should be. But there's a lot of examples of parents who take absolute fucking abuse from their kids and still love them.
Right, I guess there are some exceptions.
Always.
(03-29-2014, 03:40 AM)JoelCarli Wrote:
(03-27-2014, 05:17 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: They do say love and hate are two sides of the same coin. It's very easy to turn from one to the other. So, I don't blame you.
+1 to the pile of arguments for love nihilism.
lol.
(03-29-2014, 03:40 AM)JoelCarli Wrote:
(03-27-2014, 05:17 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: The bolded is probably a good step, man.
Also, I would maintain a certain level of skepticism towards her, because you do need to make sure it's not all give on your part and all take on hers.
Way ahead of you. There are still plenty of inconsistencies that she still hasn't cleared up and I still think she's likely bullshitting me about many things. We're at a truce now, but she knows very well that I'm skeptical of and am no longer taking shit from her.
The fact that, when we finally reconciled, she told me that I didn't have to apologize for anything (her thus implicitly taking all the blame for single-handedly screwing up the best friendship she's likely ever had) was a good start though.
Well, all right...at least you can see where it goes from here...
(03-29-2014, 03:40 AM)JoelCarli Wrote:
(03-27-2014, 05:17 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: I would venture to guess that the reason you're skeptical is because of this friend you've talked about. And I can understand that attitude. But I'd advise you to be cautious and not take that kind of attitude too far.
I guess...try not to let it twist your view towards other people too much. I mean, let the actions of others speak for them, without any preconceived bias on your part judging them beforehand. Your skepticism makes perfect sense toward this friend of yours, but don't let that spread to how you view other people.
Well most of the reason I'm cynical has little to nothing to do with her. She merely gave me trust issues. In fact, a marginal part of the reason I look down at society in general is because I have this (admittedly grossly) idealized version of her (and she was typically different from the average individual) and literally nobody else I've met is even close to whom I once knew in any way. Note that this "idealized" version is basically exactly whom she was before she changed, in actuality.
That said, I look mostly at the way individuals behave with others and their mentality, and from that I am skeptical. For the most part, I'm cynical because I just am. When it comes to romantic relationships, I simply answer that friends don't leave each other because they were only ultimately interested in each other's bodies or money, they don't get jealous if you hang out with other friends sometimes, and they can have as many friends as they like. The best part is that this allows the best of friends, i.e. people who aren't total cunts, to stick together through thick and thin, and in the end, it filters out all the parasites disguised as friends.
That all makes sense.
(03-29-2014, 03:40 AM)JoelCarli Wrote: I can only live so long. I'm not gonna go one by one for romantic partners.
Nor should you do so.
(03-29-2014, 03:40 AM)JoelCarli Wrote:
(03-27-2014, 05:17 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: Well...you have to make a choice. Do you risk loving (and getting hurt, again)? Or are you content with being single?
By that second question, I don't mean, "are you comfortable?" or "does being single cause you the least amount of fear?". I mean, could you see yourself as truly content with the single life? For myself, I don't think I could say yes, and I have respect for people who truly can say yes.
1) No. Certainly and absolutely not worth it. Not that I have the psychological capacity or philosophical ideology to love like that ever again.
I think you have the capacity; you just need time.
(03-29-2014, 03:40 AM)JoelCarli Wrote: 2) I am absolutely comfortable. In fact, one argument against being in a relationship is that I'm more comfortable being single than even thinking about the notion of being with a person. Like I've said, I've never cared for being in a relationship in the first place. These events merely confirmed to me that I am not made to be in a relationship. For now at least. The only thing I really fear is whether I'll regret staying single later on, but that'll just be part of many other questions I'll pose myself during my mid-life crisis.
Then, there's no issues...at least until said crisis.
(03-29-2014, 03:40 AM)JoelCarli Wrote: I'm not against the notion that I will some day be in a committed relationship and hey, I might live to be 100 with advancing technology, making it hard to stay the same for so long. I might definitely change my mind one day. But that day certainly is NOT in the foreseeable future.
Yeah, but most of us guys don't really see ourselves that way. We're not closed to a committed relationship, but (especially when we're in our early 20s) our thoughts tend to be on things other than making sure we get married or something.
Women are typically the ones who dream about being married. lol
(03-29-2014, 03:40 AM)JoelCarli Wrote:
(03-27-2014, 05:17 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: By the way, you have time to make this choice. Don't stress out about it now. Take things slow. Deal with Joel and Joel's goals for now. That may seem a bit selfish, but sometimes you have to focus on yourself. You can't really decide if you want to share an important part of yourself with someone (romantically or in the platonic sense), if you're not decided on what you partially see.
Yeah. I'm trying to find myself right now anyway. I have the tendency to silently criticize almost everybody for opinions they have or actions they commit even if they have the same opinions as me or behave the same way I do, merely because I think they may have said opinions or act in certain ways for the wrong reasons.
Admittedly, one of my biggest vices is being judgmental, while I also preach that nobody can really be held as "evil" or "bad" because everyone has a different history or environment that could have affected them in different ways. It's not really "right" to call someone a "bad" person because of it. Despite that, it's still difficult not to be pissed at some people. In a way, I have a sort of social-Marxist deterministic philosophy that I've had long before I even learned Marx's philosophy on man in college (i.e. very recently).
I think most people tend to have judgmental attitudes towards others as one their major vices.
(03-29-2014, 03:40 AM)JoelCarli Wrote:
(03-27-2014, 05:17 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: I'm sure that, when her boyfriend is around, they both do at least minor things, like holding hands or kissing. Those things can be a form of physical intimacy, though they aren't always so. Sex is hardly the ONLY form of physical intimacy.
But try to have a long-lasting marriage without sex.
Yes. But that goes back to Danjo's statement about how sex in a committed loving relationship (especially a marriage, imho) is more than just "fun". It's more deep than that.
In a long-term, committed relationship, intimacy (not just sex, but all forms of intimacy -- emotional, physical, spirital, or mental) is a much deeper thing. Because it all adds to the relationship as a whole and makes both people feel more connected.
(03-29-2014, 03:40 AM)JoelCarli Wrote: Nowadays, it's practically unthinkable, and fucking EVERYBODY tells you that "everyone needs sex" (it drives me fucking insane), even though to me it would prove that, almost without a shadow of a doubt, my wife actually probably gives a shit about me for whom I am and doesn't like me a single bit for my body, fame or money.
Yes, unfortunately, the '60s kind of ruined the idea that sex was special or anything. ("Free Love" movement, not that I don't understand the reasoning behind that. I just think it's gone too far in the other direction now. It's out of balance, by far.) And now everyone wants it as often as possible. Which usually results in most of them being frustrated idiots who think with their dicks/vaginas.
(03-29-2014, 03:40 AM)JoelCarli Wrote: That's a paradox I've had on my mind for a long time. If you can have a wholly unphysical, un-hedonic relationship with someone, that would signify that your love for one another is truly meaningful. In a way, it's the best kind of relationship you can have. The most selfless one.
I don't think it would have to be unphysical to be un-hedonistic. The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Hedonism implies that it's all about personal pleasure, and frankly personal pleasure isn't what love is about at all.
Yes, sex is pleasurable, but one shouldn't have sex with one's paramour just because it's pleasurable. That's NOT the main point at all. If a relationship becomes all about the physical, that's when it should be re-examined and changes should be made in one's own actions (and possibly morals/merits).
(03-29-2014, 03:40 AM)JoelCarli Wrote: 10 points for Gryffindor theism.
lol
(03-29-2014, 03:40 AM)JoelCarli Wrote:
(03-27-2014, 05:17 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: In a way, I suspect the people who have to tell EVERYONE about "how they fucked this one chick" or "how they and their boyfriend did this move last night" are probably searching for true intimacy and not finding it. Imho, intimate details (sexual or not) should remain private between oneself and one's significant other. It's not for everyone else. And it ruins it when you drag it out for everyone, as if there's some need for popular validation of one's actions.
That's the reason that I and my fiancee are the only ones who know about certain details of our relationship. It's no one else's business.
Well, that's what "intimate" means.
Exactly. Now, if we can convince the rest of the world to keep their damn mouths shut about their sex lives...
(03-29-2014, 03:40 AM)JoelCarli Wrote:
(03-27-2014, 05:17 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: All of that said, just because it seems like everyone else is basically ruining any potential intimacy they have/had, that does not mean you have to do that. If you decide to enter a relationship with someone, you two should find your own boundaries in regards to what you tell others about your relationship. That should obviously be something that preserves the sense of intimacy for both of you. I just don't think it preserves intimacy very well if you're telling everyone what sex positions you tried out and every other damn detail.
It's just that society has completely killed intimacy. And I'm not talking "the NSA is infringing on our privacy rights". "Intimacy" has become completely trivialized to the point that I just don't really give a shit anymore about it.
Well, let me put it this way, if everyone else decided to jump off a bridge...? Seriously, just because the "crowd" decided to not value intimacy, that's no reason for you to do the same.
(03-27-2014, 05:17 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: I don't follow. Shouldn't, if one is seeking true intimacy with one's significant other, it be that the significant other is the only person one has sex with? What I'm getting at is that there's a deeper emotional connection under such circumstances. It's not "just sex" under those conditions. It goes a bit deeper than that.
Maybe it's my lack of ehm... "experience" talking, but I honestly don't see any real difference between, and forgive my rawness, sticking it in a stranger and sticking it in someone you know well.
(03-29-2014, 03:40 AM)JoelCarli Wrote: Even if there is a difference between the two, having a one-night stand or fuck buddy completely trivializes sex in general, and having multiple "deep emotional connections" in your life completely trivializes deep emotional connections.
Yes. Definitely. There's a reason I chose not to engage in these kind of life choices.
(03-29-2014, 03:40 AM)JoelCarli Wrote: Because of this, it's as if sex, being of course the most banal and un-intimate thing in the world, should be reserved to literally everyone BUT whom you want to be "intimate" with. Why give your lover something so unspecial and typical like sex? Buy them a tie on Valentine's Day while you're at it.
This only applies if you, Joel, decide to start treating sex this way. Again, just because the crowd does it this way, that doesn't mean you have to.
(03-29-2014, 03:40 AM)JoelCarli Wrote: This is, of course, hyperbolic and hypothetical, so I wouldn't go as far as, for example, create a counter-culture that practices this mentality or something (I would oppose it), but I feel like it makes a whole lot of sense sometimes.
Yeah, I get that.
(03-29-2014, 03:40 AM)JoelCarli Wrote:
(03-27-2014, 05:17 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: I'm not condemning having sex because you want sex. (That would be judgmental and make me an asshole.) But I am saying that, in a committed romantic relationship, it feels deeper.
Maybe... but, say, cooking dinner with a lover or a friend also feels deeper than cooking dinner with a stranger, even if that stranger is really good at it. Like, a master chef, or something.
And the same applies to physical acts with a committed romantic partner. I've a feeling you just aren't at a mental or emotional point where you can clearly see that.
(03-29-2014, 03:40 AM)JoelCarli Wrote:
(03-27-2014, 05:17 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: Well, look at how their relationships are...is there any true sense of love in their relationships? My point is, there needs to be more give than take. Otherwise, it's not love, it's just selfishness.
That's a good point. I'm just more concerned with the underlying intentions of being in a relationship. Sure, superficially, someone may look like they're dedicating their life to another person, but it's easy to hide an ulterior motive, even if it's not conscious.
Agreed. But that's where self-examination comes into play. We all need to spend more time examining ourselves (in everything really, not just our relationships [romantic or not]) than we do judging others, imho.
(03-29-2014, 03:40 AM)JoelCarli Wrote:
(03-27-2014, 04:38 AM)Danjo Wrote: Although I'm admittedly inexperienced is such matters, I would say that theres a huge difference in the physical relationship of a couple which is mostly physical, and the physical relationship of a couple that is actually dedicated to the other person. Having sex because you love the person as opposed to just because its fun.
But then again, love nihilism. Sex to express love is just as meaningless.
You're becoming like the Nietzsche of love. :lol:
@Hank Hill:
I love conversations like this. Besides, I read through stuff like nothing. I just finished a 700 page book the other night, lol. (I'd been slowly reading it over the course of a week.) Reading a lot is...not an issue. Not for me. hrug:
I hope I don't sound like an arrogant ass. That's wasn't what I was going for...