Sociopath Community

by TheCrowOnTheFence

"The original meaning of the word, referred to a type of desire. You desire to have that person around, which is identical to infatuation, and then after that high, the desire to keep them around. My point was that the reasons they want to keep the person around, is inherently about them and what they want. Usually sex, cuddling, etc...."

And how do you know the original meaning of a word that's older than who-knows-what?  Even assuming that you're correct about that, you're actually arguing against yourself.  A prolonged desire to have them around?  If you've never seen a couple over 35 that still seem genuinely happy together, then you must not get out much.  For a man who doesn't believe that love exists, your definition certainly doesn't seem like anything extraordinary.  In fact I'd say it's far more mundane and commonplace, than most peoples definitions.  On top of which, your point about their reasoning being selfish, is exactly what you just described love to be.  A desire.  Desires are what you want, yes?

Just as a sidenote, if simply "desiring to have someone around" (even temporarily) constitutes infatuation, then we're all crazed stalkers. : P

 A little late to that part of the debate, are you? Honestly, it's just the debating style I choose to use, when I want someone to provide a coherent definition and prove what they say. As to the meaning of the word, its a well understood part of IndoEuropean historical linguistics. That's how I know.

by Machiavelli

 

by TheCrowOnTheFence

"The original meaning of the word, referred to a type of desire. You desire to have that person around, which is identical to infatuation, and then after that high, the desire to keep them around. My point was that the reasons they want to keep the person around, is inherently about them and what they want. Usually sex, cuddling, etc...."

And how do you know the original meaning of a word that's older than who-knows-what?  Even assuming that you're correct about that, you're actually arguing against yourself.  A prolonged desire to have them around?  If you've never seen a couple over 35 that still seem genuinely happy together, then you must not get out much.  For a man who doesn't believe that love exists, your definition certainly doesn't seem like anything extraordinary.  In fact I'd say it's far more mundane and commonplace, than most peoples definitions.  On top of which, your point about their reasoning being selfish, is exactly what you just described love to be.  A desire.  Desires are what you want, yes?

Just as a sidenote, if simply "desiring to have someone around" (even temporarily) constitutes infatuation, then we're all crazed stalkers. : P

 A little late to that part of the debate, are you? Honestly, it's just the debating style I choose to use, when I want someone to provide a coherent definition and prove what they say. As to the meaning of the word, its a well understood part of IndoEuropean historical linguistics. That's how I know.

Not for lack of interest.  I'm just not here every day.

The historical validity of your definition is irrelevant.  My entire argument was preceded by "assuming that you're correct about that".  You made no attempts just now to counter any of my relevant points.

by TheCrowOnTheFence

 

by Machiavelli

 

by TheCrowOnTheFence

"The original meaning of the word, referred to a type of desire. You desire to have that person around, which is identical to infatuation, and then after that high, the desire to keep them around. My point was that the reasons they want to keep the person around, is inherently about them and what they want. Usually sex, cuddling, etc...."

And how do you know the original meaning of a word that's older than who-knows-what?  Even assuming that you're correct about that, you're actually arguing against yourself.  A prolonged desire to have them around?  If you've never seen a couple over 35 that still seem genuinely happy together, then you must not get out much.  For a man who doesn't believe that love exists, your definition certainly doesn't seem like anything extraordinary.  In fact I'd say it's far more mundane and commonplace, than most peoples definitions.  On top of which, your point about their reasoning being selfish, is exactly what you just described love to be.  A desire.  Desires are what you want, yes?

Just as a sidenote, if simply "desiring to have someone around" (even temporarily) constitutes infatuation, then we're all crazed stalkers. : P

 A little late to that part of the debate, are you? Honestly, it's just the debating style I choose to use, when I want someone to provide a coherent definition and prove what they say. As to the meaning of the word, its a well understood part of IndoEuropean historical linguistics. That's how I know.

Not for lack of interest.  I'm just not here every day.

The historical validity of your definition is irrelevant.  My entire argument was preceded by "assuming that you're correct about that".  You made no attempts just now to counter any of my relevant points.

 None of your points were relevant, and yes I had established why the historical context of the word was important. Then Etzel came along and gave a coherent definition, and I concurred with his conclusion, as it wasn't a fluffy hogwash one.

by Machiavelli

 

by TheCrowOnTheFence

 

by Machiavelli

 

by TheCrowOnTheFence

"The original meaning of the word, referred to a type of desire. You desire to have that person around, which is identical to infatuation, and then after that high, the desire to keep them around. My point was that the reasons they want to keep the person around, is inherently about them and what they want. Usually sex, cuddling, etc...."

And how do you know the original meaning of a word that's older than who-knows-what?  Even assuming that you're correct about that, you're actually arguing against yourself.  A prolonged desire to have them around?  If you've never seen a couple over 35 that still seem genuinely happy together, then you must not get out much.  For a man who doesn't believe that love exists, your definition certainly doesn't seem like anything extraordinary.  In fact I'd say it's far more mundane and commonplace, than most peoples definitions.  On top of which, your point about their reasoning being selfish, is exactly what you just described love to be.  A desire.  Desires are what you want, yes?

Just as a sidenote, if simply "desiring to have someone around" (even temporarily) constitutes infatuation, then we're all crazed stalkers. : P

 A little late to that part of the debate, are you? Honestly, it's just the debating style I choose to use, when I want someone to provide a coherent definition and prove what they say. As to the meaning of the word, its a well understood part of IndoEuropean historical linguistics. That's how I know.

Not for lack of interest.  I'm just not here every day.

The historical validity of your definition is irrelevant.  My entire argument was preceded by "assuming that you're correct about that".  You made no attempts just now to counter any of my relevant points.

 None of your points were relevant, and yes I had established why the historical context of the word was important. Then Etzel came along and gave a coherent definition, and I concurred with his conclusion, as it wasn't a fluffy hogwash one.

 Well I guess if you've gotten on board with the idea that love exists, there's no more to be said.  Can't say I agree with Etzel either, but that's something I'd have to take up with him.

You can't just say you don't agree with me and then leave it at that. Otherwise your opinion as as much value to me as my neighbour's dog turd. You have to say "I don't agree, because of this and that reasons". Anyone stupid and audacious enough not to agree with me without providing reasons can officially go fuck themselves for wasting my time in DISCUSSION forum. :)

people are entitled to say what they want without explanation, how DARE you demand answers in such a provocative manner. as if those 5 seconds spent reading that sentence was a waste of time, how DARE you!!

How can just replying with a "I don't agree" NOT be a waste of time for anyone? In this case it's actually not much a waste of time, because when you manage to disagree with me after I explain in EXCRUCIATING DETAIL the non-problem of the word love, it becomes clear you are mentally retarded. Like someone disagreeing with "1+1=2", lol. 

So it was not much of a waste of time (it actually SAVES me time), because next time I see a post by TheCrown I'll simply scroll down.

I mean JESUS FUCKING CHRIST ALREADY. WHEN ARE YOU PEOPLE GOING TO LEARN HOW TO THINK?

by Etzel

Like someone disagreeing with "1+1=2", lol.

 These people?

I don't even have to PROVE my definition of love to anyone. Because EVEN IF I WANTED TO, I'd be UNABLE TO. You can either SEE with YOUR OWN EYES that love is a desire to posses and shape a thing, or you can't. 

Just like after I define the number "2" as being equal to the sum of the number "1" with itself, you won't be able to understand what the fuck the number "2" is if you NEVER LEARNED WHAT THE NUMBER "1" IS. If you CAN'T SEE with your own eyes what the number "1", the concept of "sum" and the concept "equal" are, YOU'LL NEVER UNDERSTAND WHAT "2" IS NO MATTER HOW MUCH TIME I WASTE EXPLAINING IT TO YOU. 

In real life there are no proofs: you either see something or you don't.