Love

[greywaste]

 

@greywaste

Dude, that's the guy you want to go off on? Of all the at least semi-mean/rude things that have been said, that seems like a weird place to step in.

 

This is the first one I've noticed *and* had time to post about that has contained nothing other than an insult. I may have missed some others. If so, apologies.

[Ghogiel]

The only conclusion I can come to from the 'love is scientifically' explainable crowd is that they have yet to have had the true experience

The only conclusion I can come to from this post is that you have yet to have had the true experience of using your brain. I'm usually not so courteous when someone makes personal attacks against my marriage. Know that if you decide to stoop so low again, the gloves may come off. :nuke:

 

Hmm, so he claims his "targets" might not have experienced love and you respond by calling him stupid. Rather a lot of your responses to other people are like this aren't they?

Please try not to ruin the thread, some of us are enjoying reading it.

While quite barbed in that response, to be fair, Aurielius did indirectly say draconix has never truly experienced love, in fact he did the EXACT thing he claims he is against: devalue someone else's experience of love. That makes him a hypocrite.

Edited August 23, 2011 by Ghogiel

[draconix]

Hmm, so he claims his "targets" might not have experienced love and you respond by calling him stupid. Rather a lot of your responses to other people are like this aren't they?

Please try not to ruin the thread, some of us are enjoying reading it.

 

You see, Aurielius is claiming that the entire opposing side of the debate has never experienced love, and that apparently would extend to mean that we don't love our mothers or fathers, sons or daughters. What kind of people is he implying that we are? If that's not an ad homonym attack, then I don't know what is.

 

Using the same wording, I implied that he hasn't used his brain. This isn't to say he is stupid, I can't tell if his brain is stupid if I haven't seen it in action, now can I? I'm not saying he has no brain, it's clearly running, idling at least since his lungs and heart continue to function. He's ignoring the use of his brain though. He is running on pure emotion, and has checked logic and reasoning at the door.

 

Maybe emotional diatribes make for good reading from the sidelines, but in a debate they are useless. As far as I'm concerned, Aurielius has forfeit the debate.

The first one who degenerates to a personal attack - such as name calling - loses. if you have to attack the individual, you obviously have no real counter to their argument. If the attack is serious it could get you banned.

Edited August 23, 2011 by draconix

[marharth]

Maybe emotional diatribes make for good reading from the sidelines, but in a debate they are useless. As far as I'm concerned, Aurielius has forfeit the debate.

The first one who degenerates to a personal attack - such as name calling - loses. if you have to attack the individual, you obviously have no real counter to their argument. If the attack is serious it could get you banned.

Well if you were going by that rule he would have lost pretty much every debate he ever went into here. A lot of other people would as well.

 

I still don't understand why some of you can't understand that love having a good effect does not mean the cause is magical. The only arguments I have seen have to do with the effects of love, and the effect has nothing to do with it.

[Ghogiel]

And back on topic we go. So this love thing...

 

The only thing I can add to the subject is personal experience. I won't actually add any of mine, I don't want someone stepping on and devaluing it. But the worst mistake I have ever made, and oh I have a few of the big ones, but the biggest by far is letting love slip. Just want to say, don't be a f***ing pussy in love. You will regret it. That is all.

Edited August 23, 2011 by Ghogiel

[Aurielius]

Hmm, so he claims his "targets" might not have experienced love and you respond by calling him stupid. Rather a lot of your responses to other people are like this aren't they?

Please try not to ruin the thread, some of us are enjoying reading it.

 

You see, Aurielius is claiming that the entire opposing side of the debate has never experienced love, and that apparently would extend to mean that we don't love our mothers or fathers, sons or daughters. What kind of people is he implying that we are? If that's not an ad homonym attack, then I don't know what is.

 

Using the same wording, I implied that he hasn't used his brain. This isn't to say he is stupid, I can't tell if his brain is stupid if I haven't seen it in action, now can I? I'm not saying he has no brain, it's clearly running, idling at least since his lungs and heart continue to function. He's ignoring the use of his brain though. He is running on pure emotion, and has checked logic and reasoning at the door.

 

Maybe emotional diatribes make for good reading from the sidelines, but in a debate they are useless. As far as I'm concerned, Aurielius has forfeit the debate.

The first one who degenerates to a personal attack - such as name calling - loses. if you have to attack the individual, you obviously have no real counter to their argument. If the attack is serious it could get you banned.

You really should look up the definition of 'ad hominen', it requires a personal reference which was absent from my post but evidently not yours. don't quote the rules while transgressing them yourself it makes your thesis very weak. If this is the best you can do then with baiting then it's not going to work.

Edited August 23, 2011 by Aurielius

[draconix]

Your "point" was completely ad hominem, claiming that because of who we are, (people who allegedly have not experienced love,) that our points are invalid. You've forfeit, drop it. Let's try not to derail this thread further. Edited August 23, 2011 by draconix

[Aurielius]

Your "point" was completely ad hominem, claiming that because of who we are, (people who allegedly have not experienced love,) that our points are invalid. You've forfeit, drop it. Let's try not to derail this thread further.

To forfeit one must concede or not show up for the match, I've done neither. You might want to stop declaring premature victory until the other team leaves the field. The point was an observation about experience with Love and up to this point no one introduced familial love except you. Everyone loves their mother or should so leave that bit of inanity out of this. A general observation cannot be considered an attack except by the most thin skinned of individuals, which it seems may be somewhat applicable to some. It seems that mis citing forum rules and protocols is your province not mine, there is a remedy called the report button if you are so certain of your position use it. My observation stands, if one has not had the experience of deep interpersonal love be it heterosexual or other then their credentials are suspect, their opinions are conjecture not based on experience.

[marharth]

Your "point" was completely ad hominem, claiming that because of who we are, (people who allegedly have not experienced love,) that our points are invalid. You've forfeit, drop it. Let's try not to derail this thread further.

To forfeit one must concede or not show up for the match, I've done neither. You might want to stop declaring premature victory until the other team leaves the field. The point was an observation about experience with Love and up to this point no one introduced familial love except you. Everyone loves their mother or should so leave that bit of inanity out of this. A general observation cannot be considered an attack except by the most thin skinned of individuals, which it seems may be somewhat applicable to some. It seems that mis citing forum rules and protocols is your province not mine, there is a remedy called the report button if you are so certain of your position use it. My observation stands, if one has not had the experience of deep interpersonal love be it heterosexual or other then their credentials are suspect, their opinions are conjecture not based on experience.

There is a difference between a observation and a assumption. You had no idea (and still have no idea) if some people on this forum have had that experience.

[Aurielius]

Your "point" was completely ad hominem, claiming that because of who we are, (people who allegedly have not experienced love,) that our points are invalid. You've forfeit, drop it. Let's try not to derail this thread further.

To forfeit one must concede or not show up for the match, I've done neither. You might want to stop declaring premature victory until the other team leaves the field. The point was an observation about experience with Love and up to this point no one introduced familial love except you. Everyone loves their mother or should so leave that bit of inanity out of this. A general observation cannot be considered an attack except by the most thin skinned of individuals, which it seems may be somewhat applicable to some. It seems that mis citing forum rules and protocols is your province not mine, there is a remedy called the report button if you are so certain of your position use it. My observation stands, if one has not had the experience of deep interpersonal love be it heterosexual or other then their credentials are suspect, their opinions are conjecture not based on experience.

There is a difference between a observation and a assumption. You had no idea (and still have no idea) if some people on this forum have had that experience.

Fine, then let them make and support their claim to experience along with their contention that it is an concept that is reducible to scientific analysis. I have already stated my level of experience, but for the record I have been married for thirty five years to someone who is my soul mate. So would you like to state your level of experience, since you are among the lead contenders of the scientific analysis group. This should be interesting.

Edited August 24, 2011 by Aurielius