DitOwnsYou Wrote:What's the difference between loving someone and being IN love with someone, assuming both are related to a romantic relationship?

DitOwnsYou Wrote:What's the difference between loving someone and being IN love with someone, assuming both are related to a romantic relationship?

Quantact Wrote:Sounds like two ways to say the same thing, to be honest.

As Katie pointed out there are many types of love, but you cannot romantically love your dog or something. In our post-modern society, people make up all sorts of screwy bull$hit, like that having sex with 14 girls at once is legit because it all adds up to "one love," like that bisexuals are entitled to be "in love" with two people provided they're of different genders, or even that there are more than 2 genders.

If you're a guy and you're with a girl and it's gone far enough along, you're in love. If you aren't as far along, you "like" each other but not in love yet. People that argue against this basic structure are either wannabe philosophers or have some ulterior motives to argue it.

If something sounds like bull$hit it most likely is. Philosophy has been around for literally millenia, if you look back to Plato, Confucious, Aquinas, and similar great minds. I assure you that the stuff written since the 1960s is not going to have the same long-term effect as Plato and Confucious did.

Quantact Wrote:As Katie pointed out there are many types of love, but you cannot romantically love your dog or something. In our post-modern society, people make up all sorts of screwy bull$hit, like that having sex with 14 girls at once is legit because it all adds up to "one love," like that bisexuals are entitled to be "in love" with two people provided they're of different genders, or even that there are more than 2 genders.

Quantact Wrote:If you're a guy and you're with a girl and it's gone far enough along, you're in love. If you aren't as far along, you "like" each other but not in love yet. People that argue against this basic structure are either wannabe philosophers or have some ulterior motives to argue it.

Quantact Wrote:If something sounds like bull$hit it most likely is. Philosophy has been around for literally millenia, if you look back to Plato, Confucious, Aquinas, and similar great minds. I assure you that the stuff written since the 1960s is not going to have the same long-term effect as Plato and Confucious did.

Katie Wrote:There are many types of love:
Love of your;

Children
Pets
Home
Your parents
Friends
Spouse
Career

And so on.

Harrisonized Wrote:I see. So why do homosexuals persist on gaining rights if they're not "legitamately" in love?"

Quote:By definition, love is both ways, like is one way. If you like someone, that means the other person does not like you back or has not revealed that he/she does indeed like you back.Actually, it might. The people you mentioned do not have the machinery or mechanisms to study love from a biological perspective. Love triggers a chemical reaction in your brain that I'm pretty sure that Plato, Confucious, or Aquinas did not speculate about.

Also, more likely than not, there may have been better philosophers than the three but their writings may have lost. I'm sure the three are only famous because their philosophies have remained intact all these years.

Quantact Wrote:In language, masculine terminology is sometimes used to encompass both feminine and masculine. Think of the American founders: "All men are created equal" has been extended to women for a long time. If they said "all men women and children are created equal" it would be more precise, but pomegranate linguistically.

Quantact Wrote:Talking about marriage is sorta the same deal. I have nothing against gays, I am not going to get in an argument with you about gay marriage or gay rights. I am just old-fashioned as far as language is concerned because passive, political terminology is the surest way to bastardize the English language.

Quantact Wrote:Whoever created "African American" and "Caucasian" should die a slow painful death.

Quantact Wrote:So I am not going to say "all men women straights and gays are created equal" because taht, while accurate, is a pathetic aping of the linguistic process. By the way, people forgetting to mention all groups does not mean they are racist or otherwise bigoted; and asking for clarification may be best in non-accusatory terms.

Quantact Wrote:As far as bisexuals screwing more than 1 person because of their sexuality, I see that as BS for the same reason I see straights cheating as BS. "It's not cheating because the OTHER person is my gender" is STILL cheating because the girlfriend has to sit there while you have sex with someone else, who is not her.

Quantact Wrote:As for love, to be more precise, love is an evolving emotion.

Quantact Wrote:You begin with hormone-induced passion that makes things easier for the couple, because the hormones smoothe the trouble between them. In about a year, the hormones fade a bit, and they start getting angry at each other more.

Quantact Wrote:However, there is more trust and experience, and love evolves along those boundaries. A 70 year old couple walking past a 25 year old couple would define its love differnetly than the 25 year olds, though they had been where the 25 year olds currently are at.

Harrisonized Wrote:"All men are created equal" did not extend to women for a long time. In fact, more of American history has excluded women than it has included, based on this statement. It's not pomegranate linguistically though, if one says "all humans" are created equal.I am not talking about gay rights. I'm saying that unless gays were legitimately in love, they would not protest for their rights. Therefore, by that conclusion, the love between two homosexuals must legitimate.By extending you logic, we might as well not categorize between species of animals because dogs are dogs and cats are cats? Then we can further extend the concept by saying that we shouldn't distinguish between humans and apes because they're from the same evolutionary branch.Sorry for my accusatory terms, but that's the nature with which I speak.How about polygamy? In certain cultures where polygamy is allowed, would you call it cheating for a man to be married to two women?This I agree with.They fade because of habituation. This exists for all things, not just love. It exists for hate, anger, friendship, and a whole spectrum of emotions.While you can say that, the concept is still the same. It's an attraction to or dependence on the partner that one is with.

Quantact Wrote:Can you please make your text in one block instead of answering sentence by sentence?

I already said I have nothing against gays, why would I start arguing with you on finer points of gay rights? It seems like you're trying to pick a fight, to be honest. X_x

My logic should not be "extended" to species of animals or whatnot, I said what I said and that's what I said. Please don't extrapolate like that becuase that's not my logic, that's you putting words in my mouth.

Polygamy is created by men with power who want to fuuck more women than just their wives. I agree with the law in the United States which deems it illegal. As far as it being practiced in African tribes or something, I don't really see life as African tribesmen do, so comparing my logic with theirs seems a bit... well, illogical. We have different fundamental assumptions, so of course the logic will be different.

I will say "all humans are created equal" is much less powerful linguistically than "all men are created equal." Stirring high-quality content is never politically correct. I've been writing for ten years, I can tell you that 100%, but if you don't believe me on that, bring that up with any professor or teacher of English that deals in the classics. Postmodernists may argue otherwise, but I see postmodernism as the tubgirl of literature. Postmodernism meanders for 5 pages what could be said in 3 paragraphs. They claim to be able to "explain everything," but really they do so by taking all meaning out of their content, and replacing it with glib bullpomegranate.

Russt Wrote:Harrisonized, whenever did Quantact say that a man can't legitimately love another man? I don't see it anywhere..

Quantact Wrote:If you're a guy and you're with a girl and it's gone far enough along, you're in love. If you aren't as far along, you "like" each other but not in love yet.

Harrisonized Wrote:I like to answer sentence by sentence for ease so that the reader may see what portion of the post that I am replying to. However, since you asked, I'll make it one block.

Again, it's not about rights, it's about legitimacy, but whatever, let's drop that point.

You're right that your logic "should" not be extended to animals, but it "can" be, and if so, that's what it would turn out as. What I was pointing out is that a language without a method of distinguishing between two clearly different kinds of people is inefficient.

So why do you assume that polygamy is created by men who wanted to fuuck more than one person? Why must polygamy revolve around sex? What if polygamy was created by women? We will never know. There are many things we simply cannot assume because there is no evidence for such and such cannot be proven either.

I don't see how "all humans" is really less powerful than "all men". Can you please explain this to me?

Quantact Wrote:If you make two speeches, one with "all men" and the other "all humans" and similar stuff, you will see the difference when actually speaking it. Words sound different when spoken than when are written, so speechmaking is different than prose writing. "Men" is shorter in itself, and it also cuts down on the exceptions/inclusions, which makes the speech more powerful and effective. Charisma is blazing through the highway at 120 miles an hour, whereas "humans" and "and/or" and "African Americans" is more like a grandma driving 25 in a 40 zone. I know this doesn't sound logical, but to anybody with speech experience or writing experience it makes sense. Go and download speeches of Churchill, FDR, JFK or even Hitler. These guys all wrote their own speeches, and they are considered the greatest charismatics of their age. In Hitler's case, his completely illogical, warped, evil nihilism was accepted as truth by a whole country precisely because his speeches were THAT good. If you really think Hitler gave a $hit about equal rights, you need to read history more, because unlike me, Hitler believed in incinerating all the gays, and keeping the women in the kitchen, and at home breeding 15 Aryan babies each. Churchill, FDR and JFK were more ethical, but their speeches followed the same principles.

Quantact Wrote:tl;dr: at its most basic level, write one piece with only masculine, (he, his,) and then rewrite the same piece to be inclusive, (his or hers, humans, men and women.) You will immediately notice that the second piece is longer and more awkward.

Harrisonized Wrote:When I read things, I imagine someone speaking the words in my mind. I literally hear the words sound in my mind. Speech writing and prose writing are more similar than different, the only difference being that one may not need to pay attention to as much structure and grammar in speech. Even so, the Declaration of Independence was written, and that's where the "all men are created equal" originated.

While "men" is in fact shorter than "human", in the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution, "We the People", not "We the men". It didn't make the U.S. Constitution any weaker.

Charisma is a combination of visual effects and verbal effects. One needs to show confidence through their gestures and posture. I'm sure that if Barrack Obama and John McCain posted their speeches only online, charisma would be almost obsolete.

Where did I post that I thought Hitler cared about equal rights? Anyways, even if I do download Hitler's speeches, I wouldn't understand them because I don't speak German. Translations cost money to download, and being a minor, I have no method of purchasing one.

butterfli Wrote:Yeah but some of those example don't involve a romantic relationship... or at least, they -shouldn't- :U (romantic relationship with pets lol).

butterfli Wrote:Yeah but some of those example don't involve a romantic relationship... or at least, they -shouldn't- :U (romantic relationship with pets lol).

From opinion, I don't think there is a difference. It's just alternative rhetoric strategies to add flavor to writing. It's just that overtime, "in love" is so commonly seen on xanga, myspace, friendster, livejournal and other teenage fads to the point that it's became cliche.

Because in a romantic relationship, is there much difference if you were tell tell your partner that you love them versus you're in love with them? I'd say no unless someone can give me reason not to.

As long as the act of cherishing, appreciating, etc. one another in a romantic relationship is there, there isn't much difference in saying the two.

DitOwnsYou Wrote:My girlfriend tells me she loves me, but it's not the same love she has for her friends, family, pets, whatever (pets, LOL), and yet she's not IN love with me. I've been very confused with her terminology and/or what she's really trying to say, because I could've sworn that "different" love WAS being "in love," the same feelings hormone-induced infatuation, romance, being smitten, etc.

DitOwnsYou Wrote:So I'm potentially looking at three kinds now...(Oh my):
1. Friend/Family Love (and pets!).
2. Romantic Love
3. Being IN love....romantically.

Rayquaza2233 Wrote:So the difference between two and three is if it's mutual or not?