Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
it's been accepted, trust me. i just have to add on that i think eventually you will change your mind. i know it probably is a bad idea to say that i think this, but it's what i believe. or would you rather have me post something i did not believe in?
As long as you know you're wrong, which you are, we're fine. Your opinion isn't untouchable because it's an opinion. It's quite wrong.
Originally posted by Robtard
I agree that marriage and love aren't exclusive or "inherently connected", that isn't the issue as people get married for a wide variety of different reasons as I previously stated and love can be one of those reasons.
Love being a reason to some people does not make it logical. I'm not denying that it's used as a reason, just saying it's not a logical one, as it's not.
Marriage doesn't have anything to do with love, technically speaking. People do it for love sometimes, that's a people issue, not a marriage issue. It's just connected, societal connections have stuck. People connect them, doesn't mean the two are actually connected.
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
And as I've said, if you believe love is illogical as it pertains to marriage I cannot argue against that, as those are YOUR feelings and I can't tell you how you personally feel. But saying marrying someone because you love them is illogical is simple illogical in itself.
Marrying someone because you love them IS illogical, though. I've proven why, you haven't proven otherwise. So I am to believe that you simply have a problem with me saying it.
Marrying someone out of love is illogical because we've established the two aren't connected.
-AC
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
😂
no need to knock the guy, it's just that his beliefs are.....out there. nothing wrong with that, after all, he is entitled to his opinion. also, i dont see AC as a chimp lover. he doesnt strike me as the bestiality type. excuse me..."interspecies erotica, ****o." 😂
Point proven.
My beliefs aren't "out there", you just don't get them. Not that this was unexpected, of course.
It's not opinion, either. If you can come and prove me wrong, I'll say it's an opinion. Every time you or Rob question me, I prove precisely why it's illogical. Not one poster has given evidence to the contrary.
-AC
I'm not pro nor anti-marriage so pardon me. As a matter of fact i feel indifferent about it. But Ac. Ok. I'm not trying countering my own thread topic here but i do want to know this. You're saying that it's a fact that getting married is illogical. Now, something illocially done means that it didn't make sense to do it. When 2 people are in love and get married as a result, i don't see how that decision wasn't sensible. Or that it made sense.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Point proven.My beliefs aren't "out there", you just don't get them. Not that this was unexpected, of course.
It's not opinion, either. If you can come and prove me wrong, I'll say it's an opinion. Every time you or Rob question me, I prove precisely why it's illogical. Not one poster has given evidence to the contrary.
-AC
[I know I don't need to say this, but the "chimpanzee" remark was purely in jest, no offense was meant.]
It's illogical to you because you cannot connect the concept of love, something which can not be measured, weighed or tested scientifically against marriage. To me (and only me) getting married was logical for several reasons, one of them being love. Therefore to me marriage was logical subjectively speaking. Did my "love" need marriage... I don't think so, did my "love" grow solely because of marriage... I can't say for certain. Do those two facts make marriage illogical... they do not.
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
I'm not pro nor anti-marriage so pardon me. As a matter of fact i feel indifferent about it. But Ac. Ok. I'm not trying countering my own thread topic here but i do want to know this. You're saying that it's a fact that getting married is illogical. Now, something illocially done means that it didn't make sense to do it. When 2 people are in love and get married as a result, i don't see how that decision wasn't sensible. Or that it made sense.
The view or stance of: "We are in love, so therefore we should get married.", is illogical. It doesn't make sense because there nothing to suggest marriage and love are inherently connected.
"We are in love, so we should be together.", fine. Not "We are in love, so we should get married.". There's no sense in signing a legally binding contract for any other reason than monetary gain, it doesn't give anything OTHER than that, being the reason it makes no sense.
I'm saying the decision to marry isn't sensible in the sense of it's a bad choice, I'm saying it LITERALLY doesn't make sense if you break it down. If you wish to know why, then you can see my previous posts.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Point proven.My beliefs aren't "out there", you just don't get them. Not that this was unexpected, of course.
It's not opinion, either. If you can come and prove me wrong, I'll say it's an opinion. Every time you or Rob question me, I prove precisely why it's illogical. Not one poster has given evidence to the contrary.
-AC
Originally posted by Robtard
[I know I don't need to say this, but the "chimpanzee" remark was purely in jest, no offense was meant.]It's illogical to you because you cannot connect the concept of love, something which can not be measured, weighed or tested scientifically against marriage. To me (and only me) getting married was logical for several reasons, one of them being love. Therefore to me marriage was logical subjectively speaking. Did my "love" need marriage... I don't think so, did my "love" grow solely because of marriage... I can't say for certain. Do those two facts make marriage illogical... they do not.
No worries, none taken, Rob.
It's not just me, love and marriage factually have no connection. People connecting the two and the two actually having a connection...two totally different ball games, Rob. You agreed to this yourself.
I understand the concept of love, that's precisely why I hold the stance I do. I hold this stance because I respect love and what it means. If people want to marry, if people want to connect love with legality, fine. That doesn't mean the two, outside of people doing so, have a connection. They do not. Love is a human emotion that has existed as long as human consciousness probably. Marriage is a human invention. The two aren't intrinsic.
You are sitting there saying your choice to marry out of love wasn't illogical, but you cannot say why, can you? No. It didn't give you anything emotionally, as not marrying wouldn't have taken anything away in all probability. You probably don't love your wife any more because of marriage, if you do it's because of emotion.
So what that reveals is this: You are just SAYING you married out of love because love was there. If that's not the case, and you did marry out of love, it's illogical, because doing so gave you nothing, besides the aforementioned monetary benefits, that you didn't already have. Nor did it take.
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
theres nothing proven here other than that you have your own set of beliefs. you proved nothing and gained nothing, also conceding nothing. no one won or lost.
Ignorance is clearly bliss in your case. I have proven, as I just did again. You are just ignoring it.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No worries, none taken, Rob.It's not just me, love and marriage factually have no connection. People connecting the two and the two actually having a connection...two totally different ball games, Rob. You agreed to this yourself.
I understand the concept of love, that's precisely why I hold the stance I do. I hold this stance because I respect love and what it means. If people want to marry, if people want to connect love with legality, fine. That doesn't mean the two, outside of people doing so, have a connection. They do not. Love is a human emotion that has existed as long as human consciousness probably. Marriage is a human invention. The two aren't intrinsic.
[B]You are sitting there saying your choice to marry out of love wasn't illogical, but you cannot say why, can you?
No. It didn't give you anything emotionally, as not marrying wouldn't have taken anything away in all probability. You probably don't love your wife any more because of marriage, if you do it's because of emotion.So what that reveals is this: You are just SAYING you married out of love because love was there. If that's not the case, and you did marry out of love, it's illogical, because doing so gave you nothing, besides the aforementioned monetary benefits, that you didn't already have. Nor did it take.
-AC [/B]
I can, you just won't accept my reasoning as it making sense and being logical to me... Marriage to me (and only me) was a physical means of expressing my love for my then girlfriend.
Originally posted by Robtard
I can, you just won't accept my reasoning as it making sense and being logical to me... Marriage to me (and only me) was a physical means of expressing my love for my then girlfriend.
I accept that to you it was a physical means of expressing love, and it was that. I'm not saying it wasn't.
Just an unnecessary and illogical one.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No worries, none taken, Rob.It's not just me, love and marriage factually have no connection. People connecting the two and the two actually having a connection...two totally different ball games, Rob. You agreed to this yourself.
I understand the concept of love, that's precisely why I hold the stance I do. I hold this stance because I respect love and what it means. If people want to marry, if people want to connect love with legality, fine. That doesn't mean the two, outside of people doing so, have a connection. They do not. Love is a human emotion that has existed as long as human consciousness probably. Marriage is a human invention. The two aren't intrinsic.
You are sitting there saying your choice to marry out of love wasn't illogical, but you cannot say why, can you? No. It didn't give you anything emotionally, as not marrying wouldn't have taken anything away in all probability. You probably don't love your wife any more because of marriage, if you do it's because of emotion.
So what that reveals is this: You are just SAYING you married out of love because love was there. If that's not the case, and you did marry out of love, it's illogical, because doing so gave you nothing, besides the aforementioned monetary benefits, that you didn't already have. Nor did it take.
Ignorance is clearly bliss in your case. I have proven, as I just did again. You are just ignoring it.
-AC
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
niiiiiice. the only thing that you have proven is that you are going to stand by what you say. and i have proven that i will stand by what i say. you ask me to PROVE you wrong, to show facts how you are right. i ask you the same. show me facts how i am wrong. you can sya this and that, but it means nothing to me. show me SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that there are no logical reasons to marry outside of monetary reasons. PROVE me wrong. SHOW me that i am wrong. what you say, what you believe in, this means squat to me. show me HARD evidence that points in favor of your argument.
I'm not going to sit here trying to convince an ignorant man that the proof is there. It's there, you either see it or you ignore it, you're choosing to ignore it. There are reasons:
You ignore what I provide then ask for proof. This is because you don't consider it proof, because you don't know the difference between fact and opinion, as shown in our previous discussion about me. The proof is there, you don't see it as proof because you don't know what fact means and why it's different to opinion.
Then there's the fact that you think any choice is logical, which is just so many kinds of bs. That's another reason why you do not see the proof that marriage for any other reason than monetary is illogical, because to you, anything that's subjectively "right" for you is therefore logical. Nothing is illogical to you. You believe "Oh, well if someone makes a choice that's right for them, it's logical.", that is factually incorrect.
If you get frostbite and have two choices; One is going to the doctor to get sorted, the other is self-amputation, what is the logical choice? Doctor. Not self-amptutation, regardless of how "right" it is to someone. So for two people wanting marriage, it being right for them does not make it logical.
Your stance is flawed from the start. You said yourself, what I SAY means squat to you. So nothing I say, proof or otherwise, is going to matter. You just think that being ignorant keeps you in this debate, it doesn't. You're not in the OTF, RJ.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I'm not going to sit here trying to convince an ignorant man that the proof is there. It's there, you either see it or you ignore it, you're choosing to ignore it. There are reasons:You ignore what I provide then ask for proof. This is because you don't consider it proof, because you don't know the difference between fact and opinion, as shown in our previous discussion about me. The proof is there, you don't see it as proof because you don't know what fact means and why it's different to opinion.
Then there's the fact that you think any choice is logical, which is just so many kinds of bs. That's another reason why you do not see the proof that marriage for any other reason than monetary is illogical, because to you, anything that's subjectively "right" for you is therefore logical. Nothing is illogical to you. You believe "Oh, well if someone makes a choice that's right for them, it's logical.", that is factually incorrect.
If you get frostbite and have two choices; One is going to the doctor to get sorted, the other is self-amputation, what is the logical choice? Doctor. Not self-amptutation, regardless of how "right" it is to someone. So for two people wanting marriage, it being right for them does not make it logical.
Your stance is flawed from the start. You said yourself, what I SAY means squat to you. So nothing I say, proof or otherwise, is going to matter. You just think that being ignorant keeps you in this debate, it doesn't. You're not in the OTF, RJ.
-AC
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
i see no proof. your word is not enough for me. yes, what you say means squat to me. that's why i need proof. call me ignorant all you want, i could care less.
thing is, i know you cannot provide proof. i am trying to get across to you that just because you believe it is illogical doesnt mean it is illogical. voice your opinion all you want, feel free to say what you will about it, that is expected, but when you try and tell others, especially two guys who have been in long term relationships before, and one of them has wed before, that monetary reasons are the only logical choice to marry, and that this is a fact and not an opinion, then you are gonna take some flak. just because you believe it with every fiber of your being doesnt make it fact.
the term "whipping a dead horse" comes to mind when talking to you. 😉
I know you see no proof, clearly you see no sense either. I've given you proof, but the reason you don't consider it proof is because you have a retarded view of what logic is, and since this entire debate is focused on logic, you are on one leg.
To you, everything is logical if it's "right" for a person, and that is factually untrue. Yet, you maintain this position and that is why you see no proof, because to you, it's not proof. Because, to you, logic is whatever's right.
Me believing it doesn't make it a fact, it being a fact is what makes it one. Robtard being married doesn't make it less so, even he hasn't provided me with any proof to the contrary, he can't do so. As for long-term relationships, so what? We've both been in them. Robtard is the only one out of us three who is wed/has been wed, correct? I'm not sure why you believe your relationship with FJ grants you some mass credibility on the issue.
If we are to debate logic, what's logical and/or illogical, then you must first understand what logic is, because as of right now, you do not. I don't know whether the concept is too grand for you or not, but you simply don't grasp it, which is precisely why you dodged my examples of why what's "right" for you isn't necessarily what's logical.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I know you see no proof, clearly you see no sense either. I've given you proof, but the reason you don't consider it proof is because you have a retarded view of what logic is, and since this entire debate is focused on logic, you are on one leg.To you, everything is logical if it's "right" for a person, and that is factually untrue. Yet, you maintain this position and that is why you see no proof, because to you, it's not proof. Because, to you, logic is whatever's right.
Me believing it doesn't make it a fact, it being a fact is what makes it one. Robtard being married doesn't make it less so, even he hasn't provided me with any proof to the contrary, he can't do so.
If we are to debate logic, what's logical and/or illogical, then you must first understand what logic is, because as of right now, you do not. I don't know whether the concept is too grand for you or not, but you simply don't grasp it, which is precisely why you dodged my examples of why what's "right" for you isn't necessarily what's logical.
-AC
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
give me a hypothetical situation, a choice one would have to make, where the right choice is illogical. just make something up, off the top of your head.
As I said before: "If you get frostbite and have two choices; One is going to the doctor to get sorted, the other is self-amputation, what is the logical choice? Doctor, not self-amptutation, regardless of how "right" it is to someone. So for two people wanting marriage, it being right for them does not make it logical.".
Self-amputation was what the person wanted to do. It was the right choice for THEM. Logical? No. Illogical.
Want another? The age old argument of: "I don't have to spell correctly, I spell casually, I'm not in school.". That's what's right for the person, but is it logical? No, it's not logical. It's illogical.
So we see; Wanting to marry for love may be right for you and your spouse-to-be, but that doesn't make it logical, because there's no reason to marry for love. No reason that makes sense, you're just doing it for the sake of it, because marriage does not give anything emotional or spiritual to a relationship. It CAN, infact, do the opposite.
You and FJ, you're so "in love", right? So in love, so it would seem. A priest/legal agent and a contract won't increase that. Only you two can, nobody else, not some silly legal contract.
This is all probably lost on you, since you simply do not understand logic.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
As I said before: "If you get frostbite and have two choices; One is going to the doctor to get sorted, the other is self-amputation, what is the logical choice? Doctor, not self-amptutation, regardless of how "right" it is to someone. So for two people wanting marriage, it being right for them does not make it logical.".Self-amputation was what the person wanted to do. It was the right choice for THEM. Logical? No. Illogical.
Want another? The age old argument of: "I don't have to spell correctly, I spell casually, I'm not in school.". That's what's right for the person, but is it logical? No, it's not logical. It's illogical.
So we see; Wanting to marry for love may be right for you and your spouse-to-be, but that doesn't make it logical, because there's no reason to marry for love. No reason that makes sense, you're just doing it for the sake of it, because marriage does not give anything emotional or spiritual to a relationship. It CAN, infact, do the opposite.
You and FJ, you're so "in love", right? So in love, so it would seem. A priest/legal agent and a contract won't increase that. Only you two can, nobody else, not some silly legal contract.
This is all probably lost on you, since you simply do not understand logic.
-AC
what i cannot get over here is your assuming that you are 100% correct on this with no room for error. this is ludicrous. no one, not anyone, is always and 100% right. is this how you see yoruself? are you like up on a pedestal or something?
RJ, have the good grace and dignity to not turn this into a debate about not liking my attitude, not again. We've been there and done that a few too many times haven't we?
I'm not going to sit here AGAIN and correct your misintepretations of me. PM me if you want to moan, I know you've been aching to.
-AC