Originally posted by CreshoskI am not trying to be an ass. You disregarded and tried to discredit an opinion I agreed with and valued quite a bit with a wrong logical fallacy. The cool thing about logical fallacies is that you don't have to quote them. intelligent people would realize regardless...you just get the brainless masses to agree with you, it's just a very dirty debating tactic, that's why I never just state that's a logical fallacy, I point out why something is logically wrong. If you can do that with bdm's post I invite you to do so, I doubt it, since it was rather intelligent and sensible though.
I like you and respect you so I dunno why you're trying to be an ass.
Originally posted by Bardock42But you're succeeding at it so well...
I am not trying to be an ass.
Originally posted by Bardock42Heh.. check this out...
You disregarded and tried to discredit an opinion
Originally posted by Bardock42oh disregarding and discrediting my opinion... how noble of you...
I agreed with and valued quite a bit with a wrong logical fallacy.
Originally posted by Bardock42*shrugs* Yeah, but I rather enjoy it.
The cool thing about logical fallacies is that you don't have to quote them.
Originally posted by Bardock42Oh ouch, me and those who agree with my opinions are brainless... That's a nice bit of attempt to discredit my opinion... very noble of you... and you even upped it with an insult... Stings truly...
intelligent people would realize regardless...you just get the brainless masses to agree with you,
Originally posted by Bardock42*shrugs* I'm not a scrub.
it's just a very dirty debating tactic,
Originally posted by Bardock42"...because I agree with it."
that's why I never just state that's a logical fallacy, I point out why something is logically wrong. If you can do that with bdm's post I invite you to do so, I doubt it, since it was rather intelligent and sensible though.
Yeah, people agreeing with something doesn't validate it...
Originally posted by CreshoskGive me the standards by which to prove it and I will see what I can do.
😈 [evil]Prove it[/evil]
It will be hard though, as far as I know we are hardly sure what love is, even less how to prove it.
Though it makes me wonder, can you guys prove your side?
I know there are couples that are very happy with open relationships, Penn and Teller featured one in their episode on it. Does that constitute as evidence? What is it that you need?
Originally posted by Bardock42
Give me the standards by which to prove it and I will see what I can do.It will be hard though, as far as I know we are hardly sure what love is, even less how to prove it.
Though it makes me wonder, can you guys prove your side?
I know there are couples that are very happy with open relationships, Penn and Teller featured one in their episode on it. Does that constitute as evidence? What is it that you need?
We can not even begin the discussion without a strict, definite understanding of what love is.
Without that understanding, no one has a valid point.
Everyone is just as correct as anyone as is.
Originally posted by Bardock42You can't prove it.. hence all the evil.
Give me the standards by which to prove it and I will see what I can do.It will be hard though, as far as I know we are hardly sure what love is, even less how to prove it.
Though it makes me wonder, can you guys prove your side?
I know there are couples that are very happy with open relationships, Penn and Teller featured one in their episode on it. Does that constitute as evidence? What is it that you need?
Its a subjective thing. It would require defining what love is, and thus constraining a by definition illogical emotion to logic.
I'm not sure if that made sense, so I'll state it this way:
I was being sarcastic.
Originally posted by chithappensRight, because everyone defines what love means to them differently.
We can not even begin the discussion without a strict, definite understanding of what love is.Without that understanding, no one has a valid point.
Everyone is just as correct as anyone as is.
What is true and yes for one person would be no and false for another.
Rather akin to asking for proof that your favorite color is the best color. You can't.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Yes, your not going to have a go at answering it?
Emotional and physical fidelity are essential characteristics of a relationship.
A relationship in which only one of these two characteristics is present is not a relationship, but an arrangement, e.g. a relationship in which both partners are emotionally, but not physically faithful to one another is an “open-relationship”; a relationship in which both partners are physically, but not emotionally faithful to one another is “****-buddies.”
Both instances, i.e. an open-relationship and ****-buddies, are alternatives to a relationship, not simply “a different approach.”
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
For you sexual exclusivity might be the bread and butter of a relationship, the foundation, and that is fine, but are your relationships more then just that?
This is an absurd question.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Ah, so your what if friends with benefits decide to who call their arrangement a relationship? They can call it what they wish. Friends with benefits is a fairly denotative term, I have heard it called far more base things and far more pleasant things.Your problem here is you are now making the titles absolute objectives. "But if friends with benefits call it a relationship then that is so because they have defined it thus. Ergo just because they call it something doesn't make it so."
Of course it doesn't make it so.
The friends with benefits can call what they have whatever they want, and I never said anything different. You are the one who is questioning titles. I said, and have been saying, that it is how they perceive it, define it, the intent and understanding of what they are doing together.
It is your argument that relationships are to be defined subjectively, yet you acknowledge that there is an objective criterion for the definition of relationships; which is it?
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Gahhhh! Not the point! Commitment has nothing to do with it! I was pointing out the madness in the world that comes from people automatically assuming that because another couples approach to a relationship is not a carbon copy to their own they devalue it or question whether it qualifies the same.Ie. A defacto relationship - the people who believe that marriage is the ultimate sign of commitment. Screw not sleeping around, if you don't get married what does that say about your relationship? Billy Joe can't love another man the way he loves a women, so he thinks "well, a gay man can't really be committed, can he? I mean it is natural to be attracted to women, so deep down that is where he really is at."
Commitment - nothing to do in those examples. History of people using their own relationship values to devalue or disregard other relationships is what that is all about.
Of course that hasn't gone on at all in this thread. There hasn't been any value judgements of relationships that are different asking anything like "What is in question is what those relationships would qualify as."
[list=1][*]Use an analogy that does not draw a comparison between two relevantly dissimilar things to illustrate your point.
[*]Contrasting the characteristics of one relationship with the characteristics of another relationship only denotes difference. If you connote a value judgment, it is because you associate difference with value.[/list]
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Would you give me an example where I said something to the effect of "all you need is love and you are in a relationship" without saying things to the effect of "so, aren't their other aspects that set apart romantic relationships other then sexual exclusivity" or "doesn't the way the individuals themselves perceive their interaction have any bearing?"You'll have hard time because I never did. That a relationship has its groundings in the feelings the people involved have for one another + the intent and understanding that they are in a relationship with those aspects and boundaries that set apart a relationship from just "friends with benefits (regardless whether they are strict or very liberal boundaries.)
If anything you have essentially finished with what I have been saying all along about how "Clearly, our relationship is not defined by our feelings for one another, but how we choose to act in accordance with those feelings" - feeling + intent.
My argument is not “Feelings + Intentions = Relationship,” but “Feelings + Actions = Relationship.”
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
The main difference is that you feel the way people in open relationships act in accordance to those feelings is not right since you can't reconcile commitment without exclusivity, where as I think it's important since that is simply the way in which they are happy to approach their relationship. Clearly they don't think of sexual exclusivity in the same light as many off us. Different boundaries? Sure. Different take on commitment? Absolutely. Different values? You bet. Are the feelings and intent behind it different? No one has presented anything to show that other then saying "without sexual exclusivity what are you committing to".And until someone can then "what is in question is what those relationships would qualify as" is: exactly what they are, a relationship between to people with an open attitude on sexual fidelity.
I have not addressed the ethics of one relationship or another. To the contrary, it is you who is interjecting value into the argument.
I never stated that the feelings one in an open-relationship has for his partner are not necessarily the same as the feelings that one in a relationship, but that without both characteristics, i.e. emotional and physical fidelity, that he is not in a true relationship, but in some alternative arrangement.
Originally posted by chithappens
We can not even begin the discussion without a strict, definite understanding of what love is.Without that understanding, no one has a valid point.
Everyone is just as correct as anyone as is.
Originally posted by Creshosk
Actually yeah, loose your temper, and you will do it without really meaning to.Now, don't dodge again, how do you accidently cheat on someone?
Get horny and then sleep with someone? 🙄
Or allow yourself to be seduced? 🙄
So what...you can sleep with someone without having any consideration of hurting your partner.
There's no accident. You can't accidently cheat on you partner, just like you don't "accidently" hit someone you love.
You are trying to put words in my mouth, or you misunderstood my posts, as I never stated cheating was an accident. I never even suggested such a thing.
************************************************************
Adam Poe...I get your point. And I understand your logic. And I can agree with your perspective, but in a general sense. I do not beleive that every single individual case of infidelity is due to one partner not loving the other "enough".
There are insecurities, there are sexual addictions, and there are a conflict of values.
Do you truly beleive that every couple that is in love, will truly compromise or adjust all of their original values to better suit thier partner's ?
It takes more than Love for a relationship to be successful, do you agree or disagree ?
************************************************************
Rogue Jedi...I think you are completely misunderstanding me. If I had a serious boyfreind who cheated on me, his chances of getting me back would be like 5% out of 100.
It's not simply the "traditional" idea of committment that I will fuss over, it's simply the suggestion that I somehow wasn't enough to satisfy him. That he needed more, something I couldn't give him. Not to mention the possibility that he probably finds the other guy far more attractive.
But it's not just isolated at sex. If I had a boyfreind who confided in another guy, but not with me, or invited his other guy freind, or even girl freind to a place where he will never take me, or even if he has more conversations with another person than myself, I will feel just as betrayed as if he had literally cheated on me.
Please take it from someone who knows: Sex Is NOT Love, and I will defend that statement to the death.
It may be an expression of Love, but so can a dinner, or a night out, or a kiss, or a gift. Sex is ultamately...just sex. And if Sex is the most fundamental core of your relationship, then in my opinion, that's not real. There is far more to loving someone than just wanting thier body exclusively.
I will conclude that the same way you can have sex with someone you don't truly care about, you can also cheat on someone you truly love.
Sex is not Love, and that's simply our chosen attachment. Damnit, I even wish that I could form a relationship where Sex is the least important part. 🙁
Originally posted by Goddess Kaliprovided it was aranged before hand. However we're talking about cheating in which case it wasn't so sleeping with naother person would hurt them.. otherwise ir wouldn'r be cheating would it?
So what...you can sleep with someone without having any consideration of hurting your partner.
Originally posted by Goddess KaliYeah, I'd never hit my partner either. Never hit any of my ex's.
There's no accident. You can't accidently cheat on you partner, just like you don't "accidently" hit someone you love.
Originally posted by Goddess KaliBut you were comparing it to yelling or putting down. Which can happen on accident. ESPECIALLY the putting down. I mean if you joke around with them and say the wrong thing even though you were joking and didn't mean it. it might still hurt them.
You are trying to put words in my mouth, or you misunderstood my posts, as I never stated cheating was an accident. I never even suggested such a thing.
Originally posted by Goddess Kali
I get your point. And I understand your logic. And I can agree with your perspective, but in a general sense. I do not beleive that every single individual case of infidelity is due to one partner not loving the other "enough".There are insecurities, there are sexual addictions, and there are a conflict of values.
I would argue otherwise.
Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Do you truly beleive that every couple that is in love, will truly compromise or adjust all of their original values to better suit thier partner's ?
One would think that they would share many of the same values to begin with.
Originally posted by Goddess Kali
It takes more than [b]Love for a relationship to be successful, do you agree or disagree ?[/B]
Love is a good place to start.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I would argue otherwise.
What would you argue exactly ?
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
One would think that they would share many of the same values to begin with.
That's where you are wrong. A lot of times, relationships fail to due a conflict of values. People have fallen in love with people they are incompatible with.
Try falling in love with a Gay Christian, or even a Gay Jew...see what happens 😆
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Love is a good place to start.
But is that all you need? Please answer the question.