Originally posted by Goddess KaliYes. ✅
But is that all you need? Please answer the question.
Originally posted by Goddess KaliYes. ✅
But is that all you need? Please answer the question.
Originally posted by Creshosk
Yes. ✅
So loyalty, money, discipline, security, confidense, empathy are useless in a relationship ? 😬
Originally posted by Goddess Kalidoh
So loyalty, money, discipline, security, confidense, empathy are useless in a relationship ? 😬
Let's try this again shall we?
The Beatles
Love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love.
There's nothing you can do that can't be done.
Nothing you can sing that can't be sung.
Nothing you can say but you can learn how to play the game
It's easy.
There's nothing you can make that can't be made.
No one you can save that can't be saved.
Nothing you can do but you can learn how to be in time
It's easy.
All you need is love, all you need is love,
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
Love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love.
All you need is love, all you need is love,
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
There's nothing you can know that isn't known.
Nothing you can see that isn't shown.
Nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be.
It's easy.
All you need is love, all you need is love,
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
All you need is love (all together now)
All you need is love (everybody)
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
There now you don't need to click on the link to get the joke. ermm
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.
You know, a simple "Yes, Bardock, you are right" would have been enough.
Originally posted by Creshosk
You can't prove it.. hence all the evil.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.Right, because everyone defines what love means to them differently.
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.
Emotions are illogical? When did you redefine them that way?
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
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.”
Since when has it been said friends with benefits are physically faithful to one another? Isn't the whole point they're usually involved in something where they have benefits - ie. they could be sleeping with other people on a casual basis + their friend with benefits?
And if you don't mind me asking, where exactly is the stone with "Emotional and physical fidelity are essential characteristics of a relationship" set in it? I mean I assume you aren't just presenting a personal value judgement of what constitutes a relationship, you must being getting that somewhere. It just seems that all the definitions I look at say things like:
"a state of connectedness between people (especially an emotional connection)"
or
"the relation connecting or binding participants in a relationship"
Or
"the relation connecting or binding participants in a relationship"
or
"A relationship, by definition, is the bond or connection you have with another person. Relationships are caused by personal needs, social expectations, experiences in relationships, what you've seen others do in relationships, your values, and your attitudes."
or
"3. A particular type of connection existing between people related to or having dealings with each other"
And if we want to narrow it down to romantic relationship:
"Romantic love is a form of love that is often regarded as different from simply sexual love, or lust. Romantic love generally means both an emotional and sexual love, as opposed to Platonic love. There is more emphasis on the emotions than on the bodily pleasures. "
Which is nice, but no real "a relationship is a situation where two people engage in emotional and physical fidelity".
If you want to convince me there is an established criteria checklist a person must meet before they can be classified as being in a relationship and not just "in an agreement" regardless of the people involved feelings and intent then I think you need to put something forward that shows the entire definition of a relationship is key linked to "Emotional and physical fidelity" being "essential characteristics" and not, as really seems the case here, simply ones personal view on what are essential characteristics.
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?
So because the people involved negotiate the complex journey that is a relationship, which includes boundaries like "we are just friends, this is just sex without commitment" relationships are automatically objective? Seems the opposite to me - the way in which they define the whole thing (feeling + intent (which includes boundaries) defines whether this is a relationship (whatever type), a convenient arrangement or whatever.
The people define the relationship. And don't start that "oh, and what if they call it a purple monkey, does that mean it is a purple monkey", giving something a title is not the same as defining it - because all that is doing is attributing more importance to the title rather then looking at the feelings + intent within and is no different from those marriage fanatics that place more importance on a "married" label then the relationship itself.
My argument is not “Feelings + Intentions = Relationship,” but “Feelings + Actions = Relationship.”
Because action exists in a perfectly defined moral and ethical vacuum and is totally free of influence from intent or personal perception?
Person 1: I am involved in an open relationship. Myself and my partner have established boundaries different from conventional relationships and reconciled the actions allowed/prohibited by those boundaries in accordance with our feelings and intent towards one another.
Person 2: That doesn't work, because your intent has no bearing on the action, because such actions don't allow for any interpretation or personal adaption in personal relationships. Thus you can not now give action A. a tick and say it is fine, because you have no real power in defining the boundaries of your relationship. You meet the criteria or you don't.
I have not addressed the ethics of one relationship or another. To the contrary, it is you who is interjecting value into the argument.
Funny, it sounds a lot like that, unless this is one of those cases where you say "oh no, this isn't my opinion, because I am right."
You asked "what is in question is what those relationships would qualify as" and that has nothing to do with your value judgement of the relationship? You are applying some sort of universal checklist to relationships?
I mean getting into the mindset of people who have taken a different path and questioning their level of commitment if they have chosen an open relationship is totally seperate from anykind of value assesment?
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.
Once again I have to ask where exactly is the universal law that "without both characteristics, i.e. emotional and physical fidelity, that he is not in a true relationship", and not simply something that is the accepted, moral norm of what a "true relationship is."
The Beatles
Love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love.
There's nothing you can do that can't be done.
Nothing you can sing that can't be sung.
Nothing you can say but you can learn how to play the game
It's easy.
There's nothing you can make that can't be made.
No one you can save that can't be saved.
Nothing you can do but you can learn how to be in time
It's easy.
All you need is love, all you need is love,
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
Love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love.
All you need is love, all you need is love,
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
There's nothing you can know that isn't known.
Nothing you can see that isn't shown.
Nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be.
It's easy.
All you need is love, all you need is love,
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
All you need is love (all together now)
All you need is love (everybody)
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
words to live by, but some people dont get it.
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
The Beatles
Love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love.
There's nothing you can do that can't be done.
Nothing you can sing that can't be sung.
Nothing you can say but you can learn how to play the game
It's easy.
There's nothing you can make that can't be made.
No one you can save that can't be saved.
Nothing you can do but you can learn how to be in time
It's easy.
All you need is love, all you need is love,
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
Love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love.
All you need is love, all you need is love,
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
There's nothing you can know that isn't known.
Nothing you can see that isn't shown.
Nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be.
It's easy.
All you need is love, all you need is love,
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
All you need is love (all together now)
All you need is love (everybody)
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.words to live by, but some people dont get it.
It could be argued though that self-dsicipline is more important than love.
Originally posted by Creshosk
Are you picking up on it being a joke at all?
Originally posted by Creshosk
If you seriously beleive that Love is all one needs to make a relationship work, then you don't live in the real world.
Don't beat around the bush. Love is obviously not all you need to make a relationship work, there are other aspects that promote success.
Adam Poe a question for you. Do you beleive that Alexander the Great truly loved Hephaestion ?
Remember, Alexander had other male lovers, as well as three wives.
And consider all those kings who had multiple wives
Monogomy, like Polygamy is a practice enduced by society. Are you going to argue that Monogomy is the only form of relationship where true love is involved ?
Originally posted by Goddess KaliBeat around the Bush? I was joking, How many times do I need to point that out?
Don't beat around the bush. Love is obviously not all you need to make a relationship work, there are other aspects that promote success.
Originally posted by Bardock42There you go being an ass again. Expalin to me how emotions are logical?
Idiot.
Hell even trying to appeal to them is illogical in debate.
Thay're a state of being that causes you to take illogical actions.
Fear for example. A person has a fear of dogs. So any dog they're around they get nervous... Like there's a puppy who was born not too long ago and a person with a fear of dogs is affraid of it. That's logical to you? To be affraid of a puppy? And I'm the idiot? 🙄
Originally posted by CreshoskIdiot.
There you go being an ass again. Expalin to me how emotions are logical?Hell even trying to appeal to them is illogical in debate.
Thay're a state of being that causes you to take illogical actions.
Fear for example. A person has a fear of dogs. So any dog they're around they get nervous... Like there's a puppy who was born not too long ago and a person with a fear of dogs is affraid of it. That's logical to you? To be affraid of a puppy? And I'm the idiot? 🙄
Originally posted by Creshosk
There you go being an ass again. Expalin to me how emotions are logical?Hell even trying to appeal to them is illogical in debate.
Thay're a state of being that causes you to take illogical actions.
Fear for example. A person has a fear of dogs. So any dog they're around they get nervous... Like there's a puppy who was born not too long ago and a person with a fear of dogs is affraid of it. That's logical to you? To be affraid of a puppy? And I'm the idiot? 🙄
ummm... wrong?