Topic 2G7-1: Views on love/ true love

I thought I'd whack this up here, the oldest question in the book (and ripped right from the txt2nite forums).

What in your opinion is true love, and how does it differ from simple love?
_________________

Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 3:22 pm Post subject:

Uh...I think the difference between true love and "simple" love, would be that if it's not "true" love, it's obviously "false" love, for that is the only alternative. That is to say, it's either "true love" or it's not love at all. Otherwise, the whole thing makes no sense.

As far as what distinguishes true love from false love, I would say that true love carries commitment with it, whereas false love is merely a reflection of how a person feels at a given time and the person's an immature brat who has no sense of obligation in the matter and if the person says it's going to last forever, all he/she really means is that they can't believe that they won't feel the exact same way forever with no effort at all, because obviously we're dealing with your typical moron here anyway.
_________________
Yuka offers you tea and biscuits teatime

Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 3:23 pm Post subject:

What is love?

Baby don't hurt me...

no more
_________________
"There are two theories to arguing with women. Neither one works." - anonymous

Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 9:59 pm Post subject:

The RDM tends to think that "true" love isn't really something that exists. Love is always conditional, even if those conditions are as loose as "As long as you don't start eating babies and using their bones to stab old people with, I shall love you."...there's always something that can be done in any relationship that would ruin it.

That being said, the RDM thinks that love can certainly be strong and it can last for a life time if nothing ridiculous happens in the middle of things. That's not necessarily as rough as it sounds, though.

Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 1:27 am Post subject:

True Love is what rips your still-beating heart out and takes away your will to live, leaving you as a shell of your former self.

Kill it before it kills you!
_________________

Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 1:04 pm Post subject:

Because a good pic is worth a thousand words

More seriously (?), though...

True Luv, as opposed to Fake Luv? I tend to agree with LG in that if you chose to define a concept such a "love", either it is or it's not, possibly with various degrees of intensity, and spanning over several dimensions (e.g. different luv spaces, since luv for tea != luv for a person, luv for one's child != romantic luv, etc... + the luv function can vary with time)... But semantically speaking, I don't really understand what "simple love", as opposed to "true love", would be supposed to mean.

However, I also agree with the DRM that the traditional romantic concept of unconditional eternal love is unrealistic and, quite frankly, stupid. You'd got to be a totally brain dead fan boy/girl to feel that way. Actually, I'd say it's demeaning for both the fan boy/girl (obviously), and the thing/person they claim to love (automatic pass, no quality control, no effort, no challenge? boo

) - makes their relationship meaningless, quite simply.

... Anyway... If you ask me, people should stick with descriptive, non-ambiguous terminology such as "<3 = mutual exclusive more-than-friendly relationship" and "let h(p) be the happiness function of a person p, then <3(p1, p2) => h(p1) ~ h(p2) ~ 1/distance(p1, p2)" (for instance

), and leave vague semantical nonsense such as True Love or Simple Love in the garbage bin where it belongs.
As for the commitment aspect mentioned by LG, that's what EULAs are for - and though you can certainly make them undefinitely renewable, they don't have to be unconditional, far from it. That's also what commitment is about.
_________________
And God said "I approve!!1

"

Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:27 pm Post subject:

I disagree, though I admit that a relationship as such can't work if one person starts eating babies, that doesn't mean love has to end. It does mean you have to lock up the baby eater though.....
_________________
Yuka offers you tea and biscuits teatime

Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 2:05 am Post subject:

Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 3:07 pm Post subject:

The RDM was agreed with!

...so if a baby eater jumped off of a bridge, you would too?

Mr. Green

Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 3:16 pm Post subject:

What kind of bridge are we talking about? I mean if it's into water and the person is drowning, I guess so, but if it'scertain broken neck, then forget it.
_________________
Yuka offers you tea and biscuits teatime

Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:12 pm Post subject:

What if it's a bridge over troubled waters?

Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:38 pm Post subject:

I guess I'll jump.
_________________
Yuka offers you tea and biscuits teatime

Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 7:14 pm Post subject:

Why create a topic that in all likelihood deals with a distinction that 99.7% of the population here has never had the opportunity and may never have the opportunity to make beyond the realm of the hypothetical?

Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 7:22 pm Post subject:

The hypothetical is surely the best. The experiential clouds the mind with all sorts of particulars, emotional involvement, and other nonsense. Clearly, those with experience cannot match my detached zen state of ultimate knowledge. Have a cuppa and ponder that. teatime

_________________
Yuka offers you tea and biscuits teatime

Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 7:27 pm Post subject:

You soft-minded Cartesian!

Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:42 pm Post subject:

http://speedy.sdsmt.edu/~ztibke/exgf.jpg

That's true love right there.

Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:36 pm Post subject:

Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 7:42 pm Post subject:

I'm in love with vibes. I have been for years.
_________________

Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 5:24 am Post subject:

Well I don't think there is such a thing as "simple love". Love is never simple and you can never really know it until you've felt it. There are varying degrees of love and different types of love and these can all be intermingled with other feelings making them amazingly confusing and complicated while also wonderful and exciting.

Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 1:59 am Post subject:

Amen to that Check!

Quick question to LG about True Luv and commitment and so on:
would you say your love for FF4 was (and still is) true, even though you now hate what the series has become (e.g. FF12)?

From my perspective, the answer would be "hell yeah!" - to me commitment to quality > commitment to quantity (i.e. "luv" that lasts over it's many years, but lose it's meaning in the mean time): claiming, nowadays, that one loves what the FF franchise has become, wouldn't that be betraying everything that made earlier games in the series truly lovable?

_________________
And God said "I approve!!1

"

Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 4:33 pm Post subject:

Oh yeah! My love for FF4 is true, but I have no love for FF12. I still love Final Fantasy though, because I hope that it can become what it once was again, even though I hate what it is now.
_________________
Yuka offers you tea and biscuits teatime

Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:53 pm Post subject:

So do you hate that you hate what has descended from what you love, or just love that you love what you love and hate what you hate as seperate entities?

Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:24 pm Post subject:

Uh...... maybe both?
_________________
Yuka offers you tea and biscuits teatime

Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:34 pm Post subject:

Leave it to you nerds to steer a topic about meaningful porking into a topic about Final Fantasy IV.

Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:48 pm Post subject:

Are you saying FF4 isn't relevant to the deskcushion?

Should check that other thread for spoilers, then

_________________
And God said "I approve!!1

"

Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 10:19 pm Post subject:

This thread still needs more "rate my Genetic Transfer," tbh.
_________________
Dum dum dum dum ai-ai-aiiiii-a, dum dum dum dum ai-ai-aaaaa

Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 10:47 pm Post subject:

Ah, yeah... peer-reviews based on objective data for assessing the trueness of a given mutual exclusive more-than-friendly relationship? Sounds like a plan

(and goddam good research paper title, too! Conference in Hawaii, here we come

... Need a statistically significant sample of reviewers, first, though Shock

... like, between 4.2 or 6.3 volunteers)
_________________
And God said "I approve!!1

"

Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:39 pm Post subject:

Is there really a discernable difference between .2 and .3 volunteers?

Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 9:57 pm Post subject:

Yes.
_________________
Dum dum dum dum ai-ai-aiiiii-a, dum dum dum dum ai-ai-aaaaa

Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 4:37 pm Post subject:

it's all about the genetic transfer
_________________
Asaroth: beat me at games? unlikely!
What games do you consider yourself an expert at?

Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 4:59 pm Post subject:

Genetic transfer is for losers. I don't want to pass these genes on. Nobody gets to have these awesome genes, except for me!
_________________
Yuka offers you tea and biscuits teatime

Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 7:59 pm Post subject:

Well Kneepads, you can only pass half of your genes on anyway.
So I don't think you need to worry about anyone having the same set, so to say

_________________
This thread is crap.

Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 8:09 pm Post subject:

What the world needs now is Golbez Clones.

Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 8:34 pm Post subject:

Posted: Tue Dec 25, 2007 6:46 pm Post subject:

Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2007 1:30 pm Post subject:

It's cheaper than coke.
_________________
The RDM is responsible now.

Times the RDM has been right: 16 x 2^845,722,123 Jive

Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 1:15 am Post subject:

Actually I think the opposite is true. Trust me, I'm speaking from no personal experience at all.