|
Post by Zyppora on Feb 23, 2007 1:02:57 GMT -5
'Likes stay' doesn't sound like 'likes attract' at all though. But yea, I guess you're right there. And if my gf was all that, I don't think I'd stay with her (although I'm sure there's masochists out there who would). On a sidenote, I wince upon the word 'fundamentalist'.
As far as I know, oil 'n water don't mix at all, and acid and base do mix actually. They just neutralize each other.
|
|
|
Post by Creshosk on Feb 23, 2007 1:06:59 GMT -5
'Likes stay' doesn't sound like 'likes attract' at all though. But yea, I guess you're right there. And if my gf was all that, I don't think I'd stay with her (although I'm sure there's masochists out there who would). On a sidenote, I wince upon the word 'fundamentalist'. As far as I know, oil 'n water don't mix at all, and acid and base do mix actually. They just neutralize each other. So you're saying that your girl who is obviously not your opposite doesn't attract you? And yeah they do they NEUTRILIZE eadch other in a rather violent manner... not something I'd want my significant other to do.
|
|
|
Post by Zyppora on Feb 23, 2007 2:59:02 GMT -5
So you're saying that your girl who is obviously not your opposite doesn't attract you? Now where did I say that? As far as me 'n my gf are concerned, we do attract each other. But might I turn it around? Were you and your ex each other's opposites? Did you two have 'likes'? And yeah they do they NEUTRILIZE eadch other in a rather violent manner... not something I'd want my significant other to do. That's hardly the chemicals' fault, now is it? They can't help humans being so fragile.
|
|
|
Post by Creshosk on Feb 24, 2007 3:54:04 GMT -5
So you're saying that your girl who is obviously not your opposite doesn't attract you? Now where did I say that? Well you implied that likes don't attract. As far as me 'n my gf are concerned, we do attract each other. And what attracts you to her? But might I turn it around? Were you and your ex each other's opposites? Did you two have 'likes'? Indeed, the things we liked drew us together. Our differences drove us apart. That's hardly the chemicals' fault, now is it? Actually it is what the chemicals do. if there is a chemical explosion, chemicals are at fault. They can't help humans being so fragile. And would you like a violent reaction from your gf?
|
|
|
Post by Zyppora on Feb 24, 2007 6:25:50 GMT -5
Now where did I say that? Well you implied that likes don't attract. I imply a lot of things about a lot of things. The fact that you read so much into a saying as general as 'opposites attract', tells me more about you than it does about me. And what attracts you to her? Well, if I had to summarize it: everything. Both the likes and the differences. Then again, we've only seen each other 6 weeks in total so far (even though we go back 6 years). But you know what they say: love is blind, but marriage is about compromises. So I'll just have to wait 'n see if the whole 'likes attract' thing goes up for me Indeed, the things we liked drew us together. Our differences drove us apart. I believe they had a term for this, but for the life of me, I can't figure out what it was ... it had to do with selectively picking the examples/facts/evidence/etc. Happens in scientific research all the time (and a very good example of practitioners of this technique would be creationists). Anywayz, even if it were all true and all, that would still make you one couple out of a total possible couples of 3 billion. And the fact that you actually split up doesn't prove anything (to quote you: lack of evidence is not evidence of lack). Actually it is what the chemicals do. if there is a chemical explosion, chemicals are at fault. Chemicals do what they are meant to do, and you'd best be glad they do. Explosives, nutrients, acids, plastics, it doesn't matter. If you crash your car you're way glad your airbag unfolds before your face hits the wheel. They can't help humans being so fragile. And would you like a violent reaction from your gf? Naturally I wouldn't. But how does that relate to humans being fragile as opposed to chemicals?
|
|
|
Post by Creshosk on Feb 25, 2007 15:15:25 GMT -5
Well you implied that likes don't attract. I imply a lot of things about a lot of things. The fact that you read so much into a saying as general as 'opposites attract', tells me more about you than it does about me. This tells me you're dodging the point. 'Likes stay' doesn't sound like 'likes attract' at all though. You're plainly saying that "Likes don't attract." Well, if I had to summarize it: everything. Both the likes and the differences. Then again, we've only seen each other 6 weeks in total so far (even though we go back 6 years). But you know what they say: love is blind, but marriage is about compromises. So I'll just have to wait 'n see if the whole 'likes attract' thing goes up for me [/b][/quote] You're pretty much past the 'attract' part of the equation. now you need a 'stay' part. even if it is 'stay atracted' which is basically what the stay part IS. I believe they had a term for this, but for the life of me, I can't figure out what it was ... it had to do with selectively picking the examples/facts/evidence/etc. Happens in scientific research all the time (and a very good example of practitioners of this technique would be creationists). Anywayz, even if it were all true and all, that would still make you one couple out of a total possible couples of 3 billion. And the fact that you actually split up doesn't prove anything (to quote you: lack of evidence is not evidence of lack). Are you kidding? Whenever a couple breaks up its because of differences. In legal terms over divorce its called 'irreconcilable differences'. If they've coined a legal term for it I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one to have ever split up over differences. Hell, it's not even limited to romantic intent. Bands and other groups that work with each other might disband over artstic differences. So yeah, you're really reaching if you think to imply that I'm the only person who has ever broken up over differences. Chemicals do what they are meant to do, That implies a will of someone who made them. No, chemicals just do what they do. and you'd best be glad they do. Explosives, nutrients, acids, plastics, it doesn't matter. If you crash your car you're way glad your airbag unfolds before your face hits the wheel. Which is a red herrring to the fact that opposites in this case have a very volitile reaction. Period. Naturally I wouldn't. But how does that relate to humans being fragile as opposed to chemicals? How does human beings being fragile have any bearing to the conversation. No more red herring.
|
|
|
Post by Zyppora on Feb 26, 2007 13:12:54 GMT -5
I imply a lot of things about a lot of things. The fact that you read so much into a saying as general as 'opposites attract', tells me more about you than it does about me. This tells me you're dodging the point. Might it tell you next week's lottery tickets too? Or does it only work across the Atlantic? You're plainly saying that "Likes don't attract." And who's dodging the point now? You're pretty much past the 'attract' part of the equation. now you need a 'stay' part. even if it is 'stay atracted' which is basically what the stay part IS. Hah! I give you two lines of info about my relationship and you think you're the love doctor? Seriously ... Are you kidding? Whenever a couple breaks up its because of differences. In legal terms over divorce its called 'irreconcilable differences'. If they've coined a legal term for it I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one to have ever split up over differences. Hell, it's not even limited to romantic intent. Bands and other groups that work with each other might disband over artstic differences. So yeah, you're really reaching if you think to imply that I'm the only person who has ever broken up over differences. That really depends on the point of view actually. Enter the golddigger, someone who wants money. If you put two of these together, they'd have a like, wouldn't they? I'm not going to claim that likes repel (and as far as I know, I haven't before, but feel free to search the topic and try to prove me wrong), just that opposites attract. Remember how I used to bash the US and americans, not two years ago? Now I'm dating one. That implies a will of someone who made them. No, chemicals just do what they do. Oohw, say three hail maries and rinse your mouth with green soap for denying the existence of our God. Chemicals just do what they do. Agreed. How can someone or something be at fault (as you claim) when they do what they do? When they do what they're supposed to do under circumstances, and what they do what they've done countless times, with a deviation of ZERO, in the past? You can't fault anyone or anything for doing their job. Which is a red herrring to the fact that opposites in this case have a very volitile reaction. Period. Who was it again that brought the case up in the first place? Naturally I wouldn't. But how does that relate to humans being fragile as opposed to chemicals? How does human beings being fragile have any bearing to the conversation. No more red herring. And who was it that brought the human body into the discussion?
|
|
|
Post by Creshosk on Feb 26, 2007 14:20:06 GMT -5
This tells me you're dodging the point. Might it tell you next week's lottery tickets too? Or does it only work across the Atlantic? And who's dodging the point now? You are, obviously. Hah! I give you two lines of info about my relationship and you think you're the love doctor? Seriously ... [/b][/quote]Haha! Wow you sure are defensive. So what you don't think that you're at the "stay" part of the relationship? You're still trying to attract? The way you were talking about her it sounded like she was already attracted to you. Guess I was wrong then eh. try not to read too much into certain phrases like that one. That really depends on the point of view actually. Enter the golddigger, someone who wants money. If you put two of these together, they'd have a like, wouldn't they? [/b][/quote] Well, sure why not? They want what the other has. the golddigger wants the money and the one being dug wants .. other things. And they usually do stay together until death doth part them. You make it seem so negative. But if the golddigger is making the golddiggee happy, what's the issue? I'm not going to claim that likes repel (and as far as I know, I haven't before, but feel free to search the topic and try to prove me wrong), just that opposites attract. Remember how I used to bash the US and americans, not two years ago? Now I'm dating one. So you've learned not to generalize. Big whoop. it's not like you're the opposite of Americans. Hell there's a good portion of the populace that's just like you. So no, American's aren't the opposite of you. Nice try though. Oohw, say three hail maries and rinse your mouth with green soap for denying the existence of our God. Pssh, I told you I was Agnostic. Chemicals just do what they do. Agreed. How can someone or something be at fault (as you claim) when they do what they do? When they do what they're supposed to do under circumstances, and what they do what they've done countless times, with a deviation of ZERO, in the past? You can't fault anyone or anything for doing their job. I suppose this is where the distinction between fault and responsability differ.. one definition of responsability anyway. What's responsible for burning down a building? The fire. Who's at fault for the burning down of the building? the arsonist who set the fire. Who was it again that brought the case up in the first place? That'd be you for reading more into an example I gave. Ias an example of opposites haveing a potentially negative effect (it certainly is volitile) I listed acid's and bases. and forom that you went off on the fraility of humans. Which had nothing to do with my original statement. And who was it that brought the human body into the discussion? That would be you.
|
|
|
Post by nekosenshi on Feb 26, 2007 15:14:38 GMT -5
Thank you Creshosk. All the couples I know who have been together for years have a lot in common. Take my parents for instance. Both intelligent, liberal, non-religious, loyal, essentially good people, both more introverted than extroverted in general. My dad is more aggressive and my mom is more sentimental but that is to be expected.
|
|
|
Post by Zyppora on Feb 27, 2007 15:27:29 GMT -5
Seriously, sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling 'la la la I can't hear you' was the least I expected from you. Haha! Wow you sure are defensive. So what you don't think that you're at the "stay" part of the relationship? You're still trying to attract? The way you were talking about her it sounded like she was already attracted to you. Guess I was wrong then eh. try not to read too much into certain phrases like that one. Ohw, so now I'm the one reading too much into phrases eh? Really, you know nothing about my relationship with my girlfriend, and this bit just proves it. Well, sure why not? They want what the other has. the golddigger wants the money and the one being dug wants .. other things. And they usually do stay together until death doth part them. You make it seem so negative. But if the golddigger is making the golddiggee happy, what's the issue? I was wondering the same thing when the whole Anna Nicole Smith case was on tv. But yea, it hit me that there is such a thing as a deadly sin (named greed), and a tenth commandment (thou shalt not covet). And BAM, few weeks later she's found dead. Coincidence? So you've learned not to generalize. Big whoop. it's not like you're the opposite of Americans. Hell there's a good portion of the populace that's just like you. So no, American's aren't the opposite of you. Nice try though. Nice try dodging the point, which was: I'm not going to claim that likes repel (and as far as I know, I haven't before, but feel free to search the topic and try to prove me wrong), just that opposites attract. Mind trying again? Pssh, I told you I was Agnostic. So am I, what's your point? I suppose this is where the distinction between fault and responsability differ.. one definition of responsability anyway. What's responsible for burning down a building? The fire. Who's at fault for the burning down of the building? the arsonist who set the fire. No fault, no responsibility. Chemicals do what they are meant to do, isn't that right? You call it good when a fire heats up your house (as in a fireplace), but call it bad when it burns down a building? Pssh, make up your mind, dude. Chemicals do what they do. That'd be you for reading more into an example I gave. Bullshit. See my previous comment about sticking your fingers in your ears and ... well, you know. Acting like a 4 year old. Ias an example of opposites haveing a potentially negative effect (it certainly is volitile) I listed acid's and bases. and forom that you went off on the fraility of humans. Which had nothing to do with my original statement. Ohw, so now it's a potentially negative effect? Very subtle. And here's a reminder: 'Likes stay' doesn't sound like 'likes attract' at all though. But yea, I guess you're right there. And if my gf was all that, I don't think I'd stay with her (although I'm sure there's masochists out there who would). On a sidenote, I wince upon the word 'fundamentalist'. As far as I know, oil 'n water don't mix at all, and acid and base do mix actually. They just neutralize each other. So you're saying that your girl who is obviously not your opposite doesn't attract you? And yeah they do they NEUTRILIZE eadch other in a rather violent manner... not something I'd want my significant other to do. So yea, that would be YOU And who was it that brought the human body into the discussion? That would be you. Heheh, that would be YOU
|
|
|
Post by Creshosk on Feb 27, 2007 20:32:34 GMT -5
Seriously, sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling 'la la la I can't hear you' was the least I expected from you. Actually that''s what you're doing: Ohw, so now I'm the one reading too much into phrases eh? Really, you know nothing about my relationship with my girlfriend, and this bit just proves it. [/b][/quote] And you're still ignoreing my point. Get as defensive as you want. It just proves how little of a case you really have. I was wondering the same thing when the whole Anna Nicole Smith case was on tv. But yea, it hit me that there is such a thing as a deadly sin (named greed), and a tenth commandment (thou shalt not covet). And BAM, few weeks later she's found dead. Coincidence? If by "few weeks" you mean twelve years seven months twelve days... I hardly see the coincidence. Nice try dodging the point, which was: I'm not going to claim that likes repel (and as far as I know, I haven't before, but feel free to search the topic and try to prove me wrong), just that opposites attract. Mind trying again? Ignoring evidence presented does not a case make. But once again for YOUR benefit since you see to have a reading comprehension problem. doesn't sound like 'likes attract' at all though. Here you're saying that like don't attract. But nice that you tottally ignored the point that you're not the opposite of Americans. So am I, what's your point? Well, you just caused this error to pop-up on my sensors: Sense of humor not detected, follow through with joke: failed. No fault, no responsibility. Chemicals do what they are meant to do, isn't that right? You call it good when a fire heats up your house (as in a fireplace), but call it bad when it burns down a building? Pssh, make up your mind, dude. Chemicals do what they do. Nice False Dillemma fallacy you just commited there. Bullshit. See my previous comment about sticking your fingers in your ears and ... well, you know. Acting like a 4 year old. I know, it's qquite annoying so if you could stop doing it and allow us to discuss this like rational adults it'd be greatly appreciated. Ohw, so now it's a potentially negative effect? Very subtle. And here's a reminder: [/b][/quote]Indeed Chemicals have a potentially negative effect. If handled properly the violent reaction can be harnessed for posotive purposes. So yea, that would be YOU [/b][/quote] Indeed. I said violent, not negative. And that was specifically referring to acids and bases. the more acidic a chemical and the more basic a chemical the more violent the reaction. You'll note I still didn't say anything about it being negative. Just a violent neutrilization. And I for one would not want to be violently neutrilized by my significant other. Heheh, that would be YOU Nope, I never mentioned body parts or human fragility in what you quoted, Your response: That's hardly the chemicals' fault, now is it? They can't help humans being so fragile. was the first to bring up human fragility AND assigning fault to the chemicals. Don't assign to me the things you do. So again. Just admit you were wrong and we can end this. But you should still get that reading comprehension problem of yours taken care of.
|
|
|
Post by Zyppora on Feb 28, 2007 3:20:21 GMT -5
Seriously, sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling 'la la la I can't hear you' was the least I expected from you. Actually that''s what you're doing: No, I was trying to leave my relationship out of this discussion, but you let it drag on. And when I point out a flaw, you're saying I'm reading too much into it? Wait? Into what? My very own relationship, which you don't even know jack shit about? And you're still ignoreing my point. Get as defensive as you want. It just proves how little of a case you really have. But at least I have a relationship. And what points would I have ignored then? The fact that in my relationship, which you know nothing about, there are likes too? Ignoring evidence presented does not a case make. But once again for YOUR benefit since you see to have a reading comprehension problem. Hahah! I have a reading comprehension problem? How about your grammar problem, Yoda? Here you're saying that like don't attract. But nice that you tottally ignored the point that you're not the opposite of Americans. Bull and shit. I was actually pointing out a flaw in YOUR arguments, and never claimed 'likes attract' to be either true or false. Well, you just caused this error to pop-up on my sensors: Sense of humor not detected, follow through with joke: failed. Yea, that's a software bug. Better format the harddrives completely. Nice False Dillemma fallacy you just commited there. No, it's called objective perspective. Giving it a value such as 'positive' or 'negative' is a subjective perspective, and you're implying that fire, or chemicals, are negative when they neutralize each other in a 'violent' (there's another subjective value) way, and that 'you wouldn't want your significant other to do that to you'. Indeed Chemicals have a potentially negative effect. If handled properly the violent reaction can be harnessed for posotive purposes. And this just proves my point Indeed. I said violent, not negative. And that was specifically referring to acids and bases. the more acidic a chemical and the more basic a chemical the more violent the reaction. You'll note I still didn't say anything about it being negative. Just a violent neutrilization. And I for one would not want to be violently neutrilized by my significant other. And now you're doing it again Nope, I never mentioned body parts or human fragility in what you quoted, Your response: That's hardly the chemicals' fault, now is it? They can't help humans being so fragile. was the first to bring up human fragility AND assigning fault to the chemicals. Indeed, after you IMPLIED it, I STATED it. And don't gimme bullshit about you not implying anything, if you say crap like 'I wouldn't want my significant other to do that to me', you're implying a negative effect. I didn't bother replying to the other childish arguments, as they either simply weren't true (but you wouldn't admit to that, would you?) or were irrelevant to the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Creshosk on Feb 28, 2007 4:05:23 GMT -5
Actually that''s what you're doing: No, I was trying to leave my relationship out of this discussion, but you let it drag on. And when I point out a flaw, you're saying I'm reading too much into it? Wait? Into what? My very own relationship, which you don't even know jack shit about? Still quite defensive I see. still reading too much into what I said. These traits make you jump to conclusions. Though I find it quite amusing that you're ignoring the point I was trying to make in favor of getting more specific than I meant for you to think. But at least I have a relationship. And what points would I have ignored then? The fact that in my relationship, which you know nothing about, there are likes too? Heehee, getting more irrational, more defensive. It seems I've found a very weak point with you. Detect sarcasm you cannot, I see. [Hahah! I have a reading comprehension problem? How about your grammar problem, Yoda? And here you lash out more. Not even makeing a point or trying to counter what I said. Bull and shit. I was actually pointing out a flaw in YOUR arguments, and never claimed 'likes attract' to be either true or false. Oh is that what you thought you were doing? You failed. Miserably too I might add. Had you succeeded your relationship might never have been mentioned. Yea, that's a software bug. Better format the harddrives completely. You first. No, it's called objective perspective. No it isn't. giving only two options and enforcing an either/or is a false dilemma. Chemicals need not be only good, or only bad. Giving it a value such as 'positive' or 'negative' is a subjective perspective, Incorrect. and you're implying that fire, or chemicals, are negative when they neutralize each other in a 'violent' (there's another subjective value) way, and that 'you wouldn't want your significant other to do that to you'. I did nothing of the sort. I cited a singular example. You are the one who, once again, read more into what I said than was actually there. I love how you attack the examples and never go for the argument itself. And this just proves my point In your dreams maybe. But you'll note that I have never said that they are negative or that they are positive. And now you're doing it again Way to ignore the point, again. How childish of you. Indeed, after you IMPLIED it, I STATED it. I implied nothing. You infer too much my friend. And don't gimme bullshit about you not implying anything, if you say crap like 'I wouldn't want my significant other to do that to me', you're implying a negative effect. Well sure if you want your girlfriend to violently neurtilize you more power to you. I for one wouldn't mind seeing how that could be taken as positive. Especially when its an example of opposites that you seem to covet, but also seem to not understand in the slightest about. I didn't bother replying to the other childish arguments, as they either simply weren't true (but you wouldn't admit to that, would you?) or were irrelevant to the discussion. Then prehaps I should just ignore efverything you say? As its always childish, and never relevent to the conversation.
|
|
|
Post by Zyppora on Feb 28, 2007 12:12:11 GMT -5
No, I was trying to leave my relationship out of this discussion, but you let it drag on. And when I point out a flaw, you're saying I'm reading too much into it? Wait? Into what? My very own relationship, which you don't even know jack shit about? Still quite defensive I see. still reading too much into what I said. These traits make you jump to conclusions. Though I find it quite amusing that you're ignoring the point I was trying to make in favor of getting more specific than I meant for you to think. Well, that's very unfortunate then ... for you, that is. Heehee, getting more irrational, more defensive. It seems I've found a very weak point with you. Detect sarcasm you cannot, I see. Yea, weak point indeed. I'm used to discussing things on a higher level than you are it seems. And here you lash out more. Not even makeing a point or trying to counter what I said. Because there's hardly anything to counter. And when there is, I'm expecting replies like 'you implied it' or 'you missed the point'. But yea, after failing to state the point, how could I ever not miss it? You first. And this is the kind of reply I'm talking about. It's hardly worth mentioning. No it isn't. giving only two options and enforcing an either/or is a false dilemma. Chemicals need not be only good, or only bad. First of all, I stated that there isn't even such a thing as good or bad between chemicals and their purposes from an objective perspective, so this point holds no ground whatsoever. Second of all, it was you who specified that 'violently neutralizing' is 'negative', which would leave 'positive' as a second option. Which would render this one of YOUR points actually. See what I mean when I say you turn every point around? Incorrect? Is that all the Great Wise Creshosk has to say? I don't think that's gonna work for me, kiddo. You're gonna have to come with a lot more to convince me that I was 'incorrect'. I did nothing of the sort. I cited a singular example. You are the one who, once again, read more into what I said than was actually there. Ohw, so you're saying that 'your significant other violently neutralizing you' is not a negative experience? Or would you deny ever saying that particular phrase? You said it yourself, you 'wouldn't want it'. Does that mean it's positive? Or am I reading too much into it again? I love how you attack the examples and never go for the argument itself. I'd attack the argument if there ever was one. But yea, even after ASKING to restate the argument, rather than the example, you fail to. In your dreams maybe. But you'll note that I have never said that they are negative or that they are positive. I know you didn't say it. You implied it though, saying you 'wouldn't want' it to occur. How could that be positive, or even neutral? Way to ignore the point, again. How childish of you. Takes one to know one, kiddo. If you can't take on the message, you attack the messenger. You were saying 'childish'? I implied nothing. You infer too much my friend. Bullshit, the only way you could have been more clear was if you spelled it out. Well sure if you want your girlfriend to violently neurtilize you more power to you. I for one wouldn't mind seeing how that could be taken as positive. Especially when its an example of opposites that you seem to covet, but also seem to not understand in the slightest about. Ah, so now you ARE stating that it couldn't be a positive thing? Whereas earlier you claimed that it was 'violent, not negative'. More power to you (and hopefully an overload, to get that RAM memory of yours cleared out). And yes, I covet the example of opposites, the most prominent and obvious being that I'm male, and she's female. This is also where the approximate 10% deviation shows up. On a sidenote, I never stated nor implied that I'd want my gf to violently neutralize me, and I don't think she would, as it is a destructive event and life is built on the foundations of selfpreservance. I didn't bother replying to the other childish arguments, as they either simply weren't true (but you wouldn't admit to that, would you?) or were irrelevant to the discussion. Then prehaps I should just ignore efverything you say? As its always childish, and never relevent to the conversation. Maybe you should, but I have a feeling you won't be able to resist the temptation
|
|
|
Post by Creshosk on Feb 28, 2007 13:30:36 GMT -5
Still quite defensive I see. still reading too much into what I said. These traits make you jump to conclusions. Though I find it quite amusing that you're ignoring the point I was trying to make in favor of getting more specific than I meant for you to think. Well, that's very unfortunate then ... for you, that is. Yeah, Yea, weak point indeed. I'm used to discussing things on a higher level than you are it seems. Uh huh, which is why you focus on the examples more than whats actually being said. Because there's hardly anything to counter. And when there is, I'm expecting replies like 'you implied it' or 'you missed the point'. But yea, after failing to state the point, how could I ever not miss it? Oh, I've stated the point. But you go after the examples more than the point itself. And this is the kind of reply I'm talking about. It's hardly worth mentioning. So your "higher level of discussion" has you ignore everything you don't like? Beautiful. I don't want your "holier than thou" levels. I like my regular highly intellectual levels. First of all, I stated that there isn't even such a thing as good or bad between chemicals and their purposes from an objective perspective, so this point holds no ground whatsoever. Second of all, it was you who specified that 'violently neutralizing' is 'negative', I never stated that. You do seem to like to put word in my mouth. which would leave 'positive' as a second option. Which would render this one of YOUR points actually. See what I mean when I say you turn every point around? Nope, it'd be nice if you argued logically rather than from whatever it is that you do argue from. I've had others tell me they could understand and follow my arguments but yours seem random and out of nowhere. Incorrect? Is that all the Great Wise Creshosk has to say? I don't think that's gonna work for me, kiddo. You're gonna have to come with a lot more to convince me that I was 'incorrect'. "Yeah I don't think this point was even worth mentioning, So I'm just going to ignore it." Sound familiar? Ohw, so you're saying that 'your significant other violently neutralizing you' is not a negative experience? Or would you deny ever saying that particular phrase? You said it yourself, you 'wouldn't want it'. Does that mean it's positive? Or am I reading too much into it again? Hey, would you like to grow up so you can discuss things like adults? Or would you rather just attack everything? I'd attack the argument if there ever was one. No you wouldn't. You never do. You always go after the examples. Hell, that's why we're even on this in the first place. I mentioned Acid's and bases and now for some reason you felt the need to drag this out. But yea, even after ASKING to restate the argument, rather than the example, you fail to. Haha! Not surprising you couldn't see it. I know you didn't say it. You implied it though, No, you infered it. saying you 'wouldn't want' it to occur. How could that be positive, or even neutral? IT's a matter of taste my friend and rather subjective at that. And what does it even matter, this was still part of you attacking the example rather than the argument itself. I'd restate the argument, but you've got a stranglehold on the example and refuse to let go. Takes one to know one, kiddo. If you can't take on the message, you attack the messenger. You were saying 'childish'? It's funny that you mention being childish after saying "takes one to know one." Bullshit, the only way you could have been more clear was if you spelled it out. And I'm sorry that people have to just come right out and say things. You obviously don't do subtle, you're incapable of picking up on it. No wonder you always drag everything out. Ah, so now you ARE stating that it couldn't be a positive thing? Whereas earlier you claimed that it was 'violent, not negative'. More power to you (and hopefully an overload, to get that RAM memory of yours cleared out). How childish... And yes, I covet the example of opposites, the most prominent and obvious being that I'm male, and she's female. Which means that Homosexuals don't exist. This is also where the approximate 10% deviation shows up. Prove it. Cite your sources for this number or stop spouting it. On a sidenote, I never stated nor implied that I'd want my gf to violently neutralize me, and I don't think she would, as it is a destructive event and life is built on the foundations of selfpreservance. Well hey obviously from me giving one example of how they could be negative I must be saying that ALL of them are negative right? It was a sweeping generalization on your part. And it took you this long to finally pick up on what I was saying rather than what you wanted me to be saying. Maybe you should, but I have a feeling you won't be able to resist the temptation Yeah pretty much. You know what your problem is Zyppora? You can't see the forest for the trees, you get so bogged down in details that you can't see the larger picture. That's why you always attack the examples rahter than the argument. I give an exampl of how opposite chemicals can be bad and you're off on this tyraid about religon and chemicals. And you make these leaps of logic that nobody else can follow. It's also interesting to note how you flipped out over my not answering a question the way you wanted me to. You asked me about my Ex. I gave you the truth and you went off about how I was one case in a billion and selctive reasoning and all that. My problem is indeed that I can't resist and I tend to wind up going where the conversation is, even though this entire thing from where you attacked the example is one big ol red herring. It's irrealevent to the conversation, the topic, or any point that I made. You also got caught up in the example of using your relationship to try and get you to think critically. You got defensive rather than actually thinking about what I was saying. When I mentioned that you were in a stage of your relationship beyond trying to attract and were at the stay stage. (And No I don't need to be a love doctor, you're shelling out cash to fly to the states to see her, and have obviously seen her so she obviously gave you the infrormation to find her so obviously she wants to see you too) You'd have to be blind to not be able to see that.It's really not the differences that are the most powerful force to hold you two together. ITs the similarities. Like your mutual love of one another. She is NOT your opposite. We've already shown that YOUR opposite you would not be able to tolerate. So if indeed 10% IS the deviation, YOU my friend are in that 10%. "Opposites attract, but birds of a feather flock together." And I for one am not really attracted to things that are my opposite. I'm attracted to things that are similar to me. And that's the original point. You say opposites attract. I call bullshit on that. We're not electromagnets (and for crying out loud that's an example do NOT bring up anything about electromagnets or anything of that sort.).
|
|