View Single Post
Old 04-10-2009, 08:34 PM   #13
The one who knocks
Q's Avatar
Join Date: May 2006
Location: ABQ
Posts: 6,642
Current Game: Mowing down neos with my M60
LF Jester  Forum Veteran  Helpful! 
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
That's entirely subjective.
Is it? I don't think it is. You either love someone or you don't. No semantics involved.
Originally Posted by Achilles
Your definition completely ignores huge components of romantic love, etc.
That's because "romantic love" is merely love mixed with lust.
Originally Posted by Achilles
Someone else could also claim to define love as simply as possible and come up with something completely different from what you have here.
They could, but then they wouldn't be describing love, now would they?
Originally Posted by Achilles
I would absolutely agree that "love" can be irrational, yes. It depends entirely on how you're defining it and in which context you using it.
OK, then how would you define it?
Originally Posted by Achilles
ABE: The fact is that "love" (and all emotions for that matter) are nothing more than chemical processes going on in the brain. This is quite observable. So the question I have is why are we using an observable phenomenon to draw an analogy to something that is not?
Because love is irrational, mainly because it is usually to the detriment of the one who loves, and yet you acknowledge it and support it. Society generally encourages it as opposed to hate, an emotion that makes far more sense to me.

My point is that something's being irrational doesn't automatically make it bad, or, more importantly, invalid.

"They should rename the team to the Washington Government Sucks. Put Obama on the helmet. Line the entire walls of the stadium with the actual text of the ACA.
Fix their home team score on the board to the debt clock, they can win every game 17,000,000,000,000 to 24. Losing team gets taxed by the IRS 100%, then droned."

Last edited by Q; 04-10-2009 at 08:48 PM.
Q is offline   you may: