Daesh [ISIS] Murders Crowd of People in France

[Arctangent]

I'm pretty sure willing submission is something you do to the law, not someone who's supposed to be your equal.

[VGamingJunkie]

Only if you take that interpretation of it, as Fonze pointed out. Also, you don't willfully submit to laws, you have no choice if you want to avoid the consequences. People submit to the law because they don't want to go to prison, generally speaking, you submit to your spouse because you love them and want the best for them.

[Fonze]

That's not entirely true, metroid, see Kohlberg's moral development stages. Good article there about it.

[Arctangent]

I think people only submit to their spouses, then, because they'll get either physically or emotionally assaulted if they don't.

Or they have some false assumption that they aren't suppose to exist beyond being just some servant to their spouse, leaving them emotionally stunted and unfulfilled because it isn't love if you bother to take care of yourself or something!

[Mechazawa]

Ignore me.

[Fonze]

Arctangent said:

I think people only submit to their spouses, then, because they'll get either physically or emotionally assaulted if they don't.

Or they have some false assumption that they aren't suppose to exist beyond being just some servant to their spouse, leaving them emotionally stunted and unfulfilled because it isn't love if you bother to take care of yourself or something!

Reductio ad absurdum

[Zed]

Mechazawa said:

Welp, I guess this was finally the excuse FRance wanted:

http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/11/france-deploys-10000-troops/

It is kinda shitty because nobody but the media has mentioned anything about ISIS from this attack. Even people who knew the guy said he wasn't Muslim. I guess any crime that takes place must be ISIS.

Uhm, that article is dated November 17, 2015. It is about the Paris terrorist attacks...

[VGamingJunkie]

Arctangent said:

Or they have some false assumption that they aren't suppose to exist beyond being just some servant to their spouse, leaving them emotionally stunted and unfulfilled because it isn't love if you bother to take care of yourself or something!

You seem to be that type of person that just takes the other guy out of context in order to win an argument.

[Arctangent]

What's in context, then? This is literally the context I'm getting from you.

Fonze said:

Reductio ad absurdum

I really don't see how this is relevant, unless there's some weird loop-around with something akin to "something absurd can't be satirical because that's how the world actually is" causing something that actually happens to be too absurd to be relevant to an argument.

[june gloom]

XCOPY said:

"And we should aspire to even more" screams "we are bad but we should not be". Have you considered for a moment that you don't actually believe that humans are essentially good and that a dictactorship under your standards would be perfectly fine to you?

I lol'd. 5/7

[duh]

dethtoll said:

I lol'd. 5/7

Don't, because it proves that a lot of things you defend are wrong, considering that you are human yourself.

[VGamingJunkie]

Arctangent said:

What's in context, then? This is literally the context I'm getting from you.

I said you placed your needs ahead of your own, not be a mindless puppet. Obviously, if you give love, you expect it in return. If you spend your life giving love to someone who treats you like garbage, then you're obviously getting short end of the stick and they're not giving their fair share. Obviously, you should love yourself but, if you're in a truly loving relationship, you shouldn't have to because your spouse should more than meet the loved quota.

[Doomkid]

MetroidJunkie said:

[..] outside of dictating everyone's actions, you can't make people be good. No amount of education can fix that, either, especially since our schools don't even teach morals anymore because they were deemed "too religious" so how do you expect to teach people to be good? Do you believe that only poor uneducated people commit crimes? As I mentioned, there are people with PhD's who still commit horrific autocracies, even teachers.

That's why we have jail, in theory anyway - Because only some actions need to be dictated. There is nothing religious about teaching certain morals, we just need to understand that these morals are in place for the good of the people, and not just because some religious book said so.

You'll always have bad apples, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws/regulations. There's also no reason to associate laws, regulations and morality with religion, especially when you just use logic and reason out that doing bad things fucks over society.

Just look at North Korea: The dictator is the most selfish fuck I can think of, and as a result of him not doing the moral thing and giving a slice of his wealth to the people, he has a starving population that secretly hates his guts and the lack of economic growth as a result means he also has a shitter military than most other developed countries. You don't need religion to make these observations. If he could just take a step to do something good for the people, he would actually also benefit on a personal level. He's just too much of a closed minded fuck to realize that, as is anyone who thinks "selfish is the way to go". (This isn't necessarily directed just at you either Metroid, more just general statements.)

[VGamingJunkie]

Bad example because Communism tends to be very Atheistic, favoring the state over any greater power. That's why I said that using people who abuse Christianity as an example of Christianity is like using Joseph Stalin as an example of Atheism.

[Arctangent]

MetroidJunkie said:

I said you placed your needs ahead of your own, not be a mindless puppet.

Well, why didn't you say that in the first place?

Ignoring the obvious typo ... probably, you seem to be so stuck on that self-destructive idea of romance that you can't love someone without giving the entirety of yourself to them. Which is, well, self-destructive. They can't always be there for you, and you can't always be there for them. Thinking otherwise is just going to cause guilt to build up over and over for you whenever you're unable to do so, and make you feel cheated and unloved when they're unable to do so.

Needless to say, those're not good things with something you can't avoid.

Also,

MetroidJunkie said:

Obviously, you should love yourself but, if you're in a truly loving relationship, you shouldn't have to because your spouse should more than meet the loved quota.

this really sounds like some asinine bullcrap from someone who's never had trouble with validating themselves. No, you can't find someone who loves you and have them hug away all your anxiety and self-loathing away. You can't realize the entirety yourself by having someone else do it for you. You can't toss all of your issues on your partner and expect them to sort them out, no matter how devoted they may be to you. Just saying that a "truly loving relationship" is capable of filling a void torn asunder by self-neglect is just skyrocketing how perfect a relationship has to be to be "real," all the while causing that void to tear even more because, hey, you should care more for your partner more than yourself, y'know?

Again, people in a relationship should be equals, and equals shouldn't care more for each other than they care for themselves. You can love someone with so much fervor that your heart feels incapable of holding it in, but it shouldn't eclipse your love for yourself.

[VGamingJunkie]

If you're the only one loving yourself in a relationship where both of you should love one another, then you're in the wrong relationship. Period. If you're the kind of person that doesn't expect your spouse to love you, then it's hopeless.

[Doomkid]

MetroidJunkie said:

Bad example because Communism tends to be very Atheistic, favoring the state over any greater power. That's why I said that using people who abuse Christianity as an example of Christianity is like using Joseph Stalin as an example of Atheism.

It's a fine example because communism isn't inherently tied to atheism, much like how democracy isn't inherently tied to Christianity. Just because the two have been used in conjunction in the past does not make them related at any core level.

Maybe in Kim Jong-un would be God fearing enough to be a good person if the was raised Christian, or maybe he would be one of those "Christians" who calls himself one, but just ignores all the teachings. There are plenty of those in the U.S. and here in Australia. If he's an atheist, he's probably just too damn short sighted (see: stupid) to see that his actions are detrimental to himself and his country's population in the long-term. Again we come full circle to the conclusion that a person's religion or lack of one does not actually determine rather or not they are a good/moral person.

[Arctangent]

MetroidJunkie said:

If you're the only one loving yourself in a relationship where both of you should love one another, then you're in the wrong relationship. Period. If you're the kind of person that doesn't expect your spouse to love you, then it's hopeless.

Can I take this as a confirmation that you have a condition that renders you literally unable to love more than exactly one thing at a time, and you aren't aware that people normally aren't like that?

Because, being entirely honest, that's what your posts seem to be leading up to and this one basically just seals the deal on it.

[VGamingJunkie]

Arctangent said:

Can I take this as a confirmation that you have a condition that renders you literally unable to love more than exactly one thing at a time, and you aren't aware that people normally aren't like that?

Because, being entirely honest, that's what your posts seem to be leading up to and this one basically just seals the deal on it.

The only one saying you can't love yourself while loving another is you, quit putting words in my mouth. What I meant is that you shouldn't be the only one loving yourself in a loving relationship. You wouldn't expect your spouse to love you unless you love yourself enough to think you deserve to be loved.

[Rayziik]

I don't think this thread is about a truck anymore... lol

Tragedy that. Although these other conversations have been interesting enough to read through.

[Arctangent]

MetroidJunkie said:

The only one saying you can't love yourself while loving another is you, quit putting words in my mouth.

Are you also someone who refers to yourself in the second-person?

Because I've literally been saying that you can love someone, but you shouldn't love them more than yourself. If you can't love more than one thing at a time, that would be literally impossible.

[VGamingJunkie]

Arctangent said:

Because I've literally been saying that you can love someone, but you shouldn't love them more than yourself. If you can't love more than one thing at a time, that would be literally impossible.

How about loving them just as much as you love yourself? The whole idea of a union is that your other should be as important to you as your own body.

[Arctangent]

Frankly, that feels like it would raise even more issues than putting them above yourself - suppose it manifested in a way that when there's a serious conflict between you and them, there'd be a 50 / 50 split in the times were you just went with them out of love anyway and the times you stood your own ground, meaning there would still be times where you'd go against yourself and what's best for you.

Which may sound like it'd have less issues, but then there's the issue of making that decision. You wouldn't be in the position to say either "no, that's too far," or "argh, alright, if it's for you." You'd be in the position to say both, due to holding both yourself and them in the same regards. You couldn't be certain which to do ... which could just lead to more guilt or self-loathing when you do decide. Or, alternatively, it could lead to your partner making the decision for you, which has the same issue but now you're living with a decision that you ended up not having any input on, which compounds the whole thing.

Of course, there's the whole deal with "loving someone as much as you love yourself" really seems more like purely a theoretical thing than anything else. I mean, you can have a group of friends that are all very dear to you and you say you love them all equally, but in the end that's just a simplification and there is going to be one of them you care for more than the others. It's simply unrealistic to have the same amount of affection for separate things, because those things are obviously not the same thing and they're going to mean different things to you because of that.

[VGamingJunkie]

Yep, you're overly simplifying my point and equating love to brainwash. Well done, I think I'm done here.

[Arctangent]

I have no idea how you got that from anything I said, but, hey, I guess you're someone who absolutely and 100% needs no validation, so I guess you're just incapable of understanding any of what I'm saying. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[VGamingJunkie]

Loving someone and wanting what's best for them doesn't mean having no free will of your own, I've been trying to tell you that this entire time but you've been ignoring it.

[Arctangent]

No, I haven't. I've been saying that you don't have to put them above yourself TO do anything like that. You should always be the most important person in your life, and there should be no shame in that. After all, if you were to toss yourself away, well, "you" wouldn't really exist anymore, would you? Only an empty husk that was popped out by your mother.

[VGamingJunkie]

Look, when you're in a committed relationship, YOU exist but not by yourself. You have to start thinking about what's best for both of you, not just yourself. It's about mutual benefit and putting the other ahead of yourself.

[Arctangent]

MetroidJunkie said:

You have to start thinking about what's best for both of you, not just yourself. It's about mutual benefit

And I've been saying this should come naturally, through a desire to experience the world with your partner and to aid them through rough times, come hell or high water.

It shouldn't come from the existence of both you and them "combining", and with you dropping yourself below them. You two will continue to actually exist as individuals, after all, and you two will still have your differences and your own desires. A healthy relationship is based around mutual benefit, yes, but it doesn't take blurring the lines between you and your partner as an individual. I mean, human friendship and nature itself are great examples of two very different individuals aiding each other for mutual benefit.

[VGamingJunkie]

Should be not really, otherwise divorce rates wouldn't be so huge in this country. It's like people don't respect unions at all anymore, they think getting married is something you can do casually and just divorce the second it gets slightly rough.