Total posts: 3,457
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Again - using the definition of OF which is to connect different things - as in platonic, pure, and non-sexual romantic love - how do we know this - because of the example - where she speaks of an infatuation and which is typically not used to describe anything aside from romantic attraction - hence - the example clearly support the fact that she is listing different parts of love - as in a complex emotion that there are different parts of.
Let's say I'm wrong though - that she is saying something like - a container for storing water or a canteen - where its clarifying a phrase to a definition (though the fact that the list is not preceded by a definition makes this much less convincing) I would just argue that the platonic that she is discussing is functionally different from the notion that you have of it. And I reference her examples to prove that:
"Many men and women report having experience romantic passion in the absence of sexual desire (Tennov, 1979), and even prepubertal children, who have not undergone the hormonal changes responsible for adult levels of sexual motivation, report intense romantic infatuations (Hatfield, Schmitz, Comelius, & Rapson, 1988)." [LINK]
Contiously language such as "fall in love" or "experience romantic passion" which has almost NEVER been used to describe platonic relationships - so EVEN IF and this is stretching - I agree with you that she is describing them as the same - their is a clear distinction here inbetween what is typically considered platonic love and the love being described here as platonic (this is again, if I agree which I don't)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Do you simply fail to grasp the definition here?
"used to connect DIFFERENT possibilities:" - you did nothing but hand wave the definition aside - that is not a valid rebuttal - but again - your interpretation DOES NOT MATTER we have the direct statement from the author themselves - which is "Yet empirical evidence indicates that sexual desire is not a prerequisite for romantic love" - that is them saying DIRECTLY that you can be in romantic love with someone without sexual desire - we know that she is not talking about platonic love here because she makes an EXAMPLE which is referring directly to romantic love which is not sexual: "report intense romantic infatuations" or else - you know - it would just be kids having friendships - yet there is a distinction here.
Even if I concede to your bullshit definition of OF here, which as it is a list, is clearly not the correct one - you are false. You are trying to interpret in a way that you like - and are flatly wrong. That's it. Accept it or make a valid argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
You do realize that females also have testosterone, right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
You are providing examples of when that IS NOT THE CASE however the fact of the matter is that "Notion" and "Notions" do not directly change the meaning of the terms in any effective way - you are stretching the hell out of this to make it agree with your conclusion - even though every other indicator does not - it is referring to different parts of the singular notion of love - and you have failed to account for the actual definition of or provided.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
"notion of "pure," "platonic," or "nonsexual" romantic love"
and
"notions of "pure," "platonic," or "nonsexual" romantic love"
change nothing with the syntax. There is no difference here with notions and notion - perhaps if there was you would have a point. However, beyond any of this, you simply wrong: read - "Yet empirical evidence indicates that sexual desire is not a prerequisite for romantic love", this statement clearly indicates that the author does indeed believe that romantic love does not require sexual desire - this entire thing by you about grammar is a red herring - drop it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
You've continued to make assertions without actually looking at the evidence here - how it affects modifiers? You do realize that you can list modifiers? They are all modifiers of love, as in - different forms of love - and yes - as somebody and someone - people can switch singular and plural pronouns - thats how nouns work in general
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
There you are - answered the questions
Created:
Posted in:
Science:
1. Generally, do you believe science to be an accurate way of interpreting and describing our reality?
Yes
2. Do you believe that the theory of natural selection and evolution is how the current species of the earth developed?
Yes- and abiogenesis
3. Do you believe that creationism is how the current species of the earth developed?
As in the hypothesis that god started life - no.
4. Do you believe that the big bang and cosmologic evolution is how our current universe "began"?
I did type this-kinda wrong, though not entirely - the universe itself was existent before the big bang; however, our current universe which follows our observable laws of physics begins with the big bang, most likely, yes.
5. Do you believe that the oblate spheroid model of the earth is accurate in regards to the shape of the earth?
Yes
6. Do you believe that climate change is happening at an increased rate?
Yes
7. Do you believe that there are genetic differences between different ethnicities aside from melanin content?
No.
8. Do you believe that IQ tests are accurate ways of measuring an individual's intelligence?
No.
9. Do you believe that the current scientific consensus is accurate in regards to the description of reality?
Yes
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mandrakel
The fact that they are "the most effective" does not actually mean that they are practically effective. For example - the fact that Shawn's Pizzaria is the best-selling pizza in Dallas Mall- Food court, does not mean that it is the "best pizza". The fact that something is considered the "most effective" does not mean it is accurate or even - it seems I initially misunderstood your fallacy - which is actually just an assumption.
You are assuming that because it is the "most effective" test of intelligence (which I would contest) - that is is necessarily "effective" in general. You are the use of a thing in society with its actual use - for example - in the medieval age, feet were the most effective and universally used way to measure distance - that does not mean that feet are actually the most effective way of measuring distance in general. You are making a simple mistake here.
Also pivoting, interestingly enough.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mandrakel
No. IQ tests aren't "effective" - they are the only standard which is widely used - again - you are arguing that because something is "universally used" it is "effective" I do not need to show you something more effective - you must demonstrate that they are effective - the fact that they are widely used is not evidence of their effectiveness - as you seem to think it is. Ad populum
Created:
Posted in:
Religion:
1. Generally, which religion do you identify with?
None - I am an atheist
2. Generally, do you believe religion to be important to society - how so or how not?
In a manner of speaking, it makes community - which is important - but I believe that the dogma propagated ultimately harms people
3. Do you believe the religion you identify with is being persecuted or bigoted against?
Atheists in general, are.... kind of being discriminated against? But its rather minor, that was mostly a thing during the 90s or the Satanic panic - now it usually minor or in religious cults
4. Do you believe that its important for education to instill religious values into children?
Certain values from certain religions? Sure - but not religious exclusive values
5. Aside from the god of your religion, do you believe that religion is the most important aspect of life?
No - religion is not an important aspect of my life - not at all.
6. Do you believe that everyone else, or the majority of people, should be of your religion?
Well - yes - I do think that everyone should not have a religion - i think it's ultimately harmful - religion that is.
7. What do you think of individuals who do not affiliate with your religion?
Nothing against them personally - I just think they came to the wrong conclusion if they attempt to rationally justify their god
8. Do you believe that the church and government should be separated?
Yes.
9. Do you believe that individuals have a freedom from religion as well as a freedom to religion?
Yes
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mandrakel
Um... appeal to populum much? Just because something is widely propagated does not mean that it is "effective" or "useful". Take religion - or theism in general as an example.
Created:
Posted in:
Social:
1. What do you believe to be the biggest social problem of today's era?
The dogma every child undergoes and the emphasis on intuitive or cultist thinking as opposed to rational thinking.
2. How do you think this problem could be solved generally?
By encouraging a larger representation of minorities in media, by not allowing dogma to harm children (making it child abuse to say- not allow children blood transfusions)
3. What do you think of these sexual/gender identities; Homosexual, Bisexual, Transgender, or Asexual?
As someone who is bi, and as someone who has dated trans people, I can say that- they're people. Just like everyone else, they have different needs than the majority, but they are simply people who want to live.
4. What do you think of cultural labels such as "cultural marxists" or "TERFs"? (though not limited to those labels specifically)
If the shoe fits, wear it - but being serious - they often get in the way of having an honest conversation. I do detest the stereotypical TERF, but that does not mean that the individuals who are labeled as TERF are stereotypical.
5. Which, if any, circumstances do you believe justifies abortion?
Any circumstance, there is nothing to justify about abortion.
6. What do you believe to be the ideal home environment?
It honestly depends on the child - but they should ideally receive multiple guardians who are doing their best to ensure their mental and physical well-being are taken care of, and that they are good role models for the child.
7. What do you believe to be the most important value to instill in young individuals?
Compassion tempered by realism.
8. What do you think of cultural movements such as BLM or Feminism?
I typically align with such cultural movements, though it does depend on what the movement wants - for example - the church that wants to legalize killing all gay people... no can do.
9. Should taxpayer money be used to support policies such as Universal Healthcare and Universal Secondary Education?
Absolutely.
Created:
-->
@Vader
I'll get there eventually! lol
Created:
Posted in:
Politics:
1. Generally, how do you identify politically?
Progressive
2. Given the following 6 political identities, which do you most closely relate to? (Anarchist, Liberal, Centrist, Libertarian, Conservative, Authoratarian)
Liberal
3. If you were to choose 4 political identities as the most common - which four would they be?
Conservative, Left-leaning centrist, Liberal, radical
4. If you were to briefly describe your general political identity - how would you?
I want social rights to progress- giving rights to everyone who needs them - and using the social contract with the government to ensure that
5. If you were to briefly describe your closest-relative political identity - how would you?
Liberals are typically people who value social freedom, not quite my category.
6. If you were to briefly describe the political identity which is directly opposed to yours - how would you?
Authoritarianism - or someone who takes rights from people - using the government's power to abuse instead of protect & anarchy - where nobody has any rights
7. If you were to list the positions most integral to your political identity - what would they be? (listed from least to most important)
Encouraging protest, opposing oppression, and allowing social movement to change our sociopolitical environment
8. If you were to list the top 4 positions which you most agree with, what four would they be?
1. Universal care - as in - providing enough food, water, shelter, clothing, education, and electricity for people to live or the money for everyone to have these resources
2. Equality act - where industries are forced to give every individual rights that they need to live, thrive, and prosper - not deriving individuals of rights based on identity
3. Reparation of Oppressed People - including Individuals of Native American Japanese, and African descent for what America has done to them
4. The combination of capitalism and marxism ideology in our economic theory of America
9. Do you consider your political identity widely represented in your respective government?
No
Created:
I can have double momentum - don't doubt my shazaminity.
Created:
Posted in:
-RationalMadman
Let me save you some time - this is what Athias said: "Anyway, zedvictor, this is still a guessing game"
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
37 poosts
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
"Neither the sodium chloride nor the brain inhibits a property not inhibited to a lesser extent in their individual parts. Change my mind."
You are simply making a fallacy, and as you are the one to make the assertion, you are the one to demonstrate that. If you wanna make that argument, then I could simply say that the lesser extent of memory is an electron impulse, the patterns of that impulse which are interpreted by complex chemical signals is what gives us our "Minds".
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
The "new" properties we observe in structures like molecules and salts are nothing but large scale effects of the same old electromagnetic forces and energy.
Evidently not - there is no such thing as electromagnetic forces - magnetic forces - yes - magnetic forces that are a cause of electricity - yes - electric forces that are similar to magnetic energy - also yes - electromagnetic energy? No. Magnetic fields are the results of valence electrons orbiting in the same direction and only filling in half of the energy level - and electricity can simulate this effect on a larger scale - there is no such thing as "electromagnetic forces" - furthermore - you are making a fallacy of composition - where you assume that that, because the whole or sum of parts has a property, the separate pieces of such, must also have that property, which is false. As I advised, study your fallacies.
IF what we call "nothing" can have an effect on anything, THEN it can no longer be called "nothing".
It's hilarious how you haven't realized that - applying that line of reasoning to nothing is something - therefore the nothing you are referring to is not anything - therefore you are still not actually referring to nothing. Nothing has no effects, no logic, nothing - that is what nothing is - the absence of everything - to try to arbitrarily assign properties to it such as having not being able to affect other things is to strip of it of being nothing - its a regress.
My argument was that no property can emerge from parts that lack said property.
You are patently false then - there is a new property in table salt - its harmlessness - neither sodium nor chlorine is such in their raw forms. You seem to need a different example - take all of the best football players - these are the best of the best, they are excellent players - and put them on a team and it is entirely possible that they suck - they have a new property of not being able to play in a team.
Created:
Wooo - almost to MisterChris. Yee
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
We'd be in agreement - the only way to take solipsism is on a reasonable axiom
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
I would encourage you to study logical fallacies - that's where I started. After that, research, not any one subject - everything - anything you can get your hands on, and make sure that you don't look up stuff like - "things that prove xyz" - look up - "xyz" - and follow where the evidence leads you. Break down anything and everything and keep a lookout for those fallacies you learned about - make sure that you are interpreting what you learn correctly and not through a biased lens.
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
How would you know that nothing can't be something? Do you have an example of nothing? Have you studied its properties? Furthermore, you can have new reactions from chemical reaction - that is quite literally how chemical reactions work - sodium and chlorine (yes the deadly atom) are chemically bonded to make table salt - totally harmless. You are simply illiterate when it comes to chemistry, because new things emerging from complex reactions is quite literally how all chemistry works.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Don't know why I'm included - I don't see the point of mocking something that doesn't exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Grammar Lesson: [LINK]
Or can also be used as such: "used after a negative verb to mean not one thing and also not another:"
You are factually wrong, yes -you are right that can be the state sometimes, however it is not here - as the commas make sure of that - furthermore - did you know that words like someone and somebody are singular? People switch the two on a regular basis - so given the context we can safely say that the author is using "notion" as a plural - as she goes on to literally say that they are different - you are quite insistent on your cherry-picking.
If your friend derives pleasure from your personality and is possessive of you because of that - yes - that is a romantic attraction - we call it a crush - just in case you didn't know.
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
"I" is simply a byproduct of physical neurological connections - it is - as you said- an emergent biological-though neurological would be more accurate here- that's all. Nothing more, nothing less.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Fair enough - I'll go over the survey, I'm working on writing a project rn, so I'll get to it when I have time, lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
I'd be fine with doing an interview for you - though I would like some kind of question limit before we began - and I will answer these, but first I wanted to see some feedback - I specifically asked for "identity" because your personal political identity and the general ideology can be quite different, there is a distinction there I believe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Again -- it is the fuel of the possessiveness that most typically determines if it is a romantic attraction or platonic, but... if one of your friends is very possessive of you in that regard it is certainly possible. I can indeed argue that their is support for my conclusion, the fact that it has not been explored does not mean it is false, it simply means that the neurological data is not all there, notice that most of my arguments are not neurological - that's why - if there was solid data, that's all I would need, just showing the source, but there is not, hence why I only used it as an example, in fact, I explicitly stated that the only purpose of the quote was to provide insight, nothing else.
I will apologize, I only used the abstract, which is what I initially claimed - so I was wrong in that regard; however, the fact that you cut out so much context clearly still shows that you are wrong - the entire quote:
"Although it may not be easy to imagine sexual desire without romantic love, the notion of "pure," "platonic," or "nonsexual" romantic love is somewhat more controversial. Yet empirical evidence indicates that sexual desire is not a prerequisite for romantic love, even in its earliest, passionate stages. Many men and women report having experience romantic passion in the absence of sexual desire (Tennov, 1979), and even prepubertal children, who have not undergone the hormonal changes responsible for adult levels of sexual motivation, report intense romantic infatuations (Hatfield, Schmitz, Comelius, & Rapson, 1988)." [LINK]
You are quite clearly taking her out of context, however, even given what you think - there is a key grammatical insight you have seemed to miss, the comma, after pure and platonic there are commas, in a way that is clearly indicative of a list - the author is simply saying that they all fall into the same category of controversial to prove - and then goes on to argue why it is nonetheless. You are cherry-picking here - that is without doubt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Hmm - thank you for the advice, I'll take it into consideration
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
You derive pleasure from others platonically based on experience or evolutionarily driven - you do not derive "pleasure that informs possessiveness" with nonromantic individuals, pretty simple that. Furthermore, yes it is non-human animals, similar to a vast majority of research done - it's not like humans are the only species with developed frontal lobes and consciousness - furthermore - the concept is what is taken, not specifics - further backing this on.
No... it does not mean that they are "equivalent" it means that they are both controversial in regards to the research - as that is the only part that your argument is highlighting, we call this cherry-picking. Its also interesting that this quote is not from the article itself, but separate - you are, ironically, taking a statement completely out of context and trying to insert a meaning as to what the conjunction means - the mere fact that OR is there does not mean that they are equivalent, they can also mean that they are being COMPARED.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
-RationalMadman & Supadudz
Thank you for your feedback!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
You primarily ignored my response to you - and instead responded to a response to another person - which I was responding to a different statement.
The difference is that in one instance, their is sexual desire fueling possessiveness, and the other simply desire for them - as a person in all - while the latter can also be attuned to the former, that is the basic answer.So how is this desire for a person, as a person, different from a platonic relationship? Is it your argument that in platonic relationships, one cannot desire a person for themselves? If the desire for a person in a non-sexual relationship is strictly asexual, then how is that any different from being (close) friends? Can one not be possessive over a friend?
It is the fuel of that possessiveness which matters, not the possessiveness itself - though typically romantic relationships are more often possessive when compared to platonic relationships - as I elaborated in one of my responses which you hardly responded to yourself:
" You don't typically find pleasure from the other's personality, it is a type of love that is formed through connections made by experience"
The difference is the possessiveness by experience or personality - romantic love is when possessiveness is borne from the pleasure of another's personality. Next.... I find myself disappointed in your reasoning - the fact that the author is saying such difference is controversial does not mean that they are not separate - that is a non-sequitur - going back to the paper I cited from:
"Although sexual desire and romantic love are often experienced in concert, they are fundamentally distinct subjective experiences with distinct neurobiological substrates. " [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I would have to disagree - we have indeed had a basic idea of genetics, but as I distinguished above - functionally speaking - we've had even less of a grasp on it - that is until the 1960s - specifically the ability to actually read genomes.
Created:
Posted in:
I've come across so many different people here, even when positions overlap there have always been minor separations in how people view things. Because of this, I'd like to learn more about each individual and their positions regarding various things. Below will be the questions that inform my "survey" including a question if you would like to be further interviewed. The survey will be separated into 5 general categories - Politics, Social, Religion, Science, and Misc.
Politics:
1. Generally, how do you identify politically?
2. Given the following 6 political identities, which do you most closely relate to? (Anarchist, Liberal, Centrist, Libertarian, Conservative, Authoratarian)
3. If you were to choose 4 political identities as the most common - which four would they be?
4. If you were to briefly describe your general political identity - how would you?
5. If you were to briefly describe your closest-relative political identity - how would you?
6. If you were to briefly describe the political identity which is directly opposed to yours - how would you?
7. If you were to list the positions most integral to your political identity - what would they be? (listed from least to most important)
8. If you were to list the top 4 positions which you most agree with, what four would they be?
9. Do you consider your political identity widely represented in your respective government?
10. What questions, if any, would you add to this section of the survey?
Social:
1. What do you believe to be the biggest social problem of today's era?
2. How do you think this problem could be solved generally?
3. What do you think of these sexual/gender identities; Homosexual, Bisexual, Transgender, or Asexual?
4. What do you think of cultural labels such as "cultural marxists" or "TERFs"? (though not limited to those labels specifically)
5. Which, if any, circumstances do you believe justifies abortion?
6. What do you believe to be the ideal home environment?
7. What do you believe to be the most important value to instill in young individuals?
8. What do you think of cultural movements such as BLM or Feminism?
9. Should taxpayer money be used to support policies such as Universal Healthcare and Universal Secondary Education?
10. What questions, if any, would you add to this section of the survey?
Religion:
1. Generally, which religion do you identify with?
2. Generally, do you believe religion to be important to society - how so or how not?
3. Do you believe the religion you identify with is being persucted or bigoted against?
4. Do you believe that its important for education to instill relgious values into children?
5. Aside from the god of your religion, do you believe that religion is the most important aspect of life?
6. Do you believe that everyone else, or the majority of people, should be of your religion?
7. What do you think of indivudals who do not affilate with your religion?
8. Do you believe that the church and government should be seperated?
9. Do you believe that individuals have a freedom from religion as well as a freedom to religion?
10. What questions, if any, would you add to this section of the survey?
Science:
1. Generally, do you believe science to be an accurate way of interpreting and describing our reality?
2. Do you believe that the theory of natural selection and evolution is how the current species of the earth developed?
3. Do you believe that creationism is how the current species of the earth developed?
4. Do you believe that the big bang and cosmologic evolution is how our current universe "began"?
5. Do you believe that the oblate spheroid model of the earth is accurate in regards to the shape of the earth?
6. Do you believe that climate change is happening at an increased rate?
7. Do you believe that there are genetic differences between different ethnicities aside from melalin content?
8. Do you believe that IQ tests are accurate ways of measuring an individual's intelligence?
9. Do you believe that the current scientific consensus is accurate in regards to the description of reality?
10. What questions, if any, would you add to this section of the survey
Misc.
1. Would you be interested in a general interview, conducted by Theweakeredge?
2. Would you be interested in a specific interview, conducted by Theweakeedge?
3. Do you think the questions presented above are effective in collecting the general positions of individuals?
4. What categories, if any, would you add or take away from the survey above?
5. On a scale of 1-10 (1 being lowest, 10 being highest) how would you rate the bias of this test?
Thank you for your participation
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mandrakel
Again - IQ is not a useful metric, it is based on biased and nonfactual measurements, popularized by racists in the 30s - this is where eugenics was originally based, and the myth has propagated today.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
This is not the case every time - it is also possible that someone who supports universal healthcare believes that everyone will be taxed, but that healthcare is worth the increase in taxes - and someone who doesn't support it could believe the wealthier will be taxed, but that they don't deserve the increase in tax - from my personal experience these are less likely to be the case, but hey, not omnipotent.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Universal Free Healthcare is a colloquialism - the reason why people oppose it because of the non-free aspect of it - which is where taxes would be increased. People who oppose it typically are convinced that the taxes will be increased for people of all income, whereas people in support of it are typically convinced that people who are wealthier taxes' will be increased. That's the most common distinguishment I've seen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mandrakel
I agree with your conclusion, but not your way of getting there - it's like measuring the rate of blonde hair and using it to determine who's good at boxing, doesn't get us anywhere. Now, the fact that theists are more likely to have experienced higher concentrations of dogma and indoctrination? That does suggest there should be more focus in dismissing misinformation in schools.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mandrakel
Given that IQ isn't a very descriptive metric for anything, that doesn't tell us much.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mandrakel
You are presenting supposed "assertions" that theists make - these are essentially theodicies, especially the latter half - for example: "We have always believed in God so there must be some truth in it" These are arguments for god - whether you want to realize it or not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mandrakel
I would agree with your conclusion, I am an atheist and an anti-theist; however, the theodicies you've presented aren't quite representative of the stronger arguments for god's existence. They are very common with your average theists, and I have no doubt that the theists here might defend some of these, but these are... certainly underwhelming.
For example, I've commonly heard arguments that god was the one to jump-start evolution, or that they caused the big bang - you are probably more accustomed to hearing traditional Abrahamic arguments though. Not that I find the aforementioned theodicy convincing, but it would be intellectually dishonest to pretend that your representations are the strongest arguments for god.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Yeah... gender was never determined by "genetics" - functionally speaking - we didn't have a good grasp on genetics until the 1950s. It's like saying that trees were determined by radiometric dating, even though radiometric dating wasn't a thing until recently. It is a common misconception that such is the case, but the greeks and Romans had a very different view of gender than you do - which was more of subservience and objectification than anything else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
No - sex does not separate a platonic relationship from a romantic one - ever - I was agreeing that sex and romantic relationships often correlate, nothing more.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Sure - but that's not really what I'm getting at here - its like this:
IF people can have romantic relationships without sexual attraction, THEN having sexual attraction does not separate a platonic relationship from a romantic one
In other words, you can have sexual attraction towards someone you love platonically, hell, you can have sex with that person and still only be in a platonic love, so clearly the vague act of having sex never separates a romantic relationship from a platonic relationship - if we were talking about the state of correlation regarding most romantic relationships, then yes, absolutely, but I was responding to what you said differentiated romantic and platonic relationships.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
You distinguished romantic relationships from platonic relationships by sex, but romantic relationships can happen even without sexual attraction, so clearly that isn't true. In other words, no, I don't quite agree with you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
The fact that something highly correlates does not mean that one can exist without the other - I am not arguing that it is always the case - typically romantic relationships are inherently intertwined with sexual ones, I am not denying that - I am simply reminding people that because something is true with the majority of people that does not mean it is the case. It is generally true that humans are naturally inclined towards empathy, but this does not mean it is always the case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
You can have a romantic relationship without sex or any sexual attraction- that's whats wrong about it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Romantic - you are having sex.Platonic - you are not having sex.
That.
Created: