Romantic drivel

[samm]

Moatilla: It's just that imo we all should apply more critical thinking (thanks for bringing it up! THE one thing against prejudice ) before posting. Perhaps that's only because I'm online way too often currently so I expect people here to communicate the way I prefer them in RL

[Moatilliatta]

If you believe people are presenting bad arguments that are in need of critical thinking wouldn't it be more effective to point said arguments out?

 

Critical thinking is fine as a general rule but arguments seem correct to the arguer until someone points out why it isn't correct this someone could be themselves but is usually someone else.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

The boys were all pining over the dumb chicks that spent hours a day working on their hair.

 

Maybe you were looking at the wrong segment of the population...

[qt3.14159]

Maybe you were looking at the wrong segment of the population...

 

Oh, I'm sure of that. Unfortunately, the guys that wind up being keepers are generally overly shy and awkward at those ages. Just gives a good reason to wait until you're older to get serious about anyone.

[Guard Dog]

I will be honest, I do not date very much. After the divorce I've become very wary. And when I do I'm very picky. I won't date a woman younger than 30 and prefer a woman who has done something with her life (i.e. at least went to college). Keeping that criteria I have met very few dummies. Most of the women I've dated post divorce are just like me, been there and done that and just looking for a fun time and a little companionship to distract them from their real life problems. There was one who, I think, wanted to get serious but I gently broke it off early. I don't want to get married again, possibly ever, and certainly not soon.

 

When I was younger I had only one rule, don't sleep with anyone you don't want to see again. Unless there was some kind of mutual understanding up front. Of course there were a few I thought understood and was wrong about. But I was not at all discriminatory about who I dated. The raving beauties always turned me off a little mentally because I found so many to be self centered and materialistic to a fault. Most were not really dumb though but they acted the part because I think they thought they were supposed to. My favorites were the ones who were quiet or never dated in HS then getting into college they were starting to really go out and live a little for the first time. They were always fun to be around. And Goth chicks, wild stuff there but for most of them it was just a phase. Most Goth girls I found were attracted to guys like me (the beach bum type) because we were the polar opposite of who they hung around with regularly.

[samm]

And Goth chicks, wild stuff there but for most of them it was just a phase. Most Goth girls I found were attracted to guys like me (the beach bum type) because we were the polar opposite of who they hung around with regularly.

Just a phase? Attracted to beach bums? Man, you haven't met goth chicks [edit]Realizing you're a bit older than me, that was probably at a time where there was a youth culture that has matured since, and I only know it from that current perspective. What you met must have been members of what is called Emo today.

 

 

Moatilliatta: I'm not going to point the arguments out that were already uttered, because it would be more work than I'm willing to spend. Just look for all posts that say "girls", "all", "always", "men", "one of the", "xs are y", "xs think y" etc. without saying "most of... I've met", "there was one", "some of" or more specific restrictions, explicit links to personal experience etc.

Edited August 25, 2008 by samm

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Man, you haven't met goth chicks

 

Yeah, I was about to post something similar...

[Tigranes]

Maybe he means the real Goth chicks. The ones who don't just dress black then go around talking about Britney Spears and squeal and go OMIGOSH.

 

In which case, awooga.

[samm]

OT, therefore in spoilertags

Who he? GD? Doesn't sound "real" to me or DN, and shouldn't to you according to the "don't just dress black and..." you wrote. Also, who's awooga?

Edited August 25, 2008 by samm

[Rosbjerg]

I had a fun period of my life were I got into 3 different groups at once.. the superficial-party-all-week-types (Pop), the we-feel-angry-at-the-established-system (wannabe punk/goth/emos) and the love-is-meant-to-shared-let's-all-put-flowers-in-our-hair ("modern" hippies who were trying to use the borrowed mentality to seem mature and responsible) - needless to say I experienced that each group was actually the same, but with a slighty different "language" and outfit/uniform. Sure the rethoric was different and the way they approached a situation was different, but in the end they were all doing the same.

 

Belonging to a group, feeling like they were doing something with which they could feel better about themselves and trying to stay above the water in the storm that is social interaction.

 

They all judged the other groups for being superficial and/or stupid/misguided. There was a clear hierarchy - who drank the most/who hated the most/who loved the most etc.

 

I was of course part of the "I don't wanna be a part of a group" group. Which is even more pathetic than all of the others combined, but that's a different story.

 

What I'm trying to say is that Samm is right on the mark with

 

Correction: Boring is boring. Stupidity has a lot to do with being boring. Being nice doesn't correlate with being stupid, and not directly with being boring. Also, confidence isn't necessarily tied to arrogance. Often it's shyness that's is misinterpreted as arrogance.

 

Look at the bigger picture before you start pointing fingers and you'll often find that; when you judge the other group, you are doing it out of sense of moral superiority - or a need to feel it. They are the same as you - in the end - same fears and same hopes. We all wanna be respected, heard, felt and loved. We just take a different approach based on childhood experience and personal preference.

 

 

See, I told you the "I don't wanna be a part of a group" group were the biggest hypocrites.

[Guard Dog]

Just a phase? Attracted to beach bums? Man, you haven't met goth chicks [edit]Realizing you're a bit older than me, that was probably at a time where there was a youth culture that has matured since, and I only know it from that current perspective. What you met must have been members of what is called Emo today.

 

Emo? I'm not familiar with that one. What does it mean? Wannabes? Just curious. As for the teenage goth chicks of the early 90's and late 80's just remeber, speed metal had not come around yet, hard drugs were expensive and hard to come by, and everyone of that ilk thought grunge music (Alice in Chains, Stone Temple Pilots, Ministry, etc) was cutting edge. It's probably changed a LOT since then.

[samm]

Rosbjerg: Didn't all these groups also have a different outlook on romance? And didn't they push you into the "I'm not in a group"-group, because they knew you were in other groups too? And thx for taking me into your group No, I actually think it takes a bit until someone realizes how he/she really is, and in the end this is individual, with smaller or larger parts inside a norm. The same is true for a concept like romance. There is a norm, being what a majority accepts as part of the concept. Then there's what an individual thinks is romantic, part of which is likely to be in the norm concept, but part of which is outside of it.

I would be interested in that. Anyone finding going to a fastfood restaurant and sharing a doughnut is romantic? Is having birds at home and caring for them romantic? Or is it just and strictly a consensus on e.g. "sharing something" or "caring for something" that hits the romantic vein? Is only watching sunsets in the arms of the beloved romantic, or is a eating alone at home not minding the sunset while listening to the favourite band romantic too?

 

 

GuardDog: Well, it's a teenie-thing that's going on right now. What I've seen from it so far: The prejudice-following Emo has an exterior compareable to some (neon) goth, (dark) punk or similar, a hairstyle compareable to Visual Kei, listens to screamy music, has self destructive tendencies because of his uncontrolled emotions, says "I'm not Emo", and calls "EMO!!!" after others while pointing with his finger, all the while being mobbed at school (there have also been progrom-like mobs chasing the teens in the street in Turkey iirc). In the end, they will grow out of it when their not youths anymore, or evolve into something serious, part of which goth has become. Then there are also those who know what emo actually is, but they're an intellectual and music savvy minority

Edited August 26, 2008 by samm

[Guest The Architect]

You know it's funny how easily people seem to forget that at the end of the day we're all just human beings who live and die. Why is that? Because we all get trapped and consumed by our egos, it happens to us all. When most people think of self-identity; who they are, they think of their age, their job, their race, their gender, their history, dreams, likes, dislikes and the social group they belong to, if any. They define themselves by these things.

 

But they're just part of your personality, they're merely about you, they describe you, but they are not you. To seek food, water, shelter, sex and entertainment is human nature and by no means am I saying they shouldn't be pursued, since that'd make me a huge hypocrite, but it's such a common thing for people to be attatched to their egos.

 

In other words distinguishing the difference between material and spiritual power is generally for most of us, a part of growing up, it's the best trait a man and woman can have and probably the reason why pi girl, for instance, who may have had the goods in terms of looks and personality back in her teenage years, wasn't asked out by the guys then because most teenage guys are attatched to their egos and until they grow up, stopping it from obscuring their inner peace and unconditional love, they'll always pursue the hot shallow girls. So the whole women like bad boys not nice guys saying is bull crap. Women who don't suck like neither, because normally a nice guy or a bad boy means adopting a persona that is phoney, fuelled by the ego.

[Xard]

I was of course part of the "I don't wanna be a part of a group" group. Which is even more pathetic than all of the others combined, but that's a different story.

 

Man, that hurt

[Rosbjerg]

Rosbjerg: Didn't all these groups also have a different outlook on romance? And didn't they push you into the "I'm not in a group"-group, because they knew you were in other groups too? And thx for taking me into your group No, I actually think it takes a bit until someone realizes how he/she really is, and in the end this is individual, with smaller or larger parts inside a norm. The same is true for a concept like romance. There is a norm, being what a majority accepts as part of the concept. Then there's what an individual thinks is romantic, part of which is likely to be in the norm concept, but part of which is outside of it.

I would be interested in that. Anyone finding going to a fastfood restaurant and sharing a doughnut is romantic? Is having birds at home and caring for them romantic? Or is it just and strictly a consensus on e.g. "sharing something" or "caring for something" that hits the romantic vein? Is only watching sunsets in the arms of the beloved romantic, or is a eating alone at home not minding the sunset while listening to the favourite band romantic too?

 

Ups you're right, it wasn't my intention to drag you into the hypocrite group! sorry about that.

 

They didn't push me into a group - I just happened to become friends with a bunch of different people, due to the fact that I tried alot of different educations at the time. I didn't feel like hanging out with a set of people exclusively, even more so since I was involved in a few local projects where I had to draw on the strengths of alot of different people from all aspects of society.

 

Incidentally they didn't really have that much of a different outlook on romance.. They would go to concerts together (different music styles of course), they would party together - hang out in clubs or go to parks. They would give their sweethearts flowers - The hippies would either grow their own of pluck them and the Punks would steal them from the suburb gardens.

 

Although they took different approaches to each set clich

[Walsingham]

I just caught up with 3 pages of posts, so I've got a lot of ideas here.

 

- GD said romance and love are both together, but separate. I agree, and frankly, if I had to choose now I'd pick romance. But then I've had my fill of love (which I liked as GD's definition). Love is coplex, and makes demands on you. Romance is exciting and dangerous, and shows you the best in people. Love often reveals the worst. Which I guess is partly the point - to take the covers off a person and test/inform sharing a life together.

 

- I don't know that pretty people are bad. I think it really comes down to how a person handles their good looks. Obviously if they make that the focus of their life then they'll be pretty dull to someone who is interested in, say, medical research. But to another person who equally is interested in using their looks, and progressing socially they're heaps of fun. I've known people who went out with someone hawt who got annoyed because they WERE more than a pretty face. They reacted like it was false advertising!

 

- I was going to say something profound about what The Architect just said, but I've forgottten it.

[Xard]

They would give their sweethearts flowers - The hippies would either grow their own of pluck them and the Punks would steal them from the suburb gardens.

 

 

anyway, how can "I don't want to be part of any group" be group if they won't gather together and do things groups do?

[Guest The Architect]

Because belonging to a group can be as simple as sharing interests and political beliefs in common with people without actively banding together.

[Xard]

yeah well, doesn't banding together by whatever means (internet or real world or whatever) make them just another group?

[Guest The Architect]

Yes, but I said without banding together.

 

Take Albert Einstein's famous quote: "Although I am a typical loner in my daily life, my awareness of belonging to the invisible community of those who strive for truth, beauty, and justice has prevented me from feelings of isolation."

 

In other words it's impossible not to belong to a group, whether that person likes it or not.

[Rosbjerg]

I have this things for oxymorons.. I'm sorry..

[Guest The Architect]

What?

[Xard]

Yes, but I said without banding together.

 

Take Albert Einstein's famous quote: "Although I am a typical loner in my daily life, my awareness of belonging to the invisible community of those who strive for truth, beauty, and justice has prevented me from feelings of isolation."

 

In other words it's impossible not to belong to a group, whether that person likes it or not.

 

well, that's beiong human being. That's different from wanting to be part of some specific group

[Rosbjerg]

What?

 

you know.... oxymoron - sharp/dull ... being in the "I'm not in a group" group.. contradiction of terms..

 

It was a bad joke..

 

I have this thing for bad jokes.. I'm sorry..

[Gfted1]

...and pretty people tend to put an overly large focus on socialising which we all know is a waste since it makes them incredibly uninteresting.

 

Could you expand on this a bit?

Which part? The one about prettyness leading to greater socialisation or it making them husks that only slightly resemble a human being?

 

The latter.