Love

[infoterror]

I believe this to be a fundamentally important emotion, and I see emotions as a type of logic.

But there are two types of love:

(a) Personal: I love X or Y or Z; I love myself.

(b) Holistic: love of universe as system of design/thought.

I think both are needed, but (b) must take precedence over (a).

ANAL SEX NOW

 

[Nemesis_lxix]

I believe this to be a fundamentally important emotion, and I see emotions as a type of logic.

But there are two types of love:

(a) Personal: I love X or Y or Z; I love myself.

(b) Holistic: love of universe as system of design/thought.

I think both are needed, but (b) must take precedence over (a).

ANAL SEX NOW

Wow ! this is deep and way to Emotional for me. But I think I’ll agree with that “Anal sex now”

 

[speed]

I believe this to be a fundamentally important emotion, and I see emotions as a type of logic.

But there are two types of love:

(a) Personal: I love X or Y or Z; I love myself.

(b) Holistic: love of universe as system of design/thought.

I think both are needed, but (b) must take precedence over (a).

ANAL SEX NOW

A always takes place of B, and B is almost an impossiblity for humankind. One must also define love. I (and with my past history, I am perhaps not qualified to make this statement) think love is accepting and forgiving the faults of others--and them doing the same for you. Now, if this is the central tenant of love, B is absolutely impossible, because humans do no have the ability to forgive others on anything more than a personal level--forgiving in the abstract is especially impossible.

 

[NietjeTuck]

I have wondered where love originated from. If we were the animals we were (Perhaps), where along the line did the urge for reproduction become the urge to find a permenant mate?

Are there any species of animal which stay with a mate throughout their entire lives? I'm sure there are...I guess I just answered my own question.

 

[derek]

There are many monogamous animals, but my understanding is that monogamy is detrimental to the continuation of the species. Monogamy and love seem to be constructs of modern man.

 

[infoterror]

Now, if this is the central tenant of love, B is absolutely impossible, because humans do no have the ability to forgive others on anything more than a personal level--forgiving in the abstract is especially impossible.

I would argue here that you have anthropomorphized love, which is not necessarily limited to humans. Do not elephants love one another? Do we know if they have the concept of "forgiveness"?

 

[MURAI]

Everybody loves anal sex.

 

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

... the book that says "in a comepletely sane person self preservation supersedes everything else and subsequently love and altruism are forms of psychosis..."

I'm not saying that I actually agee whith this...I'm just putting it out there as food for thought

and seriously can anyone aquire this book for me???

 

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

Everybody loves anal sex.

performing or recieving? SERIOUSLY... there are a lot of women who can only reach orgasm when there is some thing inside their ass (in porn it's called an "assgasm") and the reason that dick-sucking males like receiving anal is because it massages the prostate which can cause an orgasm whithout an erection

 

[MURAI]

Hello Kitty chan.

 

[speed]

I would argue here that you have anthropomorphized love, which is not necessarily limited to humans. Do not elephants love one another? Do we know if they have the concept of "forgiveness"?

I dont know; I think of love as a truly human emotion. Its a rather fuzzy, gray area emotion that is impossible to define or understand.

 

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

Hello Kitty chan.

ME???

 

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

I dont know; I think of love as a truly human emotion. Its a rather fuzzy, gray area emotion that is impossible to define or understand.

wait a sec there are probably a lot of "animal people" that would tell you that (some at least if not all) animals can feel love

 

[Norsemaiden]

Animals can feel strong attatchments to their offspring, mate or human owner. They can get very sad if they lose another they are emotionally attatched to. Also (depending on the species) they will risk harm or death to themselves in order to protect the one they care about. Is this not a kind of love?
Interestingly however, there are millions of humans who never form as strong attatchments to anyone and who never experience falling in love, (but only lust). I can't see how such people can really be more important than animals as Christians insist they are.

 

[speed]

Animals can feel strong attatchments to their offspring, mate or human owner. They can get very sad if they lose another they are emotionally attatched to. Also (depending on the species) they will risk harm or death to themselves in order to protect the one they care about. Is this not a kind of love?
Interestingly however, there are millions of humans who never form as strong attatchments to anyone and who never experience falling in love, (but only lust). I can't see how such people can really be more important than animals as Christians insist they are.

There is nothing more pathetic than people who love their pets more than they love other people. They cant talk back or give back; they are totally dependent on humans--which is why i am concerned with those who love pets so much.

I see nothing wrong with this Christian view (although one most likely not held by christ). People are and should be more important. Its only a few more steps to vegetarianism from the other standpoint.

 

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

There are many monogamous animals, but my understanding is that monogamy is detrimental to the continuation of the species. Monogamy and love seem to be constructs of modern man.

monogomy is only natural for females it's in their DNA in the part that's different than male DNA the only thing that stops a male from having multiple sex partners is sense of obligation fear of getting caught fear of catching STDs
also christianity is a cult and the people who love animals more than people sometimes become serial killers and vegitarians r crazy

 

[Norsemaiden]

GOSH!!! Did it sound like I care about pets?! I don't have pets and I think of dogs as being really the worst (unless they are needed to do a task) because they foul everywhere and stop people from having babies. People who think of their pets as their children are totally sick. How much of a pet lover do I sound now?!
The point I was making about love is that millions of humans are incapable of it. Which is interesting for anyone who had never considered that fact.

 

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

GOSH!!! Did it sound like I care about pets?! I don't have pets and I think of dogs as being really the worst (unless they are needed to do a task) because they foul everywhere and stop people from having babies. People who think of their pets as their children are totally sick. How much of a pet lover do I sound now?!
The point I was making about love is that millions of humans are incapable of it. Which is interesting for anyone who had never considered that fact.

so long story short animals can do something that people can't... am i dazzled?... no. people are crazy for proof of this spend 10 or 12 min on any ultimate metal forum other than this one

 

[Scott W]

monogomy is only natural for females it's in their DNA in the part that's different than male DNA the only thing that stops a male from having multiple sex partners is sense of obligation fear of getting caught fear of catching STDs
also christianity is a cult and the people who love animals more than people sometimes become serial killers and vegitarians r crazy

Thats not necessarily true, biologically speaking. There is no concesus about this. People throw around phrases such as "its in their DNA" alot these days, and I think they sometimes dont know what they are talking about (im not saying you dont, maybe you are a scientist, I dont know). Males and females have the same DNA with the exception of the X and Y chromosome. The y chromosome has been inverted and shortened so many times, its practically nothing but a stretch of dna that codes for proteins that make androgen, and proteins that create sperm. Thats all it does. There has not yet been found a "DNA coding" that causes a female to be monogamous and males to not. Some animals do monogamy (which is not detrimental to the species final product, just fyi), some do polyandry (one female, multiple males), and some do polygyny (one male, many females), each is simply an adaptation to the local environment where a species split from an ancestral crop. In the wild, most likely, males would have stayed with females because it was more beneficial in that environment as far as raising the offspring. This would make even more sense for humans seeing as how we put so much effort into a single breeding event with (usually) a single offspring. The fact is, sociobiology doesnt rule, in some people's minds (including mine) its a very sketchy field. Perhaps male cheating has come about with an increase in culture and communication? Its really very hard to say, but there certainly is NO absolute truth in science regarding this topic. Lots of speculation, but almost no hard evidence.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Would it be fair to say that some races (for whatever reason) are more promiscuous sexually than others? Would it be fair to say that this behaviour correlates in some way with prevalence of AIDS and other STDs? If anyone thinks so are they an evil racist?