Trance said: Compromise is not universal. Nor is it a constant throughout our lives. Everyone seeks independence. If our families hinder us, we seek exodus from that too. Compromise is only made in face of necessity. No relationship is a necessity in face of the chances of there being more relationships lying ahead or beside. The maximum compromise that can happen is financial support for children. Under a society where people perfectly understand the volatility of emotions, a husband and wife can live under a house, support their children emotionally and financially, and in the meanwhile be able to keep a track of their own happiness too. They'll know that if they need some thrill in life they can always have it. They are not tied to anything so to get sick of it. Their relationship will remain fresh always. And it wont have any negative effect on children either. There can always be doubts about the practices of past civilizations (males dominated, polygamy etc) so let's stick to the present. Have you ever come across an OLTR couple? I have. And they're invariably happy. Uh, yes it is. Compromise is a constant in people's lives. Laws are compromises, for example (for living in society, you have to do or not do certain things; it definitely is a compromise by definition). I'm amazed you can even say that compromises aren't a thing people usually have to do. If you're in a group, you compromise at some point, and being in society implies being with various people. Not all people seek independence: some certainly do, but many would rather have others to rely on, thus generating some form of compromise. There are, in fact, many cases of people who'd rather be dependent on certain people than thinking for themselves (unfortunately, in that case). Relationships are not a necessity, but that doesn't deny the necessity of compromise WITHIN the relationship, since that's where you need to compromise to begin with. You're arguing as if people cannot achieve happiness under this compromise: just because you had to give a few things up, you aren't going to be in an unhappy state. Maybe you won't receive immediate satisfaction, but immediate satisfaction is not wholely fulfilling and a mere response to positive stimuli; it's devoid of worth. To begin with, people compromise precisely so both parties can be happy in the long run, seeing as it's so the other party isn't put at a disadvantage in comparison. Monogamous relationships are supposed to strive for long-term happiness, which can include not immediate positive responses (being constantly happy in life is impossible anyway). People can pursue their happiness just fine with compromise; compromise itself (in this context) is so people are at an equal standing. If you want to pursue a different kind of happiness, you just shouldn't go for a monogamous relationship to begin with because you can't have the cake and eat it too; this doesn't mean monogamy should be shunned. It just means you're different. Love is not as fleeting as you make it out to be. Something that impacts you tends not to be fleeting. Love can be fleeting, but as you build the relationship, it's supposed to be further solidified (as I said, there is a hormone that intensifies commitment to your partner, which is also the love hormone; you can, indeed, feel committed to a person rather than so negatively tied down). To be honest, if it is that fleeting, it wasn't meant to be in the first place (realistically speaking, these cases happen too often and out of many factors). Just because there are cases of OLTR relationships working, it doesn't mean that monogamous relationships are bad in comparison. There are many cases of happy monogamous couples. There are also cases of OLTR relationships that are clear immoral exploitation. I'm not going to shun OLTR relationships, but I will say that, like monogamous relationships, they have good and bad parts. Not all people want to have sex with other people, by the way: not everyone is promiscuous (some people may be, but others just aren't), and these people wouldn't want to be in that kind of relationship. Basically, OLTR relationships are not objectively superior to monogamy (meaning that they should not be universally applied): they are simply for different types of people. Therefore, monogamy should not be rejected in the way you want it to be. Your case isn't the case of other people. There is nothing in the law stopping people from being in OLTR relationships if they want to. Just because your hedonistic ideals don't correlate with other people's, it doesn't mean that they are wrong or that this is how everything should be. Trance said: Love, as an emotion, desires possession. Without possession it cannot have its object and without object an emotion is, quite simply, a pain in the neck. This little fact about love is what makes us prefer monogamy by default. Love requires an object of one's affections, yes. And...? The conditions of society aren't what spur this: the natural condition of humanity does. I do hope you aren't saying that since love needs an object of people's affections, people want to possess (own) the people they love, because that isn't true. Uh, the precise opposite. I genuinely thought this was obvious. Mutual compromise does not lead to breakups: not compromising, however, does lead to breakups. If you are unwilling to compromise with your partner and answer their demands, why would they continue being in the relationship? This doesn't mean love is fleeting: it will pain your partner to break up with you for a reason; because they do love you. Either that, or (in case it's just empathy for your feelings rather than their own love) they didn't love you that much to begin with, but as I said before, relationships are built, so there wasn't enough time to build the relationship to that level or you weren't meant to be in the first place (aka you weren't that compatible). That aside, if you aren't answering expectations, there are higher chances of your partner breaking up with you. This all leads to the whole reliability thing I've been talking to you about, which is the core of why lack of compromise is what leads to breakups: you aren't being reliable. Trance said: Love is either a fleeting emotion in which case if you put restrictions on it, it can only cause suffering when it flies away or it can be a constant devotion to a particular person which is possible only if it decreases in intensity overtime and remains the only criteria in a relationship for supporting your partner thereby eliminating any need for restrictions. In both cases, the restrictions are unnecessary. A valid argument, however, can be made against this idea in case one person happens to fall in love with another and one of them is in love with another then it'll keep the first person in the chain hanging while the other chases the last one. That'll be a genuine pain. Worse than breakups. In a relationship, people aren't entirely devoted to their partners; they have their own lives, too. As I said, you are only prioritizing your partner over other people, and putting them on the same standing as yourself. In fact, sole devotion to someone is unhealthy; you would be demanding no restrictions then because you wouldn't be in a sane state of mind. I'll be repeating myself again, but it's necessary to argue your point: relationships are built. You develop love and trust to someone, and begin caring about them to the point where you do naturally prioritize them over others. In caring about your partner, your love will not be so easily fleeting. People can stop having the same spark they had when they were still starting out their relationship, but that's in the same way you get a bit tired of people who live under the same roof as you because you see them all the time (happens with family, too): of course there will be lesser intensity; you're used to the person by then. There also are disagreements, yes, but that's what the compromise is for, and this doesn't damage the relationship that hardly if the couple is compatible and really do care for each other (also depends on the argument, though). And, gonna repeat myself again, we are made to care about people precisely so love doesn't become fleeting (dat hormone I mentioned that's for this purpose tho). Anyway, love isn't entirely fleeting, and there is a need for restrictions because there is a need for compromise (and compromise is necessary because of everything I've said before about reliability and being at an equal standing to someone). These restrictions are not negative restrictions, as I've said before. They are restrictions made for equality and mutual agreement. Restrictions aren't fundamentally bad: many are bad, but some are necessary; regulations are necessary for society to work. Why wouldn't long-term relationships be maintained the same way? I actually don't understand what your second point is arguing against. Your own argument? I assume so, but I'm sorry, I'm not seeing the correlation ^^' Trance said: The point here is simply to restrict those expectations to a few reasonable ones; the expectations that should follow, as if a priori, from the notion of love. And the 'no cheating' expectation is not one of them. The thing is that, within the context of your partner, their expectations ARE reasonable: they want you to compromise to some of their expectations while you'd want them to compromise to some of yours (if they want more out of you than you can give, you should break up; that's a different case; I'm arguing in the standpoint of a good mongamous relationship). Restricting all people's expectations to a select few is not right because people all have their preferences and ideals. No cheating as an expectation is reasonable if your partner does not want to have sex with other people as well (if you don't find it reasonable, don't be in that relationship to begin with). Expectations of love (as the emotion) and the expectations of the relationship are not the same, and your partner is in their full right to have both of them: expectations of their relationship do come naturally out of their feelings of love, and no cheating can and will most likely be one of them. Trance said: What does the other person want? My commitment? She has it if I love her. My financial assets? She has them if I promise her. My company? She has it if I love her. My sole devotion to her? She has it as long as it's humanly possible. That I don't have sex with anyone else? What's her basis for expecting this? That I don't connect with anyone else? What's the basis for this too? We can vacuously assert all sorts of rituals of love but then again, only vacuously. When you scrutinize them, their nature becomes apparent. You are avoiding the main point, though: lack of compromise, or lack of reliability, does hinder one's ability to love you. EVERYONE demands reliability. Everyone is in their right to demand reliability. And through compromise, along with other factors of course, you are showing reliability. By taking out the restrictions brought about by compromise, you are basically telling people to just demand whatever they want even if it just benefits them and screws everyone else over. There is a need for sacrifices in society, which is why all people demand, even if subconsciously, reliability. Which, as I said, you aren't showing by not compromising and simply doing whatever you want without prioritizing or trusting people (or society as a whole): who knows what can happen to us without these restrictions? You can then say that this means people don't trust each other to begin with, but of course they don't: true psycopaths exist in this world, among many people who simply aren't benevolent. In the face of these real concerns, people want reliability. "What does the other person want? My commitment? She has it if I love her" PROBLEM SOLVED, THEN. If you are willing to commit to your partner, you are willing to compromise and actually are a reliable individual. If you think about it, even OLTR is some form of compromise; just not the same one as monogamy. "My sole devotion to her?" People don't actually demand this. If there are people who do that, they, too, aren't in a particularly sane state of mind. "That I don't have sex with anyone else? What's her basis for expecting this?" Her own expectations. As I said, there are many people who actually aren't promiscuous and don't want to have sex with people apart from their own partners (sexual attraction can be a thing, but I also said before that if you are committed, this commitment overrides it). "That I don't connect with anyone else?" People don't actually demand this. The basis for it is insanity. Of course, I'm talking about connections in general, as in, in the platonic sense like friendships and whatnot. If you are feeling romantically for someone who isn't your partner, just be with that person and not your partner, obviously. Romantic feelings are the minimum for establishing a romantic relationship. These things aren't just vacuously asserted. Years of History are put into these conclusions of love. The more I scrutinize them, in fact, the more I can see their origins and why they are implemented into human society for the sake of the continuity of the human species. Of course, certain traditions can be unnecessary, but there are basis to things, even if they aren't satisfactory to you. You can undermine their logic, but not the effort put into reaching this logic. Of course, if I disagree with your disagreement of said logic, I will equally attempt to prove to you why my stance is presumably the correct one. Trance said: Source: My ass. I'm not being rude. I actually do pull statistics out of my ass. Statistical studies are unreliable for the most part. Anecdotal evidence is more reliable granted that it makes sense. And there are millions of topics we haven't explored statistically. If we rely on statistics alone, hardly any but the most popular debate topics will proceed. Well, okay, then I can't trust your claim about divorces, sorry. Anecdotal evidence cannot be fully trusted: people can make generalizations out of things they've experienced once. I'm relying on my own rationally concluded ideals, along with the various cases and concepts that support them which aren't particularly tied to my own experiences and feelings (such as commonly known cases and notions, and objective facts). Anecdotal evidence is dangerous because it's (or can be heavily) biased, and has a high chance of not representing reality. Something like that has to be taken from the perspectives of many people at once to draw a more or less viable consensus (basically, statistics are indeed cool, as they are representative of a collectivity of perspectives; granted, if people didn't modify the results and conducted the study properly). The subjectivity of anecdotal evidence doesn't really make a debate move for the better :/ Trance said: I don't understand the special importance you're giving it. I've already made it clear that there's nothing a person can trust his partner with that he cannot trust his friends or family with. So why exactly is trust even important here? if trust is the criteria for establishing monogamy, then I should be in a monogamous relationship with my friends too. That's strange, because I've dedicated paragraphs to defining the importance of trust. I've even used about two paragraphs to explain the difference between friendship and love when it comes to trust. I'll go ahead and put it somewhat more succintly: friends have their own agenda; you aren't a priority in comparison (they have other people closer to them, along with themselves) so you might get screwed over if push comes to shove. Meanwhile, your lover does have you as a priority, so you'd trust them more (you are at the same standing as themselves in priorities, so you are a more immediate priority) as they aren't likely to screw you over. There isn't as much of a guarantee that your friend will stick by you more than your lover, who has you more in mind than your friend. Basically, your lover is the safer, more reliable choice. There is such a thing as a really good friend (maybe), but you don't find them much in real life. Trust is not THE criteria for establishing relationships, though: it's A criteria (one of many) to MAINTAIN (though you also need trust to form it, ALONG WITH OTHER FACTORS, yes) a relationship. It's an important criteria because of that reliability argument I've been hammering down on you. Trust is one of the foundations of reliability. To be in any relationship, you need reliability. To have reliability, you need to warrant mutual trust (along with other factors). Trust is important to feel safe around other people (or society in general since being alone is not easy and it's nice having people around who can help you) so you can actually work with them; it's so you can live in a society. In the context of relationships, you can't love someone you don't trust, meaning that you need trust. Trust is required in society because of the whole reliability issue. In other words, I am giving it special importance because it IS special, and absolutely worth people's attention. It's not 'nothing'. If you still don't understand, I will genuinely be shocked, because that will have to make me start from zero when it comes to explaining the non-material foundations of living in society. I'm sure I've rationally concluded the need for trust. Trance said: The part of your posts that I omit are corollary to the parts I do address. Or they are simply irrelevant. What you have said in these two paragraphs puts love on a separate pedestal and that I don't contest at all. But whether it supports monogamy or not, I cannot tell. If you say so. I'm putting love on a different pedestal because it IS on a different pedestal. All types of relationships are on different pedestals. Well, not that it seemed as though you questioning that. It supports monogamy, yes. However, it seems that you live your life in a way that's fundamentally different from how I live from mine. I've said it before, but if you don't want to be in a monogamous relationship, don't. Monogamy itself shouldn't be replaced just because you and other promiscuous people would prefer doing things a different way to satisfy their hedonistic needs. Of course, finding a significant other that adheres to your ideals is easier said than done (but finding a matching significant other in general is easier said than done, really), but I'm sure it'd be better than dragging your partner and yourself down with something that apparently just doesn't work for you. |
| @Aines445 Ok ok, I concede. You're right. How the hell can you write so much? don't you get tired? I actually don't understand what your second point is arguing against. Your own argument? I assume so, but I'm sorry, I'm not seeing the correlation ^^' I've been playing the devil's advocate in this entire discussion. I'm surprised you didn't notice. |
Trance said: @Aines445 Ok ok, I concede. You're right. How the hell can you write so much? don't you get tired? I actually don't understand what your second point is arguing against. Your own argument? I assume so, but I'm sorry, I'm not seeing the correlation ^^' I've been playing the devil's advocate in this entire discussion. I'm surprised you didn't notice. I reeeeally suck at noticing things in general. Besides, since it's the internet, it's hard to infer the seriousness of a post since I'm not hearing a voice or seeing a face that can indicate feelings. Putting that aside, when I'm trying to prove my stances, I feel an absolute need to express them in such a way that I don't leave much room for misunderstandings, fallacies and other such things that waste time in reaching the truth in discussions, so it ends up being these huge textwalls that make a claim, intricately justify the claim (to perhaps over-complicated lengths) and try to deflect possible counter-arguments before they're even made. Well, more than that, I just write a lot by nature, I seriously have no idea how other people can be so succint ^^' Do I get tired, though? Hell yes, I do! I was getting tired by that point, to be honest, but I did plan to argue further since I don't want to back out of moral discussions. The sad thing, to be honest, is that another likely reason I didn't notice you were playing devil's advocate is that I've actually known people who hold at least some of the ideals you were arguing for, so what you were saying was deep within the realm of possibility to me :/ Speaking of that, however, why did you do this in the first place? Was it plain trolling? To collect people's opinions on it? As an intellectual challenge? I'm seriously curious :0 |
Aines445 said: I reeeeally suck at noticing things in general. Besides, since it's the internet, it's hard to infer the seriousness of a post since I'm not hearing a voice or seeing a face that can indicate feelings. Putting that aside, when I'm trying to prove my stances, I feel an absolute need to express them in such a way that I don't leave much room for misunderstandings, fallacies and other such things that waste time in reaching the truth in discussions, so it ends up being these huge textwalls that make a claim, intricately justify the claim (to perhaps over-complicated lengths) and try to deflect possible counter-arguments before they're even made. Well, more than that, I just write a lot by nature, I seriously have no idea how other people can be so succint ^^' Do I get tired, though? Hell yes, I do! I was getting tired by that point, to be honest, but I did plan to argue further since I don't want to back out of moral discussions. I used to be like that. But it's time consuming, inefficient, and ultimately less appealing. A short cutthroat refutation of an opponent's argument is always the best course to take. Counterargument is a last resort -- made only to be used when refutation is impossible and your opponent has equally logical ideas. It may seem as if you would now need to know all the formal or informal fallacies but that's the long way to go about it. A better way is to simply learn how to make a logical argument. When an opponent tries to attack you, then instead of highlighting the negative in his stance to him, highlight the positive in yours. We are psychologically built to infer the negative from the affirmative more easily. When you highlight what's right, what's wrong is only a follow-up. And if your opponent cannot notice something which you've made obvious, then it's time to leave the debate. The sad thing, to be honest, is that another likely reason I didn't notice you were playing devil's advocate is that I've actually known people who hold at least some of the ideals you were arguing for, so what you were saying was deep within the realm of possibility to me :/ Speaking of that, however, why did you do this in the first place? Was it plain trolling? To collect people's opinions on it? As an intellectual challenge? I'm seriously curious :0 Whether you knew people who held this view or not, you should take ideas separately from their proponents. Whether an idea is possible depends entirely upon the merit of the idea. Why did I do this? to unhinge myself. The worst trick our mind plays on us is hiding perspectives from us. When you're depressed, you're depressed only because you cannot and do not see how much life has to offer. When you are hopeful, you're hopeful only because you do not see the chances of failure. Likewise, when you think you're on the right side, when you think you have the right argument, it's because you do not see the other arguments. If I cannot predict my opponent's argument, then I've lost by default. |
Trance said: Aines445 said: I reeeeally suck at noticing things in general. Besides, since it's the internet, it's hard to infer the seriousness of a post since I'm not hearing a voice or seeing a face that can indicate feelings. Putting that aside, when I'm trying to prove my stances, I feel an absolute need to express them in such a way that I don't leave much room for misunderstandings, fallacies and other such things that waste time in reaching the truth in discussions, so it ends up being these huge textwalls that make a claim, intricately justify the claim (to perhaps over-complicated lengths) and try to deflect possible counter-arguments before they're even made. Well, more than that, I just write a lot by nature, I seriously have no idea how other people can be so succint ^^' Do I get tired, though? Hell yes, I do! I was getting tired by that point, to be honest, but I did plan to argue further since I don't want to back out of moral discussions. I used to be like that. But it's time consuming, inefficient, and ultimately less appealing. A short cutthroat refutation of an opponent's argument is always the best course to take. Counterargument is a last resort -- made only to be used when refutation is impossible and your opponent has equally logical ideas. It may seem as if you would now need to know all the formal or informal fallacies but that's the long way to go about it. A better way is to simply learn how to make a logical argument. When an opponent tries to attack you, then instead of highlighting the negative in his stance to him, highlight the positive in yours. We are psychologically built to infer the negative from the affirmative more easily. When you highlight what's right, what's wrong is only a follow-up. And if your opponent cannot notice something which you've made obvious, then it's time to leave the debate. The sad thing, to be honest, is that another likely reason I didn't notice you were playing devil's advocate is that I've actually known people who hold at least some of the ideals you were arguing for, so what you were saying was deep within the realm of possibility to me :/ Speaking of that, however, why did you do this in the first place? Was it plain trolling? To collect people's opinions on it? As an intellectual challenge? I'm seriously curious :0 Whether you knew people who held this view or not, you should take ideas separately from their proponents. Whether an idea is possible depends entirely upon the merit of the idea. Why did I do this? to unhinge myself. The worst trick our mind plays on us is hiding perspectives from us. When you're depressed, you're depressed only because you cannot and do not see how much life has to offer. When you are hopeful, you're hopeful only because you do not see the chances of failure. Likewise, when you think you're on the right side, when you think you have the right argument, it's because you do not see the other arguments. If I cannot predict my opponent's argument, then I've lost by default. I'm not very familiar with discussing with people in this manner, since I'm more or less reserved about my positions and tend to just see how other people fare and think about it myself. I shall keep this wisdom in mind! I'd say more, but you're absolutely right in your statements anyway (so I'd only be agreeing and adding certain things), I can totally understand the purpose of you creating the thread (though I'd personally not resort to that in an attempt to understand opposite perspectives, but people work differently, I guess) and I'm not currently in a state that can generate things that are useful or uh, make sense in general since I've yet to sleep and it's 6 AM ^^' |
More topics from this board
» why spelling of english language is so hard? its the only language that has spelling competition?deg - 59 minutes ago |
8 |
by Daviljoe193
»»
12 minutes ago |
|
» RIP GAINAXAramHovhanued - 11 hours ago |
23 |
by deg
»»
1 hour ago |
|
Poll: » Let's appreciate MALShizuna - Yesterday |
20 |
by deg
»»
1 hour ago |
|
» why is r/anime such a bad subreddit! ( 1 2 )necro_dancer - Oct 11, 2018 |
87 |
by Zarutaku
»»
1 hour ago |
|
» The very random (and possibly useless) knowledge threadDigiCat - May 22 |
40 |
by Longnines
»»
2 hours ago |