the_tiger_striped_cat

Jesus Heartbroken23. Noone on this planet has been through more than I've been through, but I can tell you this.

oh yeah . Just jokin

H_B_K, you are just dramatic. Anyone ever told you that? Try chilling out and not playing games. If you are truly hurting over this person then let them know it and stop trying to plant "seeds" in order to get them back. If they want to be with someone else, you are not going to stop that from happening. The only regret they will feel is that which comes through being with someone else.

I agree completely. Believe it or not HBK, but this pain will hopefully be good for you. Events like this put a mirror in front of you. You should know that a mature man would not say things like "I don't take rides from strangers", or play these constant games over and over again. You two are attached to each other in a bad way, you are in denial, and I bet 2 to 1 that you end up contacting her again. But please, prove me wrong. I think you have a lot of self discovery that you need to engage in. I also bet it doesn't work with this other guy.

I was with my ex 8 years and I thought many nights about how to SHOOT myself in the head.

me too. I figured I'd do it with a bag over my head. That way there's no mess for people to clean up.

It's been 3 months and I cannot imagine why I chased, begged and pleaded. At the time, I could not imagine a more amazing woman on the planet. Do you really want them back? If someone leaves you, they didn't believe in you. Stop beating yourself up. Truth is, the percentage of couples who rekindle their relationships is random and completely dependent on circumstance. The hard truth is that people don't change. Accept who you are and get back out there. Make someone laugh. No, it's not fun. Its inconvenient. It's expensive. It's twighlight zone feeling... I know. But you are doing yourself NO good by grieving excessively. I can assure you, they are not grieving. IF AND ONLY IF THEY ARE, you will hear from them. Otherwise, you're wasting your time. Like yourself more.

Agreed.

Oh come on. I know you can do better than that. There are general rules. That's all I'm looking for. I know everyone is different but. Wires or no wires? Round glasses or squareish? Jeans or no Jeans? Is there such thing as Mature shorts?

Who cares if everyone has a different face, should I get giant thick black frames? Of course not . All thing equal, what are you're likes. I'm trying to find out what not to get as much as what I should get.

I'm just looking for general fashion advice. Even if you know nothing about me, you can still point me to the right direction. These people know nothing about me

specsavers.co.uk/cgi-bin/strudwick.sh/s?langid=1&pfmt=1&siteid=22&pname=styletips.html

But they can still give me general tips.

1) I need to get glasses. What styles, frames, brands, etc. do you think looks good on a guy?

2) I'm a graduate student and pretty much anything goes fashion wise (no screened Ts with logos, and less Ts in generals). With my move to glasses I'm looking to put together a more mature wardrobe. I'm thinkin of moving to more collared shirts and button ups.

Can shorts every look mature on a man? How about this guy:

link removed

If he does look mature, what makes it so?

How about jeans? I figure if I wear nice button ups with jeans, its just as good as kakais? What do you think? If anyone has any pictures they can find on the web as examples, I would appreciate it.

you could look at

link removed

link removed

link removed

Sorry the question is so general.

Thank you for tackling such a difficult question. So, all things equal--same person, same psychology, same everything--do you think that the longer someone pines for someone the more they loved that person. Note: I'm talking about everything equal, and don't think I'm talking about myself. I'm dating around. I want to know, that's all.

But I don't believe that everything happens for a reason. If you do, maybe you should google for "Nick Berg". But I do see what you are saying.

Thanks again.

What if wasn't looking for a relplacement. What if he gave hime self time to heal, let's say for a year he didn't date. Then he tired to look for someone.

Take two people that are PERFECT for each other A and B would of had the PERFECT life together. Now say person A met person C first. With this person A has a decent relationship. Say they care enough to stick it thorugh until marriage and then some years after until they divorce. It really sucks that A and B didn't get together because it really would of worked great. But what happens to B? A would of been B soulmate. of course he would never have known this because C had A first.

Now say C dumps A so B really does have a chance with A? So how long before B falls in love with A. A week? Ok maybe not. A month? A year? Depending on the timeframe B knows more and more about A is more likely to fall in love, and A gets more and more attached to B and forgets about C more and more. But say there is a minimum timeframe whereby B would go back to C if C asks for B back, because B is still attached to C (rationally or irrationally in love,you pick). Lets say that C just ask for B back right before this threshold value is met. So B has a hard time leaving A but eventually goes back to C. A goes back for any number of reasons from attachment disorders, to actually still loving C. But the point is that A and B never had a chance together.

Now how does B act? Of course it will be proportional to how much B is ABLE to love A. If B is the type that doesn't love that much---some people are likke that-- B won't pine for A much at all. But if B does have a lot of love to give, wouldn't B pine for A for a long time.

First of all, you have to accept the premise that B could love A to that level. That years later B still misses A and the signature of his love is that B is still going through pain. I want to know if you believe that its possible for B to go to pain for years out of true love, or if it's because he's obessing? Is it at all possible for B to be mature and go through really really bad pain. Or does bad pain just mean that he must be obsessing?

And if you don't accept that premise, let me modify it. Let's say that A still has feelings for B, and C. A doesn't even knokw that B knows. So As indecisiveness drags B through hell. Is it possible now for B to through this level of pain, being constantly reminded of As love for B?

You're obession comment intrigues me. So is this at all possible. Lets say that this guy looks for love so dilligantly. He really looks hard. He's mature, his tears for this girl are the same tears you'd see from the husband kneeling beside his wife that is dying of cancer as he clutches her hand. Maybe it's not true love, it may never be that strong. But if after years of trying so hard to move on, trying if he still does cry for her. Is he still obsessing? How does one tell the difference?

Now before you get so pessimistic and say to yourself, "She didn't care for this guy one bit, he's obviously obessing, and he's pethetic becasue she doens't care about him." Well everyone needs to understand that we don't live in a perfect world. People make bad choices, end up in bad relationships, get divorced, and sometimes don't realize their true feelings. It could be possible if things worked out differently that they would be together. And let's say for argument sake, that she is unsure about the life with her fiance. Let's say it's the type of relationship where the engagement almost is broken off, or is broken off. Is that what makes the man's tears nobler? I almost want to say yes. But why would how she feels have anything to do with how genuine the love from the guy is. Why are his tears less virtueous the less and less she cares for him. It doesn't seem to make much sense.

Ok this is going to be hard to ask, but I expect it will be interesting.

Hypothetically, say I guy gets his heart broken by a girl. He fights for her, he lets her go, and he still loves her after she moves away (lets say she goes back to her ex that she knew longer and was still attached to). Say the girl still thinks about the guy after she leaves him. Not enough to go back to him, but enough to wonder if she's making the right choice. But say this guy cries for her for years. He goes through a pain that only a few on this forum have been through. It doesn't take 6 months to get over her, it takes years. All the while he's still looking for true love. He believes that "the only cure for a woman is another woman." He recognizes the fact that if he found someone he could fall in love with that he might have gotten over this girl faster. But since he didn't he still went through unbelievable pain. When I say he cried for years because of her, I mean this literally. He even writes in his final words to her that he will always love her, even when he's married with children, he will still love her (in a special way of course, loving his wife more). But I have a question.

Did he truly love her? Is it possible to love someone like Romeo and Juliet did, rationally? How does he know it wasn't some psychological problem? Maybe it's something from his childhood. Maybe he was just attached to her. People stay in bad relationships for 10+ years because they are attached to the person. So what do you think is the evidence (or signatures) that this person really did love. That the pain was only because of pure, unadulterated love, and not from any other reason--just love. Maybe possibilities are:

-he still actively is searching for someone else

-he only wants her to be happy

-he never hates her (I've seen many people end up hating there exs, maybe this is a good one).

-he

And maybe as a follow-up question. Say a year later or maybe 2 she comes back to visit the hometown. Say she brings her now fiancé. All three of them meet for the first time. How does this guy act? If he really does love her in the strongest and matures of ways, how does he act around the girl he would die for when she is introducing the man she is going to marry? What if she asks him point blank, "Do you still love me?" How does he respond. How do you expect someone who is unbelievably strong yet has the strongest of mature loves act? Does he hold back the tears or is he naturally happy that she is marrying?

Sorry this is so long, but I guess I would appreciate general comments.

How do you know you have the strongest of loves and it's not something else?

Thanks for your responses!

Anyone ever break off an engagement? If so, why?

Im curious about quality. Not quantity. If it's just "the think you do" to say "i love you" before you go to bed every night, then that just isn't as meaningful as some other situations.

I'm curious. When do you say it? But I'd say once a day is well above average. Although you're the only respondant so far.

This is a survey not a advice request. How often DO YOU say it

How often did/do you say "I love you" to a SO. At the end of a phone call? Before you go to bed? Let's say that these two count less. But hey, I want to know of often these 3 words are exchanged. Do men say it more often, or women? Discuss...

UPDATE: To get the correct responses. I guess this quesiton is directed at someone who is or has been in a long term relationship. If you haven't then please refrain from responding.

Was it ambigous when you started NC. If you begged and pleaded and cryed and wrote poems, then did NC, and then sent her the card, I bet she might miss you.

But don't get your hopes up too much. The think about certain women, is that they can still miss you, still care about you, still want to spend time with you, even call you, send you emails, and make it sound like you'll get back together one day, but EVEN THEN, there maybe something holding them back, fear of commitment, something you did to her, issues she has, or in my case attachment to an ex boyfriend.

Good luck though.

I agree with a second opinion. If they screwed up the first time.... it's rare for someone your age to have cancer. Some cancer is hereditary though. But you're young, you probably caught it early

I've imagined going through what your going through. You're strong than I am for this. You will be in my prayers, but no matter what happens I KNOW everything will be fine.

MetallicAguy - Desired is correct. Doing crunches will help you with a tone stomach, but it won't reduce the fat there--and if you got a lot of fat covering up the muscles, it won't matter how many crunches you do. This is called "spot reduction". Search for it on google. It is widely believed to be a myth, although my mom swears by it. You lose fat all over. You've never seen someone with a skinny tummy and fat legs/arms. Have you? So to lose fat (first obvious loss will in your face, then will probably END with your tummy--but you do gradually lose all over) you need to keep a calorie deficit. I mean excersise and diet, burning more calories than you take in. A pound of fat weights about 3000 calories, so you can probably lose about 2 lbs of fat a week with a -1000 calorie diet (depending on the calories you burn in the day.)

xXillusion - even though you're not fat, you'll probably have to do a similar traning routine to someone who is a little fat. You'll probably do more crunchies or stomach workout though and less dieting. But if you want to be tone, you have to lose body fat. Get your body fat percentage checked - many gyms should do it. For women the minimum body fat is like 13 percent. So if your bodyfat is like 22 percent, you actually might need to lose a few pounds, to be tone, even if you don't consider yourself fat. But either way, you'll definitely have to workout your stomach. I'm not sure the best thing for you, you should probably do a variety of excercises. Leg lifts, "building a bridge" with your body (only elbows and toes on the ground for 1 minute, crunchies, crunchies with weights, jackknifes (google "abs jackknifes" without the quotes) and other. Just do an intense ab workout for 10 minutes a day for a month (and do something cardio if you can). If you notice no difference (take pictures), then change it up and try something different.

Good luck

Ladies. If a guy is wearing a button up shirt (lightblue,with nice jeans, untucked). Do you prefer him to have his cuffs unbuttoned or buttoned?

Thanks again,

Tiger

Anyone do one of these things? Can someone tell me how they work, or any surprises you might have experienced? Any tips besides the obvious and platltudlnous?

sorry about the double post.. stupid back button

That's all I was trying to say. If you know it's going to end, why waste your time? Sure it feels good and you know that it's something that is "good" for you, but is that reason enough to do something that is practically pointless (since it will end)? You don't have to answer these or anything like that, I just wanted to explain why I used the smoking reference in my previous post.

Your life is going to end some day too, so why live?

As for the paradox thing. Yeah I'm sure I confused thigns because sometimes it's hard for me to really put down my thoughts on a keyboard, especially when it's late and I'm tired. But you keep saying that you shouldn't/can't be blamed for your ignorance, yet we do it all the time. Doing something wrong, is still doing something wrong whether you knew it or not. Ignorance can't be blamed since once you do find out you did wrong, most people will repent/apolagize for their actions. Your always responsible for what you do no matter what, even if you didn't know the consenquences.

This is not true. Some people think this because the law sometimes seems to punish ignorance. But look up actus reus and mens rea. And there's something called criminal neglence, which is not treated as the same as something like murder, and we have insanity pleas. But let me ask you, can you honestly hold the boy responsilbe for stealing a cupcake when he was too young to even know what stealing meant?

Think about when you were a young child and didn't know that throwing a soccer ball at someones head is the wrong thing to do (I didn't ). Usually an adult will come by and say "Hey you shouldn't do that", or "That's not a nice thing to do" right? Maybe you don't see these people as an obvious sign to stop, or you do choose to ignore them because your having fun, whatever the case you proceed to do it again. So the next thing that happens is your in the principles office and he's telling you your in trouble for what you did. When you say "Well I didn't know it was wrong" he can turn around and say "What about those people I sent to you to warn you about it?". Oh yeah, so the first thing out of your mouth is "sorry". God can act in the same way to those who are on the wrong path. Maybe those signs can't always be seen as obvious, maybe some are ignored, but when you come to God he will say "Why did you do those things?" and if you say "Well I didn't know", God can also turn and say "What about these signs I sent you?".

But the argument goes MUCH deeper than that. I want you to tell me why they ignored the signs. Is the correct thing to do to follow a path that leads to God? If it is, why would someone do the wrong thing? Why? If someone ignores the signs, then why did they do that. Basically, for every response you give me, I want you to ask yourself, "Why did they do that?"

Because the answer is that they didn't fully understand the signs or the implications, if they did then they wouldn't choose the wrong path. I mean why would someone ACTIVELY choose HELL, it doesn't make sense at all.

If the principal asked me, why didn't you listen to all those other people, I could give a thouand reasons. One of the reasons is, "I am inherently evil so I will always through the ball at the kids head." Another one is, "Even though I saw all the signs, I must of not have understood them because I did the wrong thing, but I'm supposed to do the right thing, so I must of made some mistake in my judgement, because we all agree that my judgement isn't correct.

Everyone makes the wrong choices sometimes, as said before, it's part of being human. All humans were born destined to go to Hell because all humans are born with sin in their heart. That's why people need to ask for God to come into their heart's, and forgive them because they are a sinner. The ignorance factor wont work because it never can, if it could people would try to get away with murder because they didn't know any better. But even there God has made his rule really clear (by not just making it a Commandment, but making it a crime all accross the world). I know I'm probably still not making any sense at all (long day of work, long night of healthy sex) so I should just stop it now. I need to start responding during the day when I'm awake.

Yeah i guess that's a way to get out of it that I forgot to mention. All of this assumes that God punishes (or saves you from Hell) justly. But God punishing someone for something they didn't even know is wrong (ignorance) is not just. So if you want to say that God doesn't punish justly then you don't have to worry about the paradox.

Um, did you look at what the link said? It said that quoting a person should be used as a starting point, to highlight certain things. Too much quoting isn't a good thing and actually hurts your case. You are quoting everything I say, which is a tad bit excessive, wouldn't you say? I don't need to be constantly reminded of what I said before, if I'm into the discussion then I'll remember. Or at worse I can just scroll up a bit and look over the post I made. Quoting every sentence seems like a waste of space, I already know what I said. Just get down to your argument.

What you were referring to is called snipping. If you wan't me to snip more parts of your quotes then I can do that. But after rereading your quotes, it's seems like you're annoyed because I'm replying to all your points. And the article says you can snip posts when appropiate, but for a debate we can look at another resource (I have many) that says:

"This set of characteristics leads naturally toward a preference for the traditional Internet (geek/academic/Usenet) style of using carefully trimmed quotes followed by the reply. This allows point-by-point inline rebuttals, minimizes bandwidth use, is a format well-suited for digesting and archiving, and minimizes the ability of various mail programs to mangle an entire thread."

My response is ENTIRELY self contained, even someone that wasn't familiar with the discussion can see what I was referring to. But EVEN IF I'm wrong--that bottom posting is the way to go--you definitely haven't shown that it's wrong. It may just be arbitrary. I know it my not jive with your personal preference, but you haven't given me any evidence that I shouldn't do this besides the retorcial response, "...a tad bit excessive, wouldn't you say?" Actually, this makes so much sense that Google decided to revamp their google groups to discussion format:

I think Switch did a great job addressing the issue of learning about your future partner and how each time is a new experience, like it's the first time all over again. I agree with him and will leave it at that. And since he has been in your position, I'd listen to him. While I'm speaking mainly from a moral standpoint, he has reached a lot of the same conclusions from experience, the same experiences as you.

I hope this isn't an appeal to popularity. I mean, Switch and I went through the same things and we came to different conclusions. Why is his opinion more valueable, because it agrees with yours?

So, I'm saying sex is good not because of the act but because of the emotional connection involved. You are saying that sex is good because of the basic physical act. Thank you for finally getting that distinction down. I could defend my case by showing that the act is never what is truly important, that there is always a driving force behind it that gives it value. Then you couldn't say that the act itself is what is good, that there has to be something more important that causes the act. I get an A on a paper. Is the A what is important? Or is that just the end result of my determination and hard work to do the best I can? I do some volunteer work. Is the actual work what is important? Or is it a product of my desire to help others and make the world a better place? Likewise, the act of sex isn't what's important. It's the reason behind the sex that makes it good. Any man and woman can have sex, but that doesn't make it good. I don't think a rape victim is getting any enjoyment from the act.

I think you're confusing the issue. Of coure the A can be good to the person! Don't you susppose there is someone out there that could care less about learning, and only wants go get into the good school.

Yes, I know that you said you have an emotional attachment to her. But if you don't see a future together, then the emotional attachment isn't that strong, at least not as strong as it should be to provide truly good sex. And it is that emotional attachment that drives sex, the actual physical act is only a by-product of the emotions felt, whether it be love or lust.

So you're saying that what is required for sex to be meaningful is that someone sees a future with the other person. So seeing a future is a necessary condition to valueable sex? So if we compare two couples:

 

Couple 1) Sees a future with the person, but the sex is HORRIBLE, I mean everything goes wrong, she has physical pain the next day, he develops psychological issues, they both regret having sex so early, she might be pregnant, and worst of all the sex is COMPLETELY selfish between the two fo them etc. Make it as bad as you possibily can, but they see a future.

Couple 2) Have a strong emotional connection, they care deeply for each other, they would gladly do anything for each other, they are in the sex only to see the other person feel good. The sex is COMPLETELY altruistic. Moreover the sex is AMAZING, MINDBLOWING.

 

now you're telling me that Couple 1) still has meaningful sex simply for the fact that they see a future with each other? Indeed this is the only thing I lack from my fbuddy relatonship.

 

Even if it may be more tempting to have sex with the buddy when you are in a relationship, why are you looking at this as a good thing? Your looking at it as if resisting the temptation is some kind of grand declaration of love that proves how much you care about this future partner. But why even put yourself in a position where there is such a strong temptation?

For the other benifits. I eat cookies because I think my enjoyment from them trumps the health risks (too much fat, hyperglycimia, etc.)

 

This way there is a chance you will give in. I mean, you admit you could go to her whenever you want. And you do give into the urge sometime, even if you say its not often. If you never had such an arrangement to begin with, there would be no urge and no chance of giving into temptation. The best way to avoid a problem is too never put yourself in a position where it could become a problem. By having this arrangement you are creating the possibility for a problem that otherwise wouldn't exisit.

Again, in my mind the problem is ittsy bitsy, but the rewards are very great indeed.

 

No, you don't have to be lonely to have sex. But what other reason do you have? You admit its not for love. I don't think its because you want a child. You could say its for the physically act, and I've already addressed why I don't think that's the case. I've always been complimented on how I'm a good judge of character and can usually read peoples motivations pretty well. This is just my opinion based on everything you've said and the way you've said it, so there's no reason to get upset or snippy. I have the right to voice my opinion, if you don't like it then just ignore it. But I do think there are deeper feelings that you are not ready to deal with yet. That's why you said you defensive quickly, why you feel like you have to so vehemently defend your position and pick apart every piece of my posts.

Ok here's the deal. I'm going to keep replying in the same manner, because I think it's effecient. But I PROMISE, PROMISE, PROMISE, that I am not taking offense. How can I prove it to you? Maybe we could start the posts with some friendly banter, to add some levity to the gravity that occurs in discussions like these. Maybe something like this:

 

ShySoul how was your new years? I had a great time! I went out and met a couple of girls. I knew them for a while before, but we danced all night. I really like this oen girl but she's so far away. I sent her an email, so I hope she responds. Actually, one of the other girls wanted me to keep her warm so i was hugging her, but I really wanted to be huggint this other girl.

 

Maybe we can start out with something like that? Socrates was such a great philospher because he didn't let things get to him. And if you read some of his "works" or Plato's dilogues you'll see that they always BSed before debating something. Maybe we should try it. It woudl keep the modarators at bay.

 

I didn't say intimacy wouldn't exisit. I said that the level of intimacy is so far apart that it might as well be. Since you like to use numbers, I'd say the correct proportion would be 500 billion to 1 dollar. If you really think that one dollar is worth it, go ahead. Maybe you can use it to buy that cookie your always talking about. Plus its intimacy for the wrong reasons, and as I've said the motivation is what drives the act.

HA HA! Do I talk about the cookie that much. I don't know why. I just think it is a good analogy. But Now you make me feel bad about using the example previously But to your point, I think you're wrong. It's truly subjective anyways, so there's not much more to say on this point, but I'll trust that the two couples are separated by an intemacy level factor of 500,000,000,000. And I think other's in the fourm probably would agree with me.

 

The very notion of a sex buddy is someone you turn to for sex. There isn't the emotional attachment or love, it is the need for sex that determines the relationship. The physical act is coming first and is precedent. I wouldn't be in your position because I value the love and spiritual factor as being most important. Since you are in this arrangement, the physical element is at least of equal concern, if it wasn't then you'd be able to wait until true love, or at least a real relationship.

I could be in it for the closeness right? I mean, say I didn't care about the sex that much, but I cared about the intimacy, but I didn't see a future with this girl. I mean that's plausable right? Actually, that's why I held that girl on new years, I liked the closeness. I wasn't going to go anywher with here, but it felt really good to be close to a woman again.

 

You may be pursuing love with your actions, by going out meeting people online dating, etc. But you are not pursuing it with your full heart and soul. If you were you wouldn't be needing this buddy. You'd recognize that what your longing for can never be found in this relationship and that it's a waste of time as it can never be truly fulfilling. And you are just settling. You are settling for a physical relationship with someone who admittedly you don't care about in that special way.

I think this sounds a little off. I'll say it again. If I go out and do everything: speed dating, online dating, meeting people, and you just stayed at home all day, somehow I'm the one not pursuing love. I'm not settling in any way, shape or form. You're just equating sex=settling which doesn't make sense at all.

 

For your information, I was raised Catholic but have developed my own set of values by incorporating what I saw as the main points of all religion and by listening to what my heart and consciousnce tells me is right. I discussed my views on this in a post a couple weeks ago, and I don't feel like reiterating the whole discussion now, so if you want to know my believes on God, etc., look back through my posts. I don't like to label myself or make claims to being in any group. What I say, I say because I believe it completely. And I've always had these beliefs; as far back as I can remember.

Good. Then we share many similar beliefs.

 

As for your paradox, its simple. You choose the path not because you are evil and destined from hell, but because you are human and make mistakes. No one is completely evil and destined for hell. We are all good people at heart. But because we are not perfect and because of our free will, we make mistakes. Some people have a hard time facing up to their mistakes because they are scared of the consequences. They refuse to take responsibility for their actions. People like this can fall into a pattern of repeating there actions and thus keep doing things that are wrong but never admitting to it. Or they make some mistakes that is so big they have to do something else wrong to cover it up. Your not intentionally choosing the path, you made a mistake that snowballed until it got out of control and you were on the wrong path. Even then, you have the option to turn things around. You may never be able to make everything right, but that's not the point. The point is you see what you did was wrong and are willing to change. Also, God does not send people to hell. I personally don't even prescribe to hell even though I do believe in God. God is loving and wouldn't allow others that kind of suffering.

It's not simple at all. My point is that if you make mistakes, then it's not your fault. And sure God doesn't send you to Hell, but he allows you to go to Hell even though you didn't do anything wrong (remember it's not your fault, it was just a mistake.)

Now if you don't believe in Hell then that's a different story. But the paradox still stands. Like I said my paradox was what many Bible believing Christians would have to deal with.

But do you believe in Heaven? If so, do you believe in Universal Salvation. I'm not judging, just asking.

 

Becoming free isn't as hard as you think, what constrains us is the notion that its so difficult. Free will isn't constrained and it isn't something people just made up. We are free to make every decision in our lives. And if we aren't we can at least choose how we respond to it. Plenty of people go against the way they were raised and do so by choice because they don't believe in what they were taught. That's how certain customs become lost through time, because more and more people decide not to do as there parents did. You know nothing about how I was raised. In fact, I've seen a lot of things that directly contradict my values. I don't have to walk a mile in someone elses shoes, I've seen them walk the mile themselves and fall flat on there face. I can understand why someone would do these things, I've seen it from people I care about and are close too. Alcohol, drugs, sex without love… seen it. And it never turns out well. And I always try to look at why people do the things they do. From my experience, these actions stem from loneliness, lack of self confidence, lack of will power, desire to fit in and be wanted, etc. There is always a deeper emotional reason; it is never just because they wanted to or because they were raised that way. I've seen a lot of hardships and could have turned out really messed up. But I told myself I wasn't go to be a product of my raising, I was going to be a product of my own heart and determination. I could have given in but I didn't. The final choice was mine.

Actually you're dealing with a problem that is one of the hardest problems in philosophy. There are various questions to deal with.

 

1) I am not free to fly. So obviously I'm not COMPLETELY FREE.

2) If free will is completely determined by the past--you chose to believe in a certain conception of God because of things you were exposed to--how could it be that you could have ever had made the same choice had the circumstances been different. Can you honestly tell me that some buddist monk atop a mountain in Tibet will believe in your conception of God simply because he "chose to" (lets assume that he has all the necessary information at hand). If so, why doesn't he? I mean, he came to vastly different conclusions than you. And if your answer is the correct one, then it doesn't make much sense that he wouldn't obviously pick the correct answer: yours.

 

This is just an extreme example of a deeper problem. Like I said, you could have been a Saint or a gas chamber attendant, depending on your background. There's a reason most killers come from the Ghetto, there's a reason why Pakistan is 99% Muslim, and there is a reason why you believe the way you do, and it's entirely possible that it has nothing to do with free will (although I'm not sure myself). But in the very least it is entirely consistant that everything is COMPLETELY determined, and the world would look exactly the same.

 

3) There's also a problem of determinism on a quantum level. Even if one appeals to quantum mechanics's indeterminism this doesn't seem to pose the problem. You've only introdused randomness. Randomness doesn't imply free will. But it would be crazy if every synapse firing in your brain was determined or random. I'm not sure.

 

 

Again, you missed the point. Let me clarify, sex period (not just with someone you love) can not be quantified. I've always like math, so working with numbers is something I enjoy. But some things in life can't be reduced to mere numbers. And even if you want to, numbers can easily manipulated. I did a report on Enron a month ago and they pulled out every trick in the book to manipulate there numbers. They made it appear that they were coming out ahead when they really had a huge loss. Maybe you are doing the same thing? Maybe you're trying to make out like you end up ahead when really there is nothing there. When sex is with someone you truly love, the rest of the times become meaningless. So we would be equal them. Or maybe the specialness of waiting will be enough to out weigh all your past encounters. I'll have a tidal wave of pent up love and passion to give. I'll savor each touch. To you, it will be another round, time to do what pleased that other girl.

Well I guess this is one of those points where we have assumptions that neither of us can prove. But again my example:

 

 

Couple 1) Sees a future with the person, but the sex is HORRIBLE, I mean everything goes wrong, she has physical pain the next day, he develops psychological issues, they both regret having sex so early, she might be pregnant, and worst of all the sex is COMPLETELY selfish between the two fo them etc. Make it as bad as you possibily can, but they see a future.

Couple 2) Have a strong emotional connection, they care deeply for each other, they would gladly do anything for each other, they are in the sex only to see the other person feel good. The sex is COMPLETELY altruistic. Moreover the sex is AMAZING, MINDBLOWING.

 

I REALLY find it hard to believe that somehow that Couple 2's sex was meaningless while couple 1's sex was somehow infinitely good.

 

I wasn't reaching for explanations. I'm saying that there are many variables and that just because you have experience doesn't make you an expert. The main point is that the experience isn't what matters, the emotional bond that I would share with the person is more powerful than any level of experience and that is what would make the act great. I'm not trying to play the odds because I realize that love isn't a casino game. There are no odds to be played. When you are with someone you truly love and will be with for the rest of your life, it is that connection that makes sex the special thing it is suppose to be. It ceases to be just a physical act and it becomes "making love."

I'll just appeal to what I said above.

 

Sex is good for you with someone you hate. I've got witnesses to the contrary. I know people who have had sex with someone they hate. It wasn't good for anybody. And it doesn't matter if it's good for the body because the damage to the soul can be far worse.

I was talking about the body not the soul. That was the point.

 

And in turn, the damage to the soul can cause damage to the body making the benefits you received worthless.

Eesshh. I have no idea how you can show me "soul damage".

 

Lastly, say you were convinced that your life wasn't worth living and that you needed to take a gun and shoot yourself. Are you telling me that you shouldn't listen to all the people telling you that it is not the right things to do? In that case there is an entire section about suicide on this site that is worthless.

What if everyone told you to jump of a bridge, would you do it? What if everyone told you to kill yourself, are you telling me that you SHOULD actually listen to those people that are telling you that it's ok. I know you'll say that they are not saying that, but that's the entire point. If someone comes in here and says they want to kill themselves, and then 2 people say don't do it, and 4 say do it, you don't listen to what's popular. You don't kill yourself because of WHAT they say, not because of how many people say it. Are you telling me the suicide forum is suddenly useless if there was only ONE professional responding to all the posts?

 

Yes, you should be questioning your beliefs on your own. But sometimes people get so caught up in there own feelings and emotions that they can't think straight. A dozen people who are thinking clearly saying that killing yourself isn't the answer, is something that should be listened to. I'm not saying it is evidence, I'm saying you should at least consider what other people say. Also, it can give more weight to the argument. One person saying don't' kill yourself can easily be brushed aside. But the more you hear something, the more it gets stuck in your head and you remember and think about it. True, this could be used the wrong way, which is why you should always have other, more logical arguments to support yourself. These arguments have been what everyone has said.

 

If appeal to popularity lends any credience to an argument WHATSOEVER it is no longer a fallacy. If you were correct then the following could ALWAYS occur:

 

-"Smoking is OK, everyone is doing it."

+"It's not OK, look at all the health risks, that's an appeal to popularity."

-"I'm not talking about the ATP fallacy, I'm referring to the fact that it should at least 'make you think'.

 

You have just undone the hard resarch of 1000s of logicians and philosophers.

 

You have to at least concede to this. I know you're wrong in this case. Check it out:

link removed

 

Ok, since I doubt we'll ever reach agreement I purpose a truce. We've both said our piece and know where the other is coming from. Lets end this peacefully. That way tempers won't have a chance to flare, we won't end up going in circles forever, and people won't be annoyed by our back and forth banter. If you really want to respond to anything I've said, please don't don't do I series of quote. Try a paragraph with your main point of contention. After that any one who reads this can decide what they believe on there own.

 

Oh man! Now you tell me! Sorry. But I probably would have done the same anyways--you know how much I love bottom posting debates! I really think this is a lot more efficient.

I've heard that the aspartame in diet pops is broken down into something that causes 'holes' in your brain.

Should answer some questions. Aspartame being dangerous is a myth created due to it's shady aproval by the FDA, the rise in brain cancer (which was shown to be statistically insignificant as far as aspartame was concerned), and a related genetic disorder called phenelkentenuria.

Whatever the cause, if aspartame did cause problem then millions of people would have had adverse effects. 10 billion cases of soda are sold every year and 30% of it is diet soda. That's quite a large sample size of people who drink diet soda once in a while that have no consistent adverse side effects.

And about your weight. There's something called the Basal Metobolic Rate (BMR). The more fat/muscle you have, the more calories are needed to sustain that fat/muscle. So the bigger you are the more calories you burn. After that, it's simple thermodynamics. If you take in more calories than you need then you'll get bigger, if you have a deficit, you'll get smaller. It's true that some people have faster metabolisms, but at your age, I seriously doubt this is the biggest factor her. Go to google and check your BMI (Body Mass Index). I'd venture to guess that your BMI is large for your age/height. Now it's true that BMI isn't all that great of a guide, but it's a rough guide. I'd say that you are probably 15lbs overweight to be in the "healthy" zone. I'm not sure, but check it yourslef. If I were you I would make it a resolution this year to be 15lbs lighter by the same time next year, Or maybe 5% less body fat.

Good luck.

that's some great info. Im going to try some of it too.

I know it's really hard. I have the same problem.

Get rid of your distractions. Try JUST ONE DAY to work for 6 hours straight in a different locale. Do you have some ADD or other problem or is it just other distractions.

Personally, I got rid of my netflix account, and cut my cable. I still screw around with my computer, but I find if I go somewhere else I can usually get work done.

Many student that know how to study get in good habits of working really hard and keepin good schedules, you need to go to a library and just work. If you get in the habit of just working for hours on end, it will become easier hopefully.

All I can say, is that I think he needs to see a professional. Most of this doesn't sound normal or healthy.

Masturbation for guys is good to a point because it flushes the system. There is a technical term for this, but I promise. I can find the issue of Men's Health that talks about this.

But the same issue also says excessive masturbation can lead to premature ejaculation.

But as a question to the OP: do you have the same problem when you have sex on a regular basis? Is this a recent problem? Has it happened since puberty? How often do you masturbate?

Thanks for your input. I agree with most of what you said, but remember I view more like eating a cookie than smoking. Sex isn't bad for you like smoking, or eating a cookie. So it's more like the same reason you eat sweets. That's why I do it, and it's much much more because remember I do have an intimate connection with this girl, I just don't think there is a future.

But I did have to talk about my "paradox" because your confusing the issue like many before you have:

As for your paradox question. Well a lot of people choose to go to Hell. If you choose to reject God and Jesus as your saviour, then your choosing to go to Hell. Sometimes you on't know your walking that dark path until someone comes in a gives you a revelation.

don't know=ignorance

ignorance=how can you be cupable in the eyes of God, you didn't do anything wrong.

Or maybe you wake up one day realizing that the path your walking isn't right anymore. You can argure that God shouldn't punish you for doing something you didn't know was wrong, but when you are leading a life that is wrong then God shows you many "sings" that you need to change. By ignoring those "signs" then you are accepting the blame for what you are doing.

Are the signs obvious or not? If they're not then you can consider this ignorance. If they are obvious then why the HECK would you choose to ignore these signs? I mean we are talking ETERNAL SALVATION here! I can't fathom why someone would CHOOSE hell!

But, yes it's true many people will choose to go to Hell by their down accord, it's very confusing and unbelievable at times, but it's true. You may think that no one will activily choose a path away from God, but some of us do it everyday, unintentionally, and as long as you can notice that you are on the wrong path and need to change, that's all you need to do to help you get back on the right path.

unintentionally=ignorance

Now I've discussed this with other people before, and those that refuse to accept this paradox (which I believe does have a solution) will only confuse the issue. They'll try and dance around the idea getting into free will, how you make the choice (choice of the sprit), or many, many other ways that only confuse the issue. No matter how you slice it, here's how it goes:

1) The choice towards God is the CORRECT choice.

2) Yet some make the WRONG choice.

I don't see how you can dispute these premises. But, why would you make the wrong choice? It doesn't make any sense. There are only two mutually exclusive, collective exhaustive conclusions that are both unacceptable to SOME Christians:

1) You knew what you were doing and made the WRONG choice.

2) You didn't know what you were doing.

In 1) you made the wrong choice yet knew you were going to hell. Only those that want to go to hell make the wrong choice. As if you were destined to go to Hell.

In 2) you are truly ignorant that you are really going to Hell. If you really did know the full implicaitons then you probably would have made different choices to make the right CHOICE.