Relationship expectations

Conversation with Willie about relationships:

TL: I guess I've been asking myself what one should expect from a relationship. I mean... we act because we're motivated by something, but what is the correct motivation?
WM: Well... everyone has different expectations
TL: Yes.. but what's the correct expectation? We take other's expectations and compare it to something and say whether it is right or wrong. For example, no one would dissagree that one can expect the other person to not cheat. However, if someone had an expectation where she wanted the guy to be with her 24/7 and not interact with others, we would say that's a wrong expectation. Well what is the expectation that we compare it too, to say if it's right or wrong?
WM: Well Tommy... I don't know... I guess we should look to the bible to see what it says.
TL: Ok. What does the bible say?
WM: Let's see here... ephesians 5:22-33 "Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is head of the church...
TL: Willie, I think many women would have a problem with that.
WM: Well, like I said earlier, I think a man should love the woman more, because a man wants to be respected, but a woman wants to be loved. I mean.. everyone wants to be loved and respected, but I think it varies in degree between men and women.
TL: I can sort of see that...
WM: A guy wants to feel like a guy.
TL: Ok, that's true.
WM: Ah, right here, "let each individual among you love his own wife as you love yourselfs, and let the wife see to it that she respects her husband."
TL: Hold up. I have to love her as much I love myself?
WM: Yeah.
TL: I don't mean to sound big headed, but that's a lot of love.
WM: Hahaha, Tommy, you fool.

I agree that generally, every guy wants to be respected and every girl wants to be loved. BUT, I wonder what guy doesn't want to be loved and what girl doesn't want to be respected? Are these the sort of motivations that truly drive a relationship? What do you think?

KwamTheGreat: regarding ur convo wit wiliie, its easier for women to love cuz its in their nature, but its harder for them to respect their men, and guys don't necessarily love easily

spillsomepaint: girls want to be loved but i think we are just able to be more open about it. I would assume it takes a lot more for a guy to come out and say he wants to be loved, so instead he wants to be respected. Women want to be repected as well, but when we r truly loved, i think most women think that goes hand in hand with respect.

SS: The statement is true, like if you think about it, why do guys like dating younger women? It's b/c we sort like the idea that they look up to us.

General Finding:

Women's perspective and criticism

The general perspective from women is that love and respect go hand-in-hand. I agree that when you love someone you SHOULD respect them too. However, I do not find that love in any way implies respect. For example, I think a mother and father can love their children, but not respect them for being criminals. Applied in a relationship setting, the person we love could be acting in ways, that causes us to not respect them. I think respect is somewhat based on a merit system, and love is not. If love is based on a merit system, I would argue that it is not love. I think the general claim still stands, that men want to be respected and girls want to be loved. I am not saying that these are the only things men and women want, but it is the primary things they want in a relationship.

My input:

I wonder if the general rule is driven by what men and women are attracted too from the opposite sex. Do men want to be respectable, because women tend to be attracted to respectable men? AND do women want to be loved, because men are attracted to loveable women? I think there is a huge difference between what we want and what we are actually attracted too. Perhaps, the guys who are more respectable then they are loveable, usually end up with the girl. And the girls who are more loveable then they are respectable, end up with the guy.

Mom: You have to marry someone smart, with a good family, a good career
TL: Mom. Stop. Maybe it's because I'm a guy, but we really don't factor those sort of things. We simply ask ourselves: "do we love her or do we not." We base on decision on that
Mom: You're ridiculous!

Traditionally, it was important for women to marry successful men, because women were not allowed to work. For men, they wanted to marry women who would be good stay home wives. I think history plays a big part in all of this.

(4:30am, must nap and study for crim. law) Sorry for not finishing :P

(no subject)

I have been asking myself: Why do people bad mouth other people who sleep around? Why do many guys not like girls who have slept around?

In discussing this topic with a couple of friends I noticed there are many uncertainties related to this topic. Some of them attacked the person's character, but failed to build an argument for it. I said, "what if they slept around for pure pleasure, and after meeting you they came to realize the difference between slepting with someone for pure pleasure and slepting with someone they love. Would you date them then?" Most replied by saying, "no." Some said, "they might have STDs." I said, "let's assume that we know for a fact they don't. Would you then?" And still they hesitated and said, "no."

I think the best argument was exclusiveness: The act of sex is the highest form of expression and it becomes watered down when someone sleeps around. I like this argument because I always believed it. However, I have talked to people who made the distinction between "having sex," and "making love." While I have my own beliefs contrary to theirs, I have no right to deny their distinctions, if those distinctions are made and held beliefs of theirs. If I am to assume their distinctions are true, then the watering down of the act can be exclusive to the emotional expression of one's self. Therefore, my belief is weakened under their assumption and I must ask: is the argument of exclusiveness a narrow view based on truth, or insecurity?

I am in the process of gathering information to construct a generalization.

However! I have noticed something interesting in my information gathering. Many people who sleep around have problems dating someone else who has slept around. When I ask them if they're being hypocritical they tend to respond by saying, "no." They make the argument that they only sleep with people they like. Some will make the stronger argument of only sleeping with people they date. However, those same people have been the ones who jump from one relationship to the next, and claim to be in love each time.

I think the adversion towards dating someone who has slept around is innate. BUT, there are those who claim to be indifferent. The best argument among this group of people has been: experiencing life is a good thing because people grow from it. Contrary to the view of exclusiveness they will argue that sleeping around can help them love better. For example, if you have only been with one person and slept with just that person, you may form beliefs that are not necessarily true, and those beliefs materialized because you have nothing to compare them too. Breaking up with your first love is the hardest, because that is the only experience you have. However, after a couple of relationships, you may experience feelings and emotions you never experienced in your past relationships. You are now in a better position to guage your feelings and know where you stand. The view here is that of degree, not all-or-nothing.

In listening to and considering the different views on this subject matter, I ask myself how much insecurity plays into what people claim.

Brian Conversation # 3 Romanticism and Eternity

me: so i'm curious as to what you've been thinking about. You mentioned to me before that you had a lot on your mind.
can u give me a topic so i can do a lil research on my spare time
Brian: Hmmm
12:44 PM Romance and Religion
but not Romance in the sense of "love"
I mean it in the more general sense
maybe it would be better to use the word Romanticism
12:45 PM me: hmm... i analzyed a hopless romantic just recently. A lil off topic i know, but in the general scope i think
12:46 PM i wonder if a connection can be made...
12:47 PM i asked myself: "why type of people are hopeless romantics?" and my answer was: generally, people who fail to love themselves and/or whom society has failed to love adequately
thus they focus the love the have lacked and put it upon one single person
12:49 PM i think romanticism is the wanting from one person to be loved by another
12:51 PM Brian: well
that is the sense in which I was not using the word
so I think we might be talking about two different things
12:52 PM me: agreed. So be a little more specific.
are you thinking about romanticism as in the style of art
12:53 PM Brian: no
I will try to explain
12:54 PM Shit, it is not an easy concept
12:55 PM me: we generally dont discuss easy concepts
Brian: Romance is the feeling of mystery and awe that is inspired by different things for different people. For example, I find mountains incredibly romantic
and most people find sunset romantic
12:56 PM Most people find history romantic - that of the world, and their own history (we commonly call that phonomena "nostalgia")
12:57 PM There is always an element of magnitude - a sense that what one is experiencing is in a sense "larger" than oneself, that makes it romantic; and there is always a sense of mystery which makes it romantic
12:58 PM me: ok, i have a much better sense of what you mean by romantic now
Brian: Most people find the stars and night sky romantic
so if you get that much, do you agree that for most people, romance is the most important thing in the world?
It is a heavy claim, but think about it
12:59 PM me: heavy indeed
Brian: Or maybe it is earier to see it this way....
1:00 PM Imagine a word in which the sunset could not be romantic, or in which you would feel nothing when you looked at a star-filled sky, or in which romanitc love was impossible
(all of these things are"Romantic", so, in other words, imagine a non-romantic world)
1:01 PM Wouldn't it be terrible?
1:04 PM me: I would question the strength of your argument because i think i could put in things more important, like love in a general sense, caring, etc. However, I would say that there are lot of people who are do not get that sense of romance that you speak of. I think it takes a life loving and emotional person to really experience it.
1:05 PM Brian: Love in a general sense is romantic
It is romantic to ascribe to it any significance other than biological precesses
1:06 PM And the same can be said for anything that any type of person views as important
me: how far are you blanketing things with your idea of romance? Would you say that if i care for sick mother, that that is romance? I would say it is not.
1:07 PM Brian: It is romantic to claim that your sick mother's life has any inherent value
It is romantic because it call on something vast and eternal for that value
1:08 PM calls*
Namely, something Supernatural
A Materialist philosopher would say that your mother's life is just the produce of simple biology, and that the same could be said for your attachment to her
1:09 PM But a Romantic philosopher (what I think is a Supernatural philosopher) would say that, actually, her life IS valuable, and that your love for her is REAL
ANd I think the latter of the two worlds is a hell of a lot more preferable to the former
1:11 PM Try not to think of the word romantic only in a modern sense
1:12 PM me: hmm... i agree, but i'll throw some arg. out there to the contrary: 1) A mat. phil might respond by saying that the latter might be preferrable, but he is after truth and his view embrasses what he knows to be true, and the latter only hopes or assume the existence of an eternal being
1:15 PM there are also arguments that there can be values without eternity, and we can value a sick mother, even though there is nothing eternal. Of course a arg. would have to be made that "real" is what is real now and in relation to us in our present being
1:16 PM Brian: but there is no way to make that argument; that is exactly my point
without anything eternal, nothing can have "real" value
Anything of inherent worth must be grounded in the eternal
1:18 PM Otherwise we are all just a bunch of molecules floating aroundin space, for no reason other than "that is the way things are." Our emotions and mental goings-on would be merely by-products of the collisions between molecules, or something as menial as that. Even Reason itself could be boiled down to being a by-product of biology; in fact many scientists and philosophers think that it is

6 minutes

1:24 PM me: i sense that you reject that, but why? with what reason?
1:25 PM i think ppl make that arg. because it is the easiest to make with what we know thus far, but i have a sense that deep inside they dont truly buy into it
at least i hope not
1:26 PM Brian: you think that people make WHAT (sorry I don't have italics) argument?
1:27 PM me: the scientific one about us being nothing but a bunch of molecules
1:29 PM Brian: Exactly
That is exactly what I was about to say
Here is the thing
1:30 PM IF they accept those arguments, they leave no room for MEANING or ROMANCE in their lives
because they exclude the eternal, which is needed to ground that meaning or romance
1:31 PM me: what about the notion that their sense of romance is that they simply a small molecule sized form of existence in a much greater, and bigger universe
which is all still material
i am narrowing the scope for that arg though
1:32 PM Brian: Material is material. ANd there is an infinite gap between something that is BIG and something that is ETERNAL. It wouldn't matter how many stpes you took in that regression; you still wouldn't approach anything like true eternity - i.e. true significance or meaning
1:33 PM me: i want to go slightly off topic for a lil bit
to share a scary feeling i had two nights ago
1:35 PM i woke up in the middle of the night, not with thoughts but a feeling that can be expressed or somewhat reproduced by these questions: What if I go to heaven and live in eternity? Then what? What do I do for eternity? What purpose is there in that? What if my existence is only to the point of my phsycal existence? Then what point is there in living when all will be wiped away?
1:36 PM i refused to give it thought and i dont want to think about it now, but that feeling lingers in me now
1:38 PM Brian: I know that feeling well, especially the first of the two. I used to have it all the time, as a young kid contemplating the notion of Eternity, which I'd been taught about in Religion class
I was deathly afraid of living forever
1:39 PM And I used to do exactly what you are now, avoid thinking about it!
me: it triggers my anxiety attacks
that's how powerful that thought is
1:40 PM Brian: Our minds don't do well with the infinite
But remember two important things
1:41 PM (from a Christian perspecitve, anyway)
me: no it does not
Brian: First, we are finite beings, but we are destined for the infinite, that is, for God.
And so we can know that when we "get there," we will feel at home, not scared or uncomfortable.
1:42 PM Second, remeber that Eternity is not an infinte extension of time, it is a lack of time
Rather than "living forever," you will be living instantaneously.
1:44 PM me: i fear things i cannot emotionally comprehend and these things i cannot. I feel i have reached my limits for philosophy and am left at a dreadful place, a feeling that i have gone too far
1:48 PM Brian: You can't go too far in philosohpy. The only bounds are the Rational limits, which simply can NOT be passed. Of you;ve gone past the limits of USEFUL philosophy, there is always time to turn around, and it will benefit you to know (through experience) that it is a "dead end street" so to speak.
1:49 PM me: oh i know, and that end street is a horrible place to be
1:50 PM maybe i should be a cop-out and follow ayn rand
don't worry i'll never stoop so low, lol
1:51 PM ok well i must run to class, but let's finish this up some other time. I'll give more thought into what you have said
Brian: Alright man
Talk to you soon


I was reading some philosophy and I came across a great argument. It is argued that we can choose to believe in something, but we risk being decieved. HOWEVER, we can choose not to believe in fear of being decieved, but we may then be decieved into not believing. The former allows for some interaction or closeness with truth, whereas the latter just cuts us off completely.

Passions: Discourse

I believe everyone has a passion. Some people love to travel, some love music, whatever it is, everyone has something. Me? I have discourse. Engaging in good conversations is my passion. I will put aside my life to carry on a great conversation. When I have good conversations I become energetic, awake, alive! The mental stimulation puts me into an euphoric state. It's like a drug, in which I require a constant fix, as to not suffer from withdrawl. Philosophy is not only my major but my life. I meet with friends to discuss philosophy; I organize dinners with philosophy professors; I eat, drink, and breath philosophy. I believe every time I carry on a good conversation in which good questions are asked and discussed, I am living life to the fullest. My most memorable moment is spending a friday night in an empty conference room with 3 of my friends, talking about philosophy and writing up arguments on the white board. Philosophy is something I love and hate at the same time. I assure you, it is a very thin line. I bet my first word was, "why?" It was most certainly the most repeated word, that's for sure.

Reckless with words and actions

I find myself constantly battling with my arch nemesis: an undisciplined tongue. Among my favorite quotes, I am constantly trying to live up to one I have read in a book: “be impeccable with your words.” It is amazing how the expression of our thoughts and ideas are equally, if not more, important then the contents of our speech. When words are used carelessly we can accomplish nothing. However, when words are used effectively we can move people to action.

The cause for concern:
When I took upon the burden of examining the arguments for and against the theory of evolution, I found myself perplexed. I realized that people “believe” in evolution without actually knowing much about it: the consequence of misguided and reckless words. For example, rumors were told about an experiment in which amino-acids were created by recreating prehistoric conditions. Along with this statement followed the statement that this further proved the theory of evolution. People still use this partial knowledge without realizing that it has been discredited already. My point is that things are not always as they appear and one of the many problems with reckless words is misguidance.

TL application:
I use to always laugh at the “caution hot contents” signs on coffee lids. I was quick to say that this was an insult to man’s intelligence. Sarcastically, I would say, “what? Hot coffee is…hot?!” After realizing the dangers of partial knowledge I decided to google the McDonalds case involving the lady who sued and won for having hot coffee. I discovered that she had legitimate reasons for suing. Here are some quick facts involving the plaintiff’s side:
-Vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full
thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body,
including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin
-She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she
underwent skin grafting.
- McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992.
- McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste.
- A scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin
burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds.

To battle my recklessness, I find myself speaking less. To battle any reckless actions, I find myself holding back or avoiding people. Recently, I have been struggling with this more and more. I hope to find an applicable solution to this some time soon. Now, I only hope that this entry is not reckless in itself...

A Gentleman's Woman

Recently I have been talking to a lot of my guy friends about what they look for in a woman. Now, the people I have been talking to are friends whom I consider "quality guys." These are guys, whom if girls were dating, I would say those are some lucky girls. These guys can be social and out-going, yet personal and intellectual at the same type. These are the guys who are versatile and would never wrongfully harm their girlfriends. Their current relationship status is single; not because they cannot find girls to date, but simply because they are waiting for the best girls to date. Here are some things they and I are looking for in a woman/girlfriend.

1) A girl who believes in us. Someone who will support us, even when we are down and out. We don't want a girl to like us after we make it big, or someone who likes us because of the success we have made. We want a girl to love us for who we are, deep down to the core.

2) Loyalty. Part of being a gentlman is being loyal. We would also appreciate if our women were loyal to us too. We want someone we are comfortable trusting, no matter what situation she might be in. We assume a true lady would hold herself to a high enough standard that she would act out of principles, and one of those principles would be for her to be loyal, not necessarily for the man's sake, but for her own sake.

3) We want a girl who is a 7 out of 10 in terms of looks, but a 10 out 10, after factoring in the personality. We don't simply want a "hot girl." Those are what we would call... "headache girls." We want a girl who is a 10 out of 10 in looks to us, but when others judge her, they would say, "yeah, she's pretty..."

4) Personality is huge!!!!!! We want a girl who is both physically and mentally stimulating. When I say physicallly stimulating, I am specifically talking about a girl who holds herself very well. When I say mentally stimulating, I am talking about something a little more tricky. This depends on the gentleman, but we want a girl to know us really well, someone who can read us, and do or say things that will make us react in a way that is positive. This can be anything from discussing intellectual topic matters to simply flirting with us and teasing us.

5) BE A LADY!!!!!!! We want a lady. A lady is not someone who is always concerned about her looks and dress really nicely all the time. A lady can slap on some sweats, go hiking, do fun stuff, and still be a lady. A lady to us is someone who carries herself very well, someone who can dress nicely, someone who can accept kind manners, and someone who acts... I don't know how to say it.. but someone who acts like a lady... We don't want the up-tight kind of girls who are always worried about their looks, or their fashion: that does not mean being lady-like. Being a lady is an attitude; not a look. Though, I would say that ladys can do one heck of a job with looking good. That is the point though; they always look good not matter what they are doing; wearing whatever they want to wear.

6) Know what you want. There is nothing more attractive then a woman who knows what she wants. This always makes things a lot easier for us. We don't necessarily want a woman who is passive. We in fact like aggressive woman. Now, not too aggressive, but aggressive enough that you let your intentions be known. We are the type of men who do not like to put people, any people, in a situation that will make them feel uncomfortable. We need some good signs, or green lights, for us to be rest assured that if we make any type of move, it will not create unwanted and/or ackward tension.

7) Be yourself and have fun! The guys I talk too, and I myself LOVE FUN!!! At the end of the day we don't care if we will advance beyond the status of acquaintance or friendship, we simply enjoy good company, and are satisfied with having had fun.

8) ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL!!!!! Be an upper not a downer. The single most greatest turn off for us are women who are downers, or pessimistic. EEEEEEWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!! We have enough on our plate as is, the last thing we need are negative life draining downers. Be optimistic.

9) Be a good mix. My friends and I are people who enjoy being social, but we also enjoy personal time spent with others, and we enjoy the time we spend alone. Likewise, we don't want a party hardy chick, who parties all the time, and we don't want a girl who cannot be social. We like to have a nice balance of social and non-social.

10) KNOW HOW TO ACT!!!!!!!! The worse is when a girl does not know how to act. For example, if you(ladies) are fortunate enough to date one of us and you are at a party, we assume you know how to act right and that you will not have guys hanging all over you. We also assume that you will not be hanging all over other guys. We hate when our pride is compromised because of our girlfriends. I have had times when my friends came up to me, when I was still dating my ex, and they would say, "hey, Tom, WTF? You need to watch your girl." UNACCEPTABLE!!!! Another clear indication is when I would meet some of my ex's guy friends and I can tell straight off the bat, they don't respect me and my relationship. That is because the girl don't know how to act right. The same applies to us too. If we were all over girls all the time even when we were in a relationship, and we introduced our girls to our friends for the first time, our friends would not respect them because of the way we acted. Well, we happen to be the types of men who know how to act right, and we wish to have the same sort of women.

It is 4:30am so I will end it here, but yes. I am quite dissappointed with the general female species; as are my other good friends. These are what we are looking for and I will add to the list as necessary. So for the ladies... Let's step it up and take it to the next level. If you want a quality guy then you need to be a quality lady.

Conversation wit Brian part 2

TL: Brian, I don't want a girl who thinks about the stuff I think about.
Brian: Why wouldn't you? Don't you want a girl who knows why she believes what she believes?
TL: I don't know that having to consider other assumptions is necessary for her to do that. Besides, no matter how much we philosophize, no matter how many if-then scenarios we work through, we have to choose a set of assumptions. We do so based on a value judgment. You and I know nothing can be fully proven. Now, if this girl and I are both going to be Christian, then I believe she has the ability to be a better Christian than me. I will always know the possible probability of it being false, and I know that I accept these assumptions, and I do so because I choose to believe in them. However, she has always believed in them and she is the person she is now because of it. I feel like if she ever took the path that I took to get there, then she would lose a part of herself, similar to the part of the self I lost in my journey.
Brian: No man, I think you are better off. I know what you are saying, and I disagree with the whole “ignorance is bliss,” but I still cannot find an argument against it right now.
TL: To tell you the truth, I wish I didn’t think. I wish I didn’t ask all these questions. I wish I had grown up without having to think as much as I did. I am a slave to my mind and I wish I could turn it off. I truly suffer. I just want to be happy, and joyful, and fun loving.
Brian: mmm….. I don’t know, it seems like that could get you into some serious trouble. I mean, that is how you can be stuck in a cult. Or what if you are raised in an Islamic country and you believe that if you do a suicide attack, you will have paradise waiting for you in the next life? Don’t you think those people need to think about what they believe? They believe just as much in their faith as any other hardcore religious person; they are willing to die for their religion.
TL: hmm… I really can’t argue with you there, you bring up an excellent point…

Conversation With Brian after Church: Jesus

Brian: So you have no reasons for having faith?
TL: No I do, but I could not offer them to you in a way that it would serve any purpose for you. However, I can say that I have considered some evidence that strengthens my faith in Christ.
Brian: what is that?
TL: Secular or Non-Secular, they both admit or claim that a least A JESUS existed.
Brian: Well, there are some people who think he never existed, and that the scripture is some made up crap.
TL: Well I suppose there will always be skeptics in all areas, but I think there is enough evidence leading towards a Jesus existing. I most certainly do not see any reasons for secular people to admitting to an existence of Jesus, if they do not believe in him.
Brian: Fair enough. So what about him? It doesn't necessarily mean he was the savior, it could be an over exaggeration of this guy named "Jesus."
TL: What you say is possible but to me, improbable. First of all, following Jesus was not all fun and games. Your life WAS threatened. They punished you with death in the most heinous way. I mean common, they nailed you to a block of wood after being whipped and humiliated, and hung you out to die. Jesus must have been what people claimed him to be, or equally great, for people to follow him under these circumstances.
Brian: Hmm… what do you think about people who say that his followers might have claimed he resurrected, when really he didn’t? What if his followers made up the stuff after Jesus died?
TL: If that was the case I think the Bible would have been written differently. I do not think they would have written about how they had soo many doubt about Jesus. I also don’t think they would have “doubting Thomas” either. If I was a follower who wanted to write up an over exaggerated account to promote Jesus, I would write about how loyal I was, and how loyal all his followers were. That would be more convincing.
Brian: Hmm… I guess you do have to look at the motives. There really weren’t any good motives.
TL: Exactly.
Brian: I think in the end, you do have to look at the history, and question people’s motives.
TL: The Bible is a historical document. There are many archeological findings that support the descriptions of the places found in the Bible. The Bible is at the very least, not completely made up.
Brian: Yeah, I’ll agree with you on that one.

TL and SS conversation: Intelligence entry

SeanStanard: hey
TLJulyThree: hey
SeanStanard: im not actually offending you in the slightest am i?
TLJulyThree: lol, no
SeanStanard: promise x 100?
TLJulyThree: you know i like to add drama
SeanStanard: lol, i know but so do i and sometimes too much drama turns into silent resentment
TLJulyThree: yeah man, if i was actually mad or offended i would ignore you, not be sarcastic
SeanStanard: ok
SeanStanard: man, what a great forum your LJ is turing out to be though huh
TLJulyThree: lol
SeanStanard: its amazing. i love it to death
SeanStanard: i check it like hourly
TLJulyThree: it's become quite interesting, i must say
SeanStanard: i think you should really let us all bicker over one subject for like a month, and then post something new
TLJulyThree: what do you think my next topic should be?
TLJulyThree: what topic would u be interested in discussing?
SeanStanard: i was serious when i said you have the perfect defense. i would be interested in discussing a topic you had an oppinion on
SeanStanard: like a factual beliefe. like a "i believe THIS!" kinda topic
SeanStanard: or if you dont have any resounding beliefs just yet, then some axioms
TLJulyThree: oh, hahahaha
SeanStanard: (im at work btw so i may disapear randomly)
TLJulyThree: well i do genuinely believe that intelligence is too subjective
TLJulyThree: ok
SeanStanard: see theres the problem
SeanStanard: you dont have intelligence even DEFINED but you are arguing that it is subjective
SeanStanard: you cant argue about concepts that arnt yet defined
TLJulyThree: hahahaha, well that's just it, im complaining about people using that word and wanting it
TLJulyThree: and you and i both know skepticism is a bitch, and that's the point you are making
TLJulyThree: i'm being the skeptic
SeanStanard: yeah but its like the old saying goes. any asswhole can be a skeptic. thats easy. the hard part is standing up for something you believe in.
TLJulyThree: lol
SeanStanard: (ok so the saying isnt that old, but its not mine)
SeanStanard: *asshole
TLJulyThree: in my last lj, i was simply asking that peole define and understand what they mean when they say intelligence, because i am under the assumption that they dont have a concrete idea, thus making it a mood
SeanStanard: skepticism doesnt foster discusion, it kills it. especially your kind(kinds that just attack but not from anywhere specific) of skepticism.
TLJulyThree: i use no such terms, nor do i seek to be around intelligent people
SeanStanard: a mood? come one man. a MOOD??
TLJulyThree: YES. a state of being
SeanStanard: but a mood? thats a bullshit term
TLJulyThree: well a state of mind would be more accurate
SeanStanard: mood means emotions, and thats just a dumb deffinition
SeanStanard: the state of mind you talk about is arrogance, not intelligence
TLJulyThree: no, but mood invovles emotions and thought processes
SeanStanard: or atleast you tie the two together like they were married
TLJulyThree: i do
SeanStanard: no. just no.
SeanStanard: thats retarded
SeanStanard: they're not the same thing
SeanStanard: they are nowhere near the same thing
TLJulyThree: arrogance is believing you are better then someone else, and intelligence is believing you are metally superior then someone else
SeanStanard: a lot of athletes are arrogant. does that mean all athletes are arrogant. does that mean im athletic if im arrogant. NO!
SeanStanard: intelligence is NOT believing you are mentally superior to someone else
SeanStanard: i dont know how you even begin to say that
TLJulyThree: nicole's definition
SeanStanard: again, totally baseless statement
SeanStanard: not mine, yours?
TLJulyThree: mine what?
SeanStanard: is that your deffinition?
TLJulyThree: nicole defined intelligence as mental superiority
SeanStanard: she didnt define it as the belief in mental superiority
SeanStanard: which is what you are saying
SeanStanard: TOTALLY different
TLJulyThree: i put in belief, because intelligence as she stated, is relative
TLJulyThree: so you would have to believe you are more intelligent
SeanStanard: not true
TLJulyThree: unless we all take IQ tests
SeanStanard: you thought you were dumb till i told you you were not
TLJulyThree: and even those are faulty as hell
SeanStanard: does that mean you were dumb cause you didnt think you were smart?
TLJulyThree: i still believe i am dumb
SeanStanard: im not EVEN getting into quantification yet...
SeanStanard: people can be intelligent and not know it all the time
TLJulyThree: i think if i was to believe i was smarter then others, then i would fall under the large percent of americans who believe they are smarter then all the other americans
SeanStanard: wtf?
SeanStanard: you really just said if i believe i am smarter than i believe i am smarter
SeanStanard: did that statement have a point?
TLJulyThree: no i said if i believe i am smarter, then i would be one out the large percent of people in america who believe that
TLJulyThree: i think my intelligence is average
SeanStanard: ok so if i was a tea cup tehn i would be one out of many teacups in the world...
SeanStanard: what was that supposed to mean?
SeanStanard: yeah so what, there are arrogant people in the world
TLJulyThree: there are a lot of people out there who believe they are smarter then most others, and they have no bases for believing that
SeanStanard: ok...
TLJulyThree: just as i have no basis for believing that i am smarter then most others
TLJulyThree: unless you say to me, "thomas, intelligence is not subjective, it's not relative"
SeanStanard: you're being a retard. you are going so far back into the basics right now. you are honestly arguing the "do i exhist" argument. but more in the form of "do i know what i think i know"
SeanStanard: and THAT is why i didnt want to argue with you about the quantification of intelligence. because you havnt agreed to the basics
TLJulyThree: ok, let me clarify the whole situation in which i present. If i was to argue for intelligence, i would say that intelligence invovles the ability to process information
TLJulyThree: that means, everyone can be intelligent
SeanStanard: yeah, and everyone can walk
SeanStanard: some people are better than others, some practice more. some run, some compete in the olympics
SeanStanard: some people cant walk cause they ate too damn much McFattys
TLJulyThree: yes, but you can go so far as to say, i want to walk with a person with a limp in his/her left leg
SeanStanard: huh?
TLJulyThree: i would never start off by saying intelligence is relative, because that only proves my point
SeanStanard: wait, you have a point?
TLJulyThree: what do we really mean when we say we are intelligent and we want to be around intelligent people?
TLJulyThree: you know i always have a point
SeanStanard: i know you THINK you have a point. im not sure you do though
TLJulyThree: lol
SeanStanard: :c)
TLJulyThree: for the people outside of the box, they see it and they laugh
TLJulyThree: for those who dont understand it, they only get sucked into it
TLJulyThree: it's a trap sean
SeanStanard: wtf?
TLJulyThree: i describe it as a mood
SeanStanard: yeah i know, logical fallicies abound
SeanStanard: whats your point again?
TLJulyThree: for example, if i was nicole i would say:
TLJulyThree: my point is, that some people are stuck in a certain mindset, and they dont understand it
TLJulyThree: they throw around the term intelligence
SeanStanard: what mindset is that?
TLJulyThree: the belief that they are better
SeanStanard: i believe i am better but i dont fall into your BS trap
SeanStanard: which by the way i maintain is retarded
TLJulyThree: it is retarded, because like you said, i'm not making an arguement, but i am making a point
SeanStanard: no, you're really not doing that either
TLJulyThree: i can tell, because you're not laughing
SeanStanard: youre trying to make other people state that intelligence is relative
SeanStanard: so?
TLJulyThree: no, i'm testing to see if they fall under the type of thinking i described. here would be a more proper answer to my question of intellgience:
TLJulyThree: intelligence is the ability to process information. Humans, even certain living creatures, have intelligence. When I say that I am intelligent, I am not stating that other people are not intelligent, rather I am pointing to a certain way of processing information
TLJulyThree: this procressing could be under logical thinking, a series of if then clauses that leads to the best outcome
TLJulyThree: i wish to surround myself with people who are capable of that type of thinking, and practices it
SeanStanard: (sorry, work stuff)but you practice it less than nicole even. so why have so much fun playing Mental Superiority Man in your lj?
SeanStanard: and by the way, thats still a shitty definition of intelligence
TLJulyThree: i'm not saying i am i mentally superior, like i said, i belive i am average
SeanStanard: because while relative, it is still somewhat quantifiable
SeanStanard: no, you acted like a superior ass in your LJ
TLJulyThree: hahahaha. intelligence is our ability to learn
TLJulyThree: i was being sarcastic in response to you
SeanStanard: well :cp
TLJulyThree: lol
SeanStanard: (now we are even)
TLJulyThree: intelligence does not simply fall under humans
SeanStanard: i never said it did...
TLJulyThree: i know
SeanStanard: but we obviously maintain intellectual superiority over almost all animals
TLJulyThree: if you mean that we are better able to learned and adapt to our environment, then yes
SeanStanard: ("to learned"?) no, much more than that
TLJulyThree: i change me tenses
SeanStanard: but equally within humans there is further seperation
SeanStanard: (i know but it was funny so i had to point it out ("i know you farted..."))
TLJulyThree: lol
TLJulyThree: i think with humans, people learn differently, but most are able to learn and adapt just fine
SeanStanard: bullshit
SeanStanard: like i said before, some people can run, some can walk, and some cant even do that because they have waisted their natural abilities
TLJulyThree: but intelligence is not all innate, it is also, very much affected by environment
SeanStanard: (btw, if nicole didnt read your LJ i would TOTALLY post "Thomas, i concede. you win. You are mentally superior to me" (its funny cause if you accept mental superiority i actually win this mini-debate)
SeanStanard: and?
TLJulyThree: hahahaha
SeanStanard: whats your point about environment
TLJulyThree: there is a difference between intelligence, and the intelligence people claim and seek
SeanStanard: i dont see one
TLJulyThree: intelligence is the procresses that occur in our mind that organizes itself in a way so we can learn
SeanStanard: my definition of intelligence matches my reality just fine.
TLJulyThree: what do you mean?
SeanStanard: whats that have to do with your point on environment?
TLJulyThree: enviroment plays a huge factor on intelligence, because we develop different types of methods of learning
SeanStanard: i mean simply that you claim a dispartiy between intelligence as it is defined and intelligence as society and culture speak of it. i'm saying there is none.
SeanStanard: yeah i know, but that still doenst mean anything to me. whats your point?
TLJulyThree: take me for an example. I stayed home alone since i was 3. My language ability was greatly hindered as a result of that. That does not take away my capability to learn, but it does change the dynamics in the way that i learn
SeanStanard: so what if environment results or does not result in intelligence. either way you still end up having more or less intelligent individuals
SeanStanard: so again i ask, whats your point? we agree environment effect intellignce
TLJulyThree: but how are you and I to determine and to measure that intelligence?
TLJulyThree: my point is that intelligence takes on many different forms, and we cannot have a concrete measure of it
SeanStanard: i said i was measuring intelligence, not worth
TLJulyThree: we can only specify the type of intelligence that we seek
SeanStanard: i can measure that intelligence a million different ways
TLJulyThree: not to claim it to be intelligence
SeanStanard: no
SeanStanard: wait
SeanStanard: go back
SeanStanard: what the hell is your point about environment
SeanStanard: you skipped like 10 steps there
SeanStanard: you told me like 15 different times that environment effects intelligence then suddenly you use that as a reason for why we cant measure it. there is not corolation there
TLJulyThree: my point with enviroment is that intelligence does not follow the same path
SeanStanard: i can tell you if a kid is dumb or not. i dont care why when i am telling you
TLJulyThree: and how would you determine?
SeanStanard: but intelligence DOES follow the same paths (read the s in there extra strong)
TLJulyThree: similar direction, but different paths
SeanStanard: no
SeanStanard: your english is kind of crap. mine is not. you speak another language, i do not. same path (language) just different levels of ability
SeanStanard: but still the SAME path
SeanStanard: regardless of environment(you still havnt made that point)
TLJulyThree: ok think of it like this, you can articulate ideas better in english, then i can. Does that mean i dont have the same idea?
TLJulyThree: i might not be able to articulate it but i can still act on it
SeanStanard: again, no points made. im not measuring your ideas through your language, im measuring your language through your language
TLJulyThree: ok, then what is your definition of intelligence, because i am working on a definition on our ability to learn and adapt to our environment
TLJulyThree: and environment affects what type of ability we choose
SeanStanard: WHAT???
TLJulyThree: intelligence is how we process information and use that information
SeanStanard: ok, multiple intelligences yeigh or neigh?
TLJulyThree: yeigh
SeanStanard: ok, same here
SeanStanard: so going back to your first argument (your second of environment still means nothing to me) i can adapt better to my linguistic environemnt than you can. i'm still better at speaking the language...
TLJulyThree: you had all the time to focus on english, i had korean and english
TLJulyThree: i think i adapted very differently than you
SeanStanard: and? im not arguing the why
SeanStanard: thats not a relavent part of this conversation (yet)
TLJulyThree: ok, then continues
SeanStanard: so i can think im better than you at english because as we have discussed, i am.
TLJulyThree: ok
SeanStanard: as per that specific intelligence
SeanStanard: and my argument doesnt need a "why" thats a wholey seperate field
TLJulyThree: ok, continue
SeanStanard: what more do i need to prove?
SeanStanard: you seem to have conceeded from where i stand
TLJulyThree: that when you say intelligence, we all understand it to be the same thing that we are a looking for.
TLJulyThree: when you say you want to be around intelligent people are you saying you want to be around articulate people?
SeanStanard: lol
TLJulyThree: articulation is one type of intelligence
SeanStanard: yes, i want the best of the best
TLJulyThree: the king of the crop huh?
SeanStanard: intelligence as it is culturally defined is the best of the best
SeanStanard: (its cream of the crop)
TLJulyThree: lol
TLJulyThree: :-P
SeanStanard: im not sure whether that was an accident or not
SeanStanard: ANYWAYS...
SeanStanard: like you always said, those social retards that think they are intelligent but cant get dates are not intelligent
TLJulyThree: i find intelligence in the social outcasts, and the social butterflies
SeanStanard: they have one of many intelligences but they clearly lack in other departments. that makes for someone i dont want to surround myself with(i should clearify i dont mind having an expert of each intelligence around me. they all eventually serve my purpose)
SeanStanard: exactly
SeanStanard: that couldnt have proven my point more
SeanStanard: questions?
SeanStanard: arguments?
SeanStanard: fart jokes?
TLJulyThree: i think we are on the same page now
TLJulyThree: oh and i farted
SeanStanard: i never moved so did you flip the page?
SeanStanard: LOL
TLJulyThree: no, i didnt move either
SeanStanard: if we are on the same page you did
SeanStanard: *sigh
TLJulyThree: no, i still believe there are different types and forms of intelligence, and that people should understand what type of intelligence they seek, when they seek it, and what type they claim, when they claim it
SeanStanard: ofcoarse you still want to include the "why" in the argument like i give a shit about that (which i don't) (and i dont mean that about you but about the conversation in general)
SeanStanard: who is really retarded enough to only seek one kind of intelligence?
TLJulyThree: hahahahaha i would call it ingenious to know what type you seek
SeanStanard: i wouldnt
TLJulyThree: i'm a very shy person, even though no one believes me, but i sought out social from time to time
TLJulyThree: so now i can be social
SeanStanard: lol i agree but your "why" still doesnt mean a whole lot to me
TLJulyThree: i have also sought out rational conversations, and only rational conversations for a certain amount of time
SeanStanard: going back to the walking can focus on your right leg or you can focus on your left, ultimately you need them both and the week one will slow you down(ie; geeks with no social skills)
TLJulyThree: to understand why you seek out intelligence, in my eyes, means to know what type you are a looking for
SeanStanard: rational is a totally different intelligence
TLJulyThree: exactly
SeanStanard: rational is the intelligence that lets you understand all your intelligences
SeanStanard: it is the most important
SeanStanard: (do NOT read: it is the only one that matters)
TLJulyThree: when someone says, "i'm intelligent and i want to surround myself with intelligent people!" my first reaction is: "whoa whoa whoa. First of all, why do you believe you are intelligent? and what do you mean when you say you want to surround yourself with intelligent people?"
SeanStanard: why does that matter?
SeanStanard: why are you the ultimate keeper of teh word intelligence?
TLJulyThree: because i am TL, and if i am not the ultimate keeper of the word intelligence then, no one who is capable, will be
SeanStanard: people ultimately know what they are talking about when they say intelligence. if someone is the worlds best musician and they say that, they are clearly talking about musical talent and not social abilities
TLJulyThree: (joke :-P)
SeanStanard: (i know i got it was a joke)
SeanStanard: lol
SeanStanard: honestyl, the (joke) was more funny than the joke
TLJulyThree: lol
TLJulyThree: see i dont think people understand what they are saying
SeanStanard: they dont need to be conscious of it to understand it
SeanStanard: it just helps a lot
TLJulyThree: see i think if they dont understand it, then they are mislead by it
TLJulyThree: and it leads them into arrogance
SeanStanard: brb, trip to the magical refrigerator of awesomeness
TLJulyThree: AWWWW
TLJulyThree: lucky
SeanStanard is away at 3:24:58 PM.
SeanStanard: back
SeanStanard: so where were we?
TLJulyThree: i hate to do this, but i must do my hwk now. i have a group meeting at 8 today

Auto response from SeanStanard: fa la la la la
thats right, i'm skipping MF!

TLJulyThree: and i feel bad just taking people's answers
SeanStanard: aww its ok. we were mostly done anyways
SeanStanard: LOL
TLJulyThree: lol
TLJulyThree: we have an exam on thurs
TLJulyThree: so i'll only hurt myself
SeanStanard: yeah. ok well have fun with your HW
SeanStanard: ttyl
TLJulyThree: later sean
TLJulyThree: oh really quickly

Auto response from SeanStanard: fa la la la la
thats right, i'm skipping MF!

SeanStanard: ?
TLJulyThree: guess what the next entry will be
SeanStanard: lol iq tests?
TLJulyThree: no. this conversation
TLJulyThree: lol
SeanStanard: lol, nice
SeanStanard: i hate nicole
SeanStanard: wait, is that on record?
SeanStanard: ok ttyl
TLJulyThree: not unless you want it to be
SeanStanard: i was totally jk
TLJulyThree: ok that last statement will not be on the record
TLJulyThree: lol
SeanStanard: lol
TLJulyThree: ok sean have a nice day
SeanStanard: you too