[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 63 KB, 599x589, 1316306566998.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3973757 No.3973757 [Reply] [Original]

Whats the best way to troll women?

>> No.3973760

Wear eyeshadow.

>> No.3973761

Get them right to the point of orgasm and then stop.

>> No.3973762

Be hot and gay

>> No.3973766

Have a perfect body, perfect personality with her, lots of money and everything, but be terrible at sex and cum within minutes.
She will stay with you, but hate the sex.

>> No.3973775

Ignore them, especially the hot ones who get hit on ALL the time.

>> No.3973790

>>3973775

That doesn't troll them.... it just makes them more likely to want you (provided you do it properly- otherwise they'll just think you're being a cripplingly shy omega)

>> No.3973793

>>3973762
>>3973766
Trolling is a choice. These things are not trolling, they can not be helped.

>> No.3973794

>>3973790
How do I do it right so that they want me?

>> No.3973804

>>3973793
then how do I troll females?

>> No.3973819

Move to LA/NYC and be in the entertainment industry. Women want fame, those who can facilitate this will hold all the power.

>> No.3973821

>>3973804
The same way you troll males. Trolling actions are very rarely gender specific.
The best trolls are ones that are amusing to all, even the victim, but are not actually hurtful or exceptionally irritating.
It should be something that they will laugh about later as well.

>> No.3973822

>>3973793
>These things are not trolling, they can not be helped.

She doesn't know that guys who're bad at sex are so because they just don't care. Bless her.

>> No.3973828

refuse their sexual advances in favor of science

>> No.3973829

>>3973804
Don't listen to Harriet, she's a woman. Rape is the best troll. Especially religious girls so that you stand the chance of getting them disowned for aborting the rape baby you've gifted them.

>> No.3973831

>>3973822
That is not true. A lot of men feel very bad about it if they suffer from premature ejaculation, and even seek medication to try to improve themselves.

>>3973828
That is not trolling either, and why could you not have both?

>> No.3973838

>>3973831
>That is not true. A lot of men feel very bad about it if they suffer from premature ejaculation, and even seek medication to try to improve themselves.

Or so they tell you. Besides sex can be a whole damned circus act, premature ejaculation or not, if he's not pleasing you he's not trying hard enough. Not that he should be, sex is a woman's job and a man's right.

>> No.3973841

>>3973838
You make it sounds like a chore. It is not a job, it is a mutually enjoyable activity.

>> No.3973862

Sever her tits.

>> No.3973875

Cum in the hair.

>> No.3973883

If she's into makeup, try breaking all her lipsticks. My sister punched me in the face when she found out I did it to her.

>> No.3973888

>>3973883
Destroying property is not trolling, it is just stupid and wasteful. You owe your sister some new lipsticks.

>> No.3973891

>>3973875

THIS! You've got any fucking idea how long those dumb bitches have to spend to get it all out?

Captcha - the derpymen

>> No.3973892
File: 40 KB, 432x288, 1278338309946.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3973892

I CAN SURE SEE WHY THIS IS CALLED THE SCIENCE AND MATH BOARD

>> No.3973897

>>3973891
That isn't funny, it is just disgusting and stupid. She would never sleep with you again.

>> No.3973898

>>3973897
youd lov it :P

>> No.3973899

>>3973898
No I would not. I do not like mess.

>> No.3973901

>>3973899
Isn't that the purpose of trolling though? One party suffers for the other's amusement?

>> No.3973905

>>3973897

Well, isn't trolling just having fun at others expense?

>> No.3973910
File: 42 KB, 500x694, Wedding-Ring-Troll_c4e4e1c11159e91aaca9c4c33fa88bb3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3973910

something like this would probably be good

>> No.3973912

>>3973897
Apparently just talking about cumming in their hair works too.

>> No.3973920

>>3973912
what happens if you do it to a hooker?

>> No.3973928

Ask them about the list of female scientific achievements.

>> No.3973944

remind them that men deservingly earn more because they do more work.

>> No.3973948
File: 35 KB, 482x522, hmm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3973948

Tell them you know all about women.

>> No.3973951
File: 5 KB, 300x57, res.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3973951

Harriet should be removed.
Since when do we have nametrolls anyways; and female ones to make it worse?

>> No.3973957

>>3973951
she is naively sincere. i think its cute.

>> No.3973961

Say something retarded and when they call you a retard ask if they are on their period.
Whenever they make a sarcastic comment ask if they are on their period.
When they complain about anything ask if they are on their period.

>> No.3973967

>>3973910
Haha! That is a good troll.
You see? trolls should be clever and funny, not mindless and disgusting.

>> No.3973970

>>3973967
>should be

says who

>> No.3973971

>>3973951
Why should I be removed? Why would being female make it worse?

>>3973957
How am I naive?

>> No.3974011

>>3973967

FYI, marriage is one of the most important moments in any woman's life. If you think that joking about it is better than cumming in her hair, you're.. misguided,to say the least

>> No.3974019

Rape them.

>> No.3974020

>>3973971
>How am I naive?

you respond to trolls with genuinely serious responses

>> No.3974024

>>3974011
An important moment in the lives of most women, certainly. Some women never get married at all, Some do not even want to get married.
Joking about it is acceptable. It is a little cruel, but pretending to propose for the sake of humour does not mean that you will never ever propose for real, it just means you are not proposing yet, and thought it might be funny to get her hopes up.

>> No.3974028

>>3974020
Perhaps they are not all trolls, perhaps you are close minded and too quick to dismiss legitimate enquiry.
Stop posting with my name.

>> No.3974032

>>3974024
The woman would have a harder time dealing with the complicated emotions such an action would bring about than she would cleaning semen out her hair.

>> No.3974038

>>3974028
even when it's copypasta?

idontthinksotim

>> No.3974042

Set up a toilet cam to record them pissing and put the video online.

>> No.3974051

>>3974042
I watched one those vids. was a busy public toilet and so many didn't even wipe their pussy

>> No.3974056

>>3974032
I think she would be disappointed and a little upset for a while, but she would quickly come around, and would see the funny side.
This type of psychological manipulation is the core of a good troll, raising them up just to knock them down, it is a little cruel though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZovM93QZRKo
It is similar to this video. The ending is a little upsetting, you can really feel his disappointment. His friends tricked him into thinking he had won the lottery.

>> No.3974062

>>3974056
No she would be confused about whether or not her boyfriend was ever going to propose

>> No.3974085

Rape makes women intensely butthurt. And it lasts anything from years to the rest of their lives.

My theory is that the possibility of sex is how women manipulate men. If sex is taken without their permission, it pretty much makes them powerless and irrelevant.

>> No.3974091

>>3974085
Makes sense

>Rape
>the ultimate troll

>> No.3974095

>>3974091
It is not a troll, it is just a horrible crime.

>> No.3974103

>>3974085
Your theory is wrong. You should know there are cases where the female rapes the male. Besides us guys, we are too easy to gain for sex, so if we made ourselves harder to get, it makes us stand out.

I actually did wrong my ex with the wedding ring stunt and she never forgave me for that.

>> No.3974110

>>3974095
Just what a woman would say.

>>3974103
Female on male rape? The only way that's comparable is if the male was gay. Thus had the mentality of a woman.

>> No.3974120

How do I trick a female into loving me?

>> No.3974122

>>3974095
>opinions

>> No.3974123
File: 49 KB, 436x483, woman_rapist.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3974123

In soviet Russia, woman rapes you.

>> No.3974127

>>3974120
'trick'?
You never will. Love will be genuine or it will simply not occur.

>> No.3974129

>>3974127
Then how do I make a female love me?

>> No.3974133

>>3974129
Love is just chemical reactions generated by certain stimuli. All you have to do is find a way to make her brain react to you in the way of love.

Although I guess that's just rephrasing your question rather than answering it.

Just use rape. It makes loves unnecessary.

>> No.3974140

>>3974123
Oh god, that lucky bastard

>> No.3974143

>>3974129
Be kind and helpful and generous and selfless, and love her in return.

>>3974133
Rape would not be good sex, it would be joyless and would lack intimacy. She would hate you, and you would be arrested and sent to prison. You would be on the news, and the entire world would hate you and your family would disown you.

>>3974140
That is not lucky. She beat him up and starved him. She is also unlikely to be attractive, I do not think an attractive woman would have to resort to raping anyone.

>> No.3974145

>>3974127 and to the OP

You >CAN trick/troll a person into loving you by psycological manipulation. It will be very short(witin a span of a month), but short enough for you to sleep with her and her feeling very stupid for doing so(sometimes). Players gonna play, haters gonna hate, but it won't be genuine love if you play.

>> No.3974147

>>3974129

not sure if trolling..

Try chloroform

>> No.3974150

>>3974145
All love is genuine. It's just easier to make someone love you if you pretend that the feeling is mutual.

>> No.3974152

>>3974150
No it is not. True love is rare.

>> No.3974160

>>3974152
What you're calling "true love" is just a lasting mutual love that satisfies both. This is the best kind of love, but it doesn't make any other kind untrue. Since they're all just the brains reactions to certain chemicals and hormones. Some are just stronger than others.

>> No.3974161

>>3974152
What is true love then and how do I achieve it?

>> No.3974165

>>3974152
This is the science and math board, right? Am I on the wrong board?

>> No.3974171

>>3974165
Don't take anything women say seriously.

>> No.3974176

>>3974161
Most people never do. You can not control it, if it happens it happens. And then it controls you, it is unbreakable.
The word love is so misused because it is common for people to misidentify lust for love.

>>3974165
The feeling of love is related to psychology, which is a science.

>>3974171
Sexism is a character flaw.

>> No.3974182

>>3974176
What is the difference between love and lust

>> No.3974187

>>3974161

Or you could cheat and feed her chocolate all day long. Bitches love chocolate.

Still, your girl would turn into a whale, so it's not the best option.

Oh, and don't really listen to them - they mostly have no idea what they want themselves (best example - every single girl wants a protective, sweet, understanding and caring BF, while being attracted to a nearby alpha which usually is an asshole - but an asshole with style).

>> No.3974188

>>3974176
>Most people never do. You can not control it, if it happens it happens. And then it controls you, it is unbreakable.
The word love is so misused because it is common for people to misidentify lust for love.

This a popular plot line for novels. But it doesn't occur in reality, and people who live expecting it are going to be very disappointed.

>psychology a science

Sure it is. Just like biology, right?

>Sexism is a character flaw.

Stating your opinion as fact is one of the things women do that makes it wrong to take them seriously.

>> No.3974196

>>3974182
Feelings of lust fluctuate, your lust falls when you have recently been sexually satisfied. Lust is not rare, you can feel it for multiple people, even at the same time.
Love is far stronger, and is always strong. It is not even sexual on it's own, although lust does often accompany it.

>> No.3974199

>>3974182
When the love is the product of hormones, there is none. But maybe this would be better described as a sexual obsession rather than love. Love itself transcends mere sexuality and manifests itself as a very powerful bond.

People dilute the meaning of love by using it in inappropriate situations though. When you marry the girl you fucked in highschool chances are you're not in love. The majority of marriages are based on attraction rather than love actually. Which is why the majority of them fall apart later.

>> No.3974200

OK look tripfags, we don't care what color you are or what sex you are, neither age. This is a science board and your opinions, are regarded as personal observations. If you want to know more about love, scientifically, just ask away. This is an interesting subject, but keep it formal and not too opinionated without empirical arguments.

>> No.3974202

>>3974188
You are trolling. Biology is also a science.

That was more than opinion. Everybody dislikes sexist people, and for good reason.
Your relationships with other human beings will suffer for your bigotry.

>> No.3974211

>>3974200
How do I trick a female into having sex with me?

>> No.3974215

>>3974202
Everybody believes in life after death, for good reason. I suppose that makes it true in your thinking, which again is why said thinking shouldn't be taken seriously. Women are on average quite irrational compared to men, and given to the habit of manipulating reality to support their views rather the other way around.

>> No.3974216 [DELETED] 

>>3973757
If you want to learn how to troll women you need a definition of women first.

<span class="math">Definition:
Let F and M be two sets \neq \emptyset. For two sets V, W we define the \sigma-Function as following:

\sigma(v,w) : V x W \to {0,1} , (f,m) \mapsto

With the following rules:
1. \sigma(v,w) = \sigma(w,v) = 1 \forall v\in V, w\in W
2. \sigma(v,v) = \sigma(w,w) = 0 \forall v\in V, w\in W

For V = F, and W = M we call \sigma the \mathbf{Elementary Attraction Function} and any f\in F a female and m \in M a male. Any tuple (f,m)\in FxM is called a \mathbf{female with associated male}, or \mathbf{male with associated female}, or \mathbf{couple}.[/spoiler]

Try working out more definitions and some propositions and I'm sure you will succeed.

>> No.3974218

>>3974127
How naive of you.

You can trick any person into anything.
It's a question of how intelligent the person being deceived is vs. the deceiver.

'Genuine love' does not exist in a romantic context.
The 'business deal' may vary on the spectrum of good vs bad however.

Non-genuine love is the only love that can occur because people are never genuine. People must be deceitful to get what they want from others. You think your loved one doesnt tell you want you want to hear?

You think your loved one does not lie to you?

I feel sorry for you, no doubt you hold some type of 'the one' ish and some notion of 'unique special bonds' between individuals. Next thing you'll be telling me that human beings are 100% monogamous and generally only 'mate for life'.

>>3974143
>selfless
Implying human being arent inherently selfish.
Implying that a romantic relationship isnt the epitome of selfishness.

>I do not think an attractive woman would have to resort to raping anyone
You do understand rape is more to do with power rather than sex right?

>> No.3974228

>>3974216
welcome to /sci/

>> No.3974231

>>3974152
Define 'True love'

>>3974176
> And then it controls you, it is unbreakable
Why would you want anything so grotesque controlling you?

You do realise that couples almost always break up, if anything love is very breakable.

>> No.3974237

>>3973757
If you want to learn how to troll women you need a definition of women first.

Definition:
Let F and M be two sets <span class="math">\neq \emptyset[/spoiler]. For two sets V, W we define the <span class="math">\sigma[/spoiler]-Function as following:

<span class="math">\sigma(v,w) : V x W \to {0,1} , (f,m) \mapsto \sigma(v,w)[/spoiler]

With the following rules:
1. <span class="math">\sigma(v,w) = \sigma(w,v) = 1 \forall v\in V, w\in W[/spoiler]
2. <span class="math">\sigma(v,v) = \sigma(w,w) = 0 \forall v\in V, w\in W[/spoiler]

For V = F, and W = M we call <span class="math">\sigma[/spoiler] the <span class="math">\mathbf{Elementary Attraction Function}[/spoiler] and any <span class="math">f\in F[/spoiler] a female and <span class="math">m \in M[/spoiler] a male. Any tuple <span class="math">(f,m)\in FxM[/spoiler] is called a <span class="math">\mathbf{female with associated male}[/spoiler], or <span class="math">\mathbf{male with associated female}[/spoiler], or <span class="math">\mathbf{couple}[/spoiler].

Try working out more definitions and some propositions and I'm sure you will succeed.

>> No.3974241

>>3974231
>Why would you want anything so grotesque controlling you?

Why do junkies want to get high no matter the consequence?

>> No.3974248

>>3974202

I am sexist. I've got a few close friends both male and female, and a lot of acquaintances, and most of them laugh at most of my 'sexist' statements rather that get butthurt. Sure, they are quite a few feminists who would like nothing more than to scratch my eyeballs out, but to me they're alike to a mud on my shoe. Being sexist will actually get you quite a lot of man-friends if you're witty about it, which are definitely better to keep in touch than girls.

Neither have I much problems with getting laid - most sensible women don't really care unless it's over-the-top.

So, yeah, opinion =/= fact

>> No.3974259

>>3974241
Because the human ape with its slightly hyped up bestial consciousness is nothing but an animal ruled solely by hedonistic impulses and selfish goals.

Love is much like an addiction to drugs.

>> No.3974270

>>3974231
If they are in love they would not break up. Neither of them would want to. Losing one another is the last thing either of them would ever want to do.

>> No.3974275

>>3974270
>If they are in love they would not break up.
Plenty of couples 'in love' break up for myriad reasons.

>Neither of them would want to. Losing one another is the last thing either of them would ever want to do.
That might be true for the present time but

a) things change
b) if another person comes along that is 'better' then they will weigh up the options and might decide to shed their old relationship
c) sometimes you dont get what you want in life and things happen that you cant control

Btw, I would love you to define this 'true love' you speak of.

>> No.3974281
File: 83 KB, 500x318, 28734687234.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3974281

After a long relationship, get with her best friend. Tell old bitch, "I can't believe I wasted <span class="math">x[/spoiler] years with you when I could've been with her. She's awesome."

Old bitch will never talk to you again.

>> No.3974285

>>3974275
They are not in love, they are deluding themselves, perhaps they feel that they would like to be in love, so they convince themselves that they are.
Like I said, true love is very rare.

No, you do not understand. Love does not change, it is not possible for somebody else to come along 'who is better' because you are in love.

I do not think I can accurately define it. It is the strongest and most pure emotion you can possibly feel for another human being. So much so that you care more for them than you care for yourself.

>> No.3974304

>>3974285
>They are not in love, they are deluding themselves
It's good that you admit love is a delusion.
By your definition 99% people on this planet would not be 'in true love'.

Maybe that means your notion is very idealistic and ridiculous.

>perhaps they feel that they would like to be in love, so they convince themselves that they are.
Most people do this.

>Like I said, true love is very rare.
Define true love properly.

>No, you do not understand. Love does not change, it is not possible for somebody else to come along 'who is better' because you are in love.
Love changes because everything changes.
Im not arguing that relationships cannot evolve but it's just as likely you will fall out of love then falling in love. Both can and will happen, given certain circumstances.

People are not unique snowflakes neither are their bonds.

>I do not think I can accurately define it.
Then stop talking. If you cannot define the terms you use or provide any context you are just using vague meaningless words, meaning intelligent discussion is impossible.

>It is the strongest and most pure emotion you can possibly feel for another human being.
What does this mean? 'Strongest' / 'pure' ? Care to elaborate?

That might be so, but it's still pretty selfish. You only love the other person for what they provide you with, if the supplier fails to meet demand, a new supplier will be found.

> So much so that you care more for them than you care for yourself.
Just because a parent will die for their offspring doesnt imply some magical bond, it just means kin selection is at work. If the offspring was found out to not be the offspring of the parents, things would change.

>> No.3974323

>>3974304
>Define true love properly.
It is difficult to explain, and I do not fully understand it. Perhaps nobody does yet.

>Love changes because everything changes.
Some things do not change. The laws of physics for example.

>Just because a parent will die for their offspring doesnt imply some magical bond, it just means kin selection is at work.
That is not the same thing. It is true love felt for someone who is not related to you.

>> No.3974326
File: 7 KB, 136x122, hurr durr ek2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3974326

1.See girl you know walking down the street.
2.Go up behind her and suprise her by pushing in behind her and grabbing her shoulders (women HATE this)
3.While you're doing step two, shout RAPE as loud as you can.
4. If she doesn't have a heart attack it will have been a successful troll

>> No.3974333

>>3974323
>Some things do not change. The laws of physics for example.

We're still not sure that they haven't changed, until we find a solid UFT that seems to work, it's entirely possible they've altered in the early history of the universe.

>> No.3974335

>>3974326
The real EK uses a tripcode. If you want a name you should choose one for yourself, and not copy from other users or it will become confusing.

>> No.3974338

>>3974323
>Perhaps nobody does yet.
Nobody can understand what you're saying because you cannot explain it. That's your problem not everyone elses.

>Love changes because everything changes.
>The laws of physics for example.
Yeah of course not.
We've been using the same scientific theories since day 1 and will continue to do so.

Every changes, it's inevitable. I never said anything about likelihood though.

>That is not the same thing. It is true love felt for someone who is not related to you.
The analogy was meant to illustrate how ridiculous your notion of 'true love' is.
It's far from pure because it involves two very selfish beings that want to rape each other of their resources.

If you want pure, then go and love every man including the lepers.
If your fellow men decide to crucify you, just forgive them.

That is what I call true love. It exists above and beyond any romantic construct.

If you think the people who arent in 'true love' are deluded, well it's turns out you are still as deluded, if not more deluded.
Because what you are saying flies in the face of human nature and how human being operate.

>> No.3974347

>>3974338
Are you trying to argue that true love does not exist?

>> No.3974349

>>3974347
Im arguing that your notion of it doesn't.

>> No.3974353

>>3974349
It does.
Perhaps I did not explain it properly.

>> No.3974363

>>3974353
It does in your own head no doubt, but that has no basis in reality.

I suggest you stop talking about it until you learn how to explain it properly to others. I say this purely as advice, because I think most people will think you are either very immature or an idiot or both if you try talking about it.

Up to you to heed it or not though.

>> No.3974367

>>3974363
I disagree, but I will heed the advice.
This is not a subject I am particularly good at talking about.

>> No.3974370

>This is not a subject I am particularly good at talking about.
>implying there is a subject you're particularly good at talking about.

>> No.3974371

>>3974363
One last point though:
>It does in your own head no doubt, but that has no basis in reality.
This is true regarding every single emotion, including love.

However, actions are determined by emotions, and these do have effects on reality.

>> No.3974382
File: 88 KB, 500x375, plz-stop-post.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3974382

>>3974353
Is it just me, or almost all of the threads that you contribute to turn into some kind of a bitch-fest?

>> No.3974384

>>3974382
No, I do not think I have ever responded angrily. It is a good discussion.

>> No.3974385

>>3974120
positive reinforcement

every time she's close to you, reward her in some way

>> No.3974386

>>3974367
Good rule of thumb is never talk about anything you dont know anything about otherwise you look like an ignorant buffoon.

>>3974371
>This is true regarding every single emotion, including love.
My point was that, just because you think something is correct in your own reality doesnt mean it's correct for real reality (aka the one we all share).

This goes for everything, including emotions and love. Sure your subjective feelings are very real and true to you, but unless you get some type of consensus with others, you could be deluded. Hence the importance of explaining yourself properly.

>However, actions are determined by emotions, and these do have effects on reality.
Emotions and reason. All actions effect reality. What are you talking about? What point are you making?

>>3974382
I dont post here often but it's not a good look having people like Harriet represent your community imo. But you get bad apples everywhere I guess.

>> No.3974393

The womens world record for 100m sprint is slower then the mens paralympics world record for 100m sprint, a retarded man can run faster then the faster woman ever. Also a healthy man must run at a speed equivalent to a female's world record just to qualify for a state team. Those 2 statements should make a bitch mad.

>> No.3974394

>>3974393
Did they allow artificial legs in the paralympics? Because holy shit that's so cheating.

>> No.3974397

>>3974393
if you want to make them truly mad, target their mental/intellectual ability as well.

bring up how more Nobel prize winners are males or how the best thinkers in all fields were/are male.

>> No.3974398

>>3974385
That sounds a little condescending. She is a human being, not some dog to be trained.

>> No.3974400

>>3974371
i'm sorry, something can't "have no basis in reality" but "affect reality" at the same time

>> No.3974410

>>3974384
You'd call this thread a good discussion? I beg to differ.

It's not that you 'respond angrily', flame, etc. It's just that you have a specific type of responding to people, bit too big ego, and often try to argue moot, irrelevant things (guy's age in the other thread, for example). But, surely, you CAN see that alot of trolls respond to you all the time and CAN understand that it's not really advancing /sci/ as a whole?

And seeing as there's only very few people like that, perhaps not everyone else is the problem?

>> No.3974413

>>3974398
implying human beings and dogs arent both animals and dont both respond to positive conditioning
implying we dont all use positive/negative conditioning with everyone we meet albeit mostly unconsciously

condescending would be implying that women are the same as children.

>>3974400
This person was implying that if one holds this notion of 'true love' that it will change their actions and thus shape reality.
However what Harriet does not understand is, if a person is deluded what they think will happen and what actually happens are two totally different things.

Hence a rude awakening will follow when a person realises that 'true love' does not exist or at least all their experiences will not reflect that conclusion. But you will be surprised how long they will cling onto this delusion because hope is better than the harsh truth.

>> No.3974415

>>3974410
Well I enjoyed the discussion.
If trolls respond to me, that is their choice.

>> No.3974418

>>3974398
Newsflash - if a guy wants a girl to 'last' with him awhile, but is unwilling to change his entire lifestyle for her, it's just what he needs to do.

>> No.3974427

>>3974413
You have not found true love yourself, and it is rare, so you are guessing that perhaps it is impossible.
It is not.
One would not suppose that just because the element, Au, Gold, is rare, and you have not personally seen it with your own eyes, you would not argue that the element itself does not actually exist at all.

>> No.3974431

>>3974020

Or does he?

>> No.3974433

>>3974427
>You have not found true love yourself
That's not really an argument. You havent found it ergo you're wrong.
Im saying that I couldnt find it even if I wanted to because it doesnt exist.

>and it is rare, so you are guessing that perhaps it is impossible.
Im not arguing if it is rare or not, but that it does not exist at all.

Your element analogy makes no sense because:

1. I said it doesnt exist at all
2. Im not saying it doesnt exist because it's rare but because... I dont think it exists

Dont know if I can make that anymore clear.

>> No.3974437

>>3974433
One who had found the element gold would know for certain that the doubter is wrong, no matter what he says.

>> No.3974443

>>3974437
except all you have is fool's gold

>> No.3974445

>>3974437
This is the worst logical argument I've heard in months.

"If it's possible for someone to say that they have perceived x, it's wrong to say x does not exist"

>> No.3974450

>>3974437
That mean anything, unless the evidence is independently verified and the theory stands up to scrutiny.

You are on /sci/ and you seem to know nothing about scientific method or arguing with an ounce of logic.

Baffling to say the least.

>>3974445
I agree.

No point talking about a concept that hasnt been fully explained anyway.
It's really my fault I should of walked away after I heard, 'I cannot explain it fully but'.

>> No.3974451

>>3974450
The means nothing***

>> No.3974462

>>3974393
that's not true.
women's record is 10.49, handicapped man record is 10.62

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_metres
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IPC_world_records_in_athletics#100_m_2

>> No.3974483

>>3974443
That is not an element, it is a compound.

>>3974445
That is not what I said.

>> No.3974488

okay just what's your argument FOR true love's existance harriet

>> No.3974490

>>3974483
>That is not an element, it is a compound.

But what if you THOUGHT it was an element? You'd still go around your entire life saying "GOLD IS REAL, I'VE SEEN IT," which is of course inaccurate.

>> No.3974496

>>3974488

It's a true love, maan! How can you say that it's, like, not existing?

>> No.3974498

>>3974496
I DON'T KNOW MAYBE CALLING IT "TRUE" LOVE IS AN ABUSE OF NOTATION

MAYBE IT'S NOT TRUE AT ALL

>> No.3974500

>>3974488
It exists an an emotion, just like all emotions do, because we define emotions by how they make us feel.
It would be like asking what is my argument for the existence of the feelings of hunger,or sadness.

>> No.3974501

>>3974488

clearly it is 'ex posteriori'.. if two people stayed together happily their entire lives, clearly it was 'true love'

>> No.3974502

>>3974490
Then you would be wrong, but in this case, I am not.

>> No.3974504

>>3974500
Hunger can be defined by an observable altered behavior in animals along with a measurable hormone rise. Sadness can be measured through CAT scans and hormone levels.

>> No.3974507

I like to think that this thread is a great example for the OP. Harriet got trolled for quite some time. You can see it here or there in her posts, she was ....upset.

>> No.3974508

>>3974504
Love can also be seen in brain scans, and also alters behaviour and hormone levels.

>> No.3974509

>>3974507

Except 'Harriet' is a fat Scotsman... who really got trolled?

>> No.3974510

>>3974508
Absolutely true.

But 'true' love?

>> No.3974512

>>3974508
cite yo sources

>> No.3974513

>>3974500
>It exists an an emotion, just like all emotions do, because we define emotions by how they make us feel.
No doubt. But could you explain what makes 'true love' different from 'regular love' in a romantic construct?

>It would be like asking what is my argument for the existence of the feelings of hunger,or sadness.
What would be interesting is comparing 'true hunger' with 'hunger' or 'true sadness' with 'sadness.
When you put it like that, it seems quite a ridiculous notion.

>>3974501
Which is quite silly because that love is no different to any other love you see from any other couples, fundamentally at least.

A way to end this discussion is to see the notion of 'true love' as a symptom of one's life.
So lets analyse the disease. Why would such a person want to hold the notion of 'true love'.

A person who does not like the notion of 'regular love'. Why is this I wonder?
What circumstances have caused a person to come to the conclusion that 'true love' is better/superior and thus desirable?

>> No.3974520

>>3974500
okay let's go with your love<->hunger metaphor

what you're saying is like "that starving kid in somalia? well he's not /really/ hungry because, you see, after a couple nightmarish years he'll be adopted by an european family and be well fed all his life. That's not /true/ hunger."

>> No.3974524

>>3974509
I am from London. Why do you people keep saying I am fat? Is this just a default insult you resort to when you know nothing about the person and can not form any good arguments, so you resort to name calling?

>>3974510
Yes, behaviour and brain chemicals are altered.

>>3974512
I am not sure. wikipedia might be a good start.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_basis_for_love

>> No.3974532

>>3974524
harriet i think you're missing something

we're not arguing that love doesn't exist

we're arguing that your "true love" is bullshit

>> No.3974533

>>3974524

I say you are 'fat' because the phrase 'fat Scotsman' has a better ring to it.

>> No.3974538

>>3974532
Perhaps I came across wrong. There is not 2 types of love, there is no regular love and 'true' love.
There is only love.
But people can be in love, or they can think they are in love, and these are not the same thing.

>> No.3974541

>>3974533
I do not care what 'ring' it has to it. Making up lies about another person is dishonest and is not productive to anything in any way.

>> No.3974545

>>3974524
>The chemicals triggered that are responsible for passionate love and long-term attachment love seem to be more particular to the activities in which both persons participate rather than to the nature of the specific people involved.

That's...interesting.

>> No.3974549

>>3974541

No Entity with Identity... therefore, you aren't a 'people'

>> No.3974552

>>3974549
you put the word 'people' in quote marks, but I did not use that word anywhere in my last post.
I am a person.

>> No.3974554

>>3974538
okay then

do those studies prove that love is something that never changes as you claimed?

>> No.3974555

>>3974538
Why use that term then?
How do you know if two people are truly in love?

Seems like what you are trying to say is that there is a difference between 'good' and 'bad' relationships.

And I find any love in a romantic relationship to be a bad thing anyway, even if the people are truly in love.

You seem to flipflop around and arent really stating your point or any point at all.

>> No.3974560

>>3974555
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_theory#Attachment_in_adults

I think this is related to the discussion.

>> No.3974563

give them equality, REAL equality

>> No.3974565

>>3974554
the 'love chemicals' change.
The fact that you are in love, permanently, and aware that you are in love, does not change.

>>3974555
You do not know.
If they break up very easily, clearly it was not true love. While the relationship is still ongoing, you can not be sure.

>> No.3974567

>>3974565
>If they break up very easily, clearly it was not true love. While the relationship is still ongoing, you can not be sure.

Wow, what a useless concept.

>> No.3974574

>>3974565
that's not something i am going to believe

love ends just like all other emotions end when your situation changes

>> No.3974578

There was a thread about this topic before. I found it.
http://archive.installgentoo.net/cgi-board.pl/sci/thread/3832915

>> No.3974581

>>3974574
>love ends just like all other emotions end when your situation changes
Of course.

But people will often keep the situation the same so it doesnt have to end.

I liken this to diluting your individuality, freedom or power for the sake of a relationship aka compromise.
The two individuals both live for the bond and die for it, the bond is more important than themselves.

The bond is an effective transfer of resources between the supplier and demander (on both sides), you have to weigh up whether it's better to stay with the existing supplier and work things out or if a new one is needed.

Just because you have a successful business contract your whole life, doesnt mean that it was or is impossible for it have been voided, it's just chance. Human beings by nature are polygamous apes and they do not 'mate-for-life' in the same way penguins do.

I personally dislike the selfishness of this contract, I view it as a rape contest and I feel that my individuality is restrained because I am forced to cut pieces of myself off for the sake of a relationship. I can just stay alone and retain my full self, however I will miss out on the benefits of such a relationship (however if I choose that none of the benefits are of value to me, then I win).

The problem is getting to this state.

>> No.3974584

>>3974578
Oh how hilarious, I was in that thread too.

This post was mine:

"
Do you think that 'pure love' can exist, where both parties love each other unconditionally in an almost child-like state?

Like if both people were permanently on mdma or something.

Can two inherently selfish beings create a totally non-selfish relationship?

How does one overcome the 'hedgehog dilemma'."

Ironically I came to the same conclusion, no-one gave me a proper answer.

Great thead btw everyone should read it.

>> No.3974590

>>3974584
It was a good thread.
When did you start posting with a name? You were anonymous in the other thread.

>> No.3974596

>>3974590
It was left on accidentally, so I thought I would roll with it.

No-one in that thread replied to me much.

You did not provide me any answers on your notion of 'pure love' either and how to foster it.

It's quite saddening that you havent made much progress in your explanation of it, given that thread was almost 1 month ago.

>> No.3974600

How do I trick a female into having coitus with me?

>> No.3974601

>>3974581
i'm not sure what you're arguing either

also I don't think this "selfishness" you see here is bad? I mean it that's selfish everything anybody would ever want to do is selfish and terrible too

and that's not an idea i like

>> No.3974605

>>3974596
I replied to you in the thread.
by pure love I just mean that the love you feel is the real thing, and you are not just deluding yourself.

>> No.3974611

>>3974605

how do you tell which one is it?

>> No.3974614

>>3974605
did you know that EK mocks you for not having a sex life?

>> No.3974623

>>3974601
My argument is that romantic love is a waste of time.

>I mean it that's selfish everything anybody would ever want to do is selfish and terrible too
Not necessarily at all.

It is possible to over come this condition. It implies something quite radical though, like removing all desire from your being or embodying the golden rule 100% of the time.

You can have what I call 'transcendental love' or 'pure love' where one only views a person as a living organism nothing more, and you have unconditional compassion towards them, so much so that you would die for any man even if they have hurt you greatly.

Such a state can only exist if you have a shift in consciousness and have the ability to completely hold steadfastly to your intellectual ideals.

>>3974605
You can never be sure though, because you can never fully know what another person is thinking. Plus if you were deluded you wouldnt know you were deluded because if you did, you wouldnt be deluded anymore.

>> No.3974625

>>3974611
As I said, you cant always tell until after it has ended. Then it probably was not true love. http://archive.installgentoo.net/cgi-board.pl/sci/thread/3836438#p3837544

>>3974614
She should not have mentioned it, it was not relevant to the thread.
But what is said is said.

>> No.3974626

Harriet when are you going to lose your virginity?

Sorry if this is too personal. I don't do small talk

>> No.3974628

>>3974625
Will you have coitus with me?

>> No.3974631

>>3974628
first you have to trick her
hohoho back on topic!

>> No.3974632

>>3974623
the kind of relationship you seem to like sounds really harmful and codependent to me

>> No.3974634

>>3974626
Obviously I do not know when. I can not predict the future.

>> No.3974637

>>3974634
Well how would you like it to go down?

This is an important question and pertains to female psychology (science).I need to know how to seduce virgins.

>> No.3974640

>>3974632
Did you mean to link to me? You are referring to EK?
She is nicer in person, honest.

>> No.3974642

>>3974632
Yes harmful to the individual practising it.

But personally I would rather be crucified by my fellow men then be a selfish animal.
I am already content with committing 'evolutionary suicide'.

>>3974637
Co-dependent in what way?

>>3974637
>I need to know how to seduce virgins.
Treat them like they are in a state of arrested development.

>> No.3974643

>>3974637
I do not know

>> No.3974653
File: 2 KB, 126x95, 1310058482562s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3974653

>>3974643
you're a big tease

>> No.3974660

>>3974643
Will you have coitus with me please?

>> No.3974662

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangular_theory_of_love The closest thing that harriet seems to be arguing is consummate love but as said it is not permanent

>> No.3974669

>>3974662
what about a theory of love that incorporates independence? too much to ask?