Consept

My point is fairly simple, I'm just saying it is extremely rare that there is unconditional love in romantic relationships. By saying you're not willing to accept the ugly (as well as the beautiful in a relationship) , creates a condition, thereby making it conditional love. My point with the mother and child is that the mother is more likely to accept the ugly in her child, making it closer to unconditional.

I came across this channel and found it really interesting. Basically this chica is a diagnosed sociopath and narcissist and setup a YouTube channel to take away the stigma there is toward those with her condition. I must say I learnt a lot from her vids as normally when this topic is talked about it frames then as evil, which I understand the reasons for but it's good to her insight from someone who has it and is self aware

Well I said acceptance of the good, bad and ugly, which includes the beautiful, you seem to be saying you only want the beautiful. If you switch it to say a mother's love for their child, the child may not always be beautiful but the mother will accept all sides of the child, ugly or otherwise. This type of relationship is the closest to unconditional love imo. If you think of 'God's love' it is about pure acceptance, for example in the Bhagavad-Gita God shows his true form which includes the good, bad and ugly to Arjuna who can't handle it. With romantic relationships, you yourself are saying that the ugly shouldn't be accepted within this and this is even a scarcity mindset. But this seems to be a conditional arrangement based on the other person meeting whatever criteria you have, which is very different to the examples I've laid out.

Where did I say that?

Is this not a contradiction though? How can there be unconditional love without acceptance?

@Preety_India it's not that 'romantic love' is impossible to get, it just feels like it comes with a lot of preconceived, naive, notions of what love is. What this then turns into is people being unhappy in perfectly good relationships just because it doesn't fit the description of this all encompassing love. Real relationships should include the good, bad and ugly, that is specifically what love is, acceptance. If you're not able to accept something because it's less than your idea of love then paradoxically it can't be love.

So first of all this is an overall look at this, its not necessarily personal to me in that im looking for justification for anything, i just think its an interesting talking point, here goes. Recently with lockdown being relaxed here in the UK ive had a chance to meet more people socially, some of which were female friends. We got into discussions about and around the title topic and i came to interesting perspective. So majority of women, if you ask them what their ideal situation is, are looking for one partner that they respect, that they look up to, that for lack of a better term is their 'one', someone they can put all their energy into and who will put all their energy into them (this is for marriage or long term). If you ask men they may say the same thing but if you get a bit deeper most men would be happy to sleep with other women if it was relatively easy and if their partner was cool with it (most partners wont be but you know ideal world). They would like to keep their partner as the main woman of course. (this will be different for different men of course but im not necessarily arguing about that). Now heres the thing, when asked what would be the worse thing for your partner to do, cheat emotionally or cheat physically, men said they wouldnt want their partner to cheat physically and women said they wouldnt want their partner to cheat emotionally. In society physical cheating is seen as the only real cheating, thats the dealbreaker and if someone does that to you, you should leave them. Keep in mind though if a woman is satisfied sexually and emotionally with one person she most likely will not physically cheat. Men feel a strong obligation not to cheat, due to society pressure and so it sometimes is not even a consideration as its a bad thing. Heres the kicker though, if women feel that emotional connection is worse than physical with someone else then they should consider deep friendships they have with men cheating and actually worse than physical cheating by their own standards. You might say well you can be friends and it be plutonic, yes this can be true but usually someone in the equation is in the friend zone, meaning that one party can say to the other 'lets sleep together' and the other will be up for it. Usually its the guy thats in the friend zone. So in this scenario the woman is able to have an emotional connection with this male friend and get his time, his energy etc, but what he might want deep down, hes not getting. As an example one of the girls i talked to recently has a 'male friend', who likes her and she only gives him attention when she breaks up with someone shes saying, she never sleeps with him, but he constantly pays her attention and gives compliments etc. She basically gets her emotional and validation needs met temporarily before she meets someone more serious. This is not a unique situation. If you reverse the situation and say mens needs are more sexual, they do have emotional needs of course but theres more emphasis on the sexual needs. If I said theres a girl that l know likes me but i dont take her seriously for a relationship, i just give her a call when i break up with someone else to have sex and hang out, people would think im a user and terrible person. This also follows in long term relationships and marriages, women might have other male friends, these friends could be fulfilling certain emotional needs, maybe their partner doesnt listen to them as much or whatever. Now im not saying theres even anything wrong with this, in a way it makes sense, why shouldnt you get your needs met? But why does it not apply to men who want their needs met? Men tend to have a desire for variety sexually, as evidenced by the numerous porn categories, so this desire is there, but what we're told is to completely stuff this need and forget about it. But by the same token women are allowed to have their emotional needs met by multiple men, which they themselves consider to be the worse form of cheating. Keep in mind also humans were mostly polygamous or polyamorous for centuries, within their tribes. Even now its common place in tribal societies, to have multiple wives, assuming you have the resources to look after them. This is done because the first wife can no longer take over all the needs of the man, she basically is happy to get a younger wife to come and help. Im not saying this is perfect either, im just saying its interesting how if you grow up in another society your take on what we think are big issues is completely different. Anyway this is more to spark up discussion, so hopefully people wont get triggered, but interested to hear other viewpoints.

From your original post it sounds like the fantasy you had of the perfect girl only really existed in your mind. Once you 'got it' you no longer wanted it because the real image could never live up to the mental image. Also in fantasies its more about what the person can do for you and how their perfection will enhance your life in some way. The fact is the reality can never live up to this, this isnt limited to relationships, it can happen with jobs, businesses, holidays, whatever. Our minds are amazing in what they can create but on the flip they can almost ruin reality. I think true progression will just be the acceptance of reality for what it is and not think that some particular outcome or achievement will enhance or complete you in anyway. I also agree with your sentiments that its good to get things so that you realise their limitations and then you can stop basing your life on these things. Anyway its all progress so happy for you that you had this realisation

Consider thats how youre interpreting it but its not necessarily my intention. To me its not whether one sex has it easier or not, if we weigh it up its probably even, for example if you take a man and a woman who are considered unattractive physically, the man has a much better opportunity to get a more attractive woman because the stuff he can work on is considered attractive by women (financial, personality etc). Because men tend to be more physically orientated its harder for a woman not considered attractive to land an attractive male. Thats just example but again i dont really like to use the term disadvantaged as there are pros and cons of being any identity, it would be quite simplistic to say a whole gender is disadvantaged. What im more looking at is perspectives that hold true when looking at statistics but are not really discussed in everyday society, which is what i presented in the argument. Yeah 100%, the guy is putting her on a pedestal and getting a pretty crap deal in the process, this would be the same if a guy was just using a girl for sex and she thought it was something more, she would also need to learn her 'game' and not be played. This is my point, this argument is just showing the other side of the coin.

This is the thing im not trying to come across as a gender war type discussion, my point is more its understandable that women might want more emotional connections with more people as they are more inclined to want that. Men are more inclined to want more variety with sexual partners, im not saying either is wrong or bad, im just saying both should be more acceptable if it works for people. The double standards dont necessarily annoy me or anything like that, i just think we should find a way to get everyones needs met without deomonising, in this case, men. The other thing is that ive probably not defined emotional 'cheating'. Im not saying every friendship will be that, but there are certain friendships that women have that can be seen as closer than a normal friendship and within this friendship they get things that they would do in a traditional relationship. The example is used with my friend who has a male 'friend' that she only bothers with in between relationships, this is obviously not a normal friendship relationship. I also feel a lot of friendships between men and women, the woman knows that the man might have feelings for them but also knows they can get validation and attention from them. As i said this isnt to say that purely plutonic relationships cant exist but im not talking about them in this instance

Fair points and im sure they are valid reasons toward the tribal occurrence. Its also interesting to note that most other primate species, in fact all but one, operate in the same sexual way tribally. Which would be to say that if we take wholesale that this had to change because of larger populations, it still wouldnt be 'natural' to our species, evidenced by the fact that there has always been a high level of infidelity despite these social restrictions. The other thing is that marriage say before modern times, was really about 'owning' women, so it was more in the mans favour and was rarely to do with love. It meant the man could guarantee his line with his wife but then also be able to sleep with other women, thats where we get terms like bastard from. It also meant that women could not exercise these options and which is why theres been such a negative connotation put on female sexuality through the years. The modern western idea of marrying for love and marrying the one, is fairly new and only dates back around 150 years ago through writings and poetry. Previously 'love' wouldve most likely been that affair someone had that was too risky so they had to go back their partner. This is really the crux of it. When women say they dont want their partner cheating emotionally it doesnt mean they have sex with someone else, it means that they form an emotional connection with someone else (sharing feelings, spending time together etc). As i said women see this as worse than actual physical cheating, reason being once you make an emotional connection with someone else its hard to hold more than one at a time. So women are of course worried about the guy leaving them. Im sure they wouldnt be happy if he had sex with someone else but it may not end the relationship. My point is that women by their own standards of whats the worse way of cheating for them, often 'cheat' emotionally with other men although they may not have sex with them. Potentially this could be because they have more emotional needs and can have these relationships without it turning to sex, usually however the 'friend' would have sex if given the chance. On the other side of the coin, men can have sexual relationships without connecting emotionally, although the 'sex partner' might want a more emotional connection. These are just core differences in men and womens operating systems. The thing is one side is completely accepted by society but the other side is seen as almost evil. You mentioned spiral dynamics as well and this tribal thing as a lower aspect, however, when you look forward green and above monogamy kind of goes out the window as people tend to accept these desires and find a way to embrace them, although it is very difficult to come to a solution. If you notice strict monogamy is really a staple of blue and it comes into orange but more for appearances as many cheat or push the boundaries of it if they can.

I think a talent can be a couple of factors, one is that you have a natural body type that is perfectly suited to whatever the pursuit is, for example height is gonna help you with basketball, Usain Bolt is almost the perfect shape to give him an advantage in 100m, maybe you could have longer fingers to play piano etc. Second is belief, passion and love for the activity, I think this is what sets people apart. Michael Jordan and Michael Jackson loved what they did so much that they practiced from a very young age and become experts in their field. They were willing to practice and learn more than anyone else which is what made them better than anyone else. Without the passion they wouldn't have become what they became and no would've said they were 'talented'.

Checkout coffeezilla on YouTube

No problem bro, haha what happened in here?? Ill break it down a little more for you though, lets say you get into an argument with your partner, you want to win that argument, she says something like 'you dont spend enough time with me' you straw man her and say 'oh so youre saying i dont love you?'. So youve deliberately misinterpreted her point because its easier to make that argument rather than deal with her actual point. If you were steel man her point youd look at it more objectively and try and really understand why shes saying that. Youll notice this in debates where people are particularly tied to their perspectives Vegans and meat eaters, conservatives and liberals, feminist and mgtow. These all end up being very binary positions usually because they dont tend to argue the other sides strongest points. There are other ad hominems that are used but strawmanning is quite prominent

Straw man = the persons weakest argument or even an almost deliberate misunderstanding of the other person's argument. For example a Conservative might say a progressive wants communism and start arguing from that perspective. Steelman = taking the other person's strongest argument and debating that.

In my opinion it seems like you want to be understood, maybe you thought this could be with someone youre sexually attracted to but it hasnt happened and so possibly something in you thinks that maybe someone of your own gender would be able to understand you. We all have this craving to be understood btw, but it just doesnt happen most of the time, its hard enough understanding yourself let alone someone else. It also can be a completely separate thing so you can be sexually attracted to someone and have a great relationship and not feel that youre understood and in theory you could be understood and not have a sexual relationship with that person. But in general i dont think you should set that criteria for relationships, i just dont think youll ever get that feeling of being understood, maybe you think men will do a better job but it still most likely, wont be what you expect.

Firstly respect for starting so early, I was think I wish I could've started so early but fba didn't even exist back then lol. I've sold an amazon and eBay for the last 10 years and it's been my main income. Here's my advice though, fba and generally all business especially Internet ones, are a lot to do with trial and error, I've changed my strategy and adapted so many times I cant count. It's a constantly changing landscape so you have to be resilient and adaptable. If your first idea for a product worked and you started making money from it I would've been shocked, but at the same time the learning experience you've had is still very valuable. This is the route to any type of success whether it's fba or life purpose or whatever. So you are going to come up against adversity and you need to find a way to push through. Life purpose is obviously important but right now you have very little experience of anything, it feels like you're trying to bypass a lot of stuff. If you enjoy fba then just go for it set out a length of time, a year or two, and see where you are after that, if there's been progress, if you feel you're learning. If it's not fba choose something else but the point is get some experience somewhere. In the meantime just be open to your life purpose, see what piques your interest and what comes along, you dont need to be in a rush

How do you mean explain them? Florida is a good example because as youre suggesting the lockdown wasnt really enforced but you can put it up against other states as its in the same country. So Florida has the 3rd highest cases, the 4th highest deaths and is just short of New York for the most cases per 100k - https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/09/01/816707182/map-tracking-the-spread-of-the-coronavirus-in-the-u-s?t=1620328559579. Sweden is also interesting as its the only country in Europe that didnt lockdown officially, although a lot of people did voluntarily but either way if you compare them with their Scandinavian neighbors, Denmark, Finland and Norway they actually have treble the amount of deaths of those countries combined. Brazil is also another country with a lot of problems due to the relaxed covid restrictions. Of course there are possible other factors for this but its just interesting to note the comparisons. These things are of course serious problems but it would be unfair to say that there isnt an effort made to sort them out - “More than 40 years after the war on cancer was declared, we have spent billions fighting the good fight. The National Cancer Institute has spent some $90 billion on research and treatment during that time. Some 260 nonprofit organizations in the United States have dedicated themselves to cancer — more than the number established for heart disease, AIDS, Alzheimer’s disease, and stroke combined. Together, these 260 organizations have budgets that top $2.2 billion.” However there is criticism that there should be more effort into prevention which as i said is very important. But this is more a policy issue rather than choosing not to work on it. Also just because youre working on one thing and trying to prevent it, it wouldnt mean you cant work on an immediate danger. But in general i think it would be a very strong decision lets say if you were the leader of a country, to say that there shouldnt be any lockdowns, also keep in mind when Boris Johnson said that here in the UK, a lot of people did think that he just didnt care about people and the public outcry led to him changing his mind. Ultimately it would be a gamble as a leader to go against expert opinion and say no lockdowns, the issue its a gamble with peoples lives.

Just to pick up on a couple points, the things you mentioned there arent contagious which means that the numbers per year would be stable and the healthcare system can handle them. If something is contagious it would mean if it was left alone then the numbers would be worse. I would assume the numbers for covid would be worse if we didnt have lockdowns or hospital treatment etc. This is another misunderstanding i see, on average for any death there are between on average 3 and 4 causes listed on the death certificate. In practice it would be something like, someone has cancer that cancer causes pneumonia which leads to cardiac arrest and then death. Ultimately if they didnt have cancer they wouldnt have had the other conditions, so when reporting it wouldnt be logical to say this person didnt die from cancer or that the number of cancer deaths arent valid because there were underlying symptoms, because then no cause of death would be valid from the death certificate. I will say that there probably are deaths where the person died and covid wasnt really anything to do with it, but this could also happen with other conditions, so they would all have to be reworked as well. Its an opinion and probably partially true in that people could be healthier and take care of themselves and by not doing so they become more susceptible to being sick. This is something that definitely needs to be worked on and is a preventative measure, but in the case of a contagious virus there would need to be more immediate curative measures otherwise it will continue to get worse. But anyway you said the numbers are not enough for you, would you think it was serious if it killed more people than cancer or alcohol for example? Also what would be your overall solution, do you think no precautions should be taken and no vaccine produced and just leave everyone to it?

OK thanks for your reply and i get where you coming from. So essentially you seem to be saying you dont believe this to be a truly dangerous virus, can i ask what would constitute a dangerous virus for you? So the current total death number is 3.24 million people as well as quite a lot with long covid and various other symptoms which clog up the healthcare systems, i know youll argue that not all of them were covid deaths but for the sake of not going down another tangent lets just say those numbers are legit. So considering this is the number with sever precautions in place, in your opinion how many deaths or illnesses would there need to be for it to be considered a truly dangerous virus? The other part is that you dont trust the pharma industry which i also agree with to some extent. The issue is that you seem to be saying that you want a vaccine or medicine created completely independent of any links to the pharma industry. You also say you want all the experts to say the same thing and for there to be completely independent safety studies. There are safety studies currently but are you saying that they cant have any link to the scientific community or to the pharma industry? If these concerns were addressed, would you then trust the vaccine?

Listening to this now and it touches on a lot of what has been said on the forum and also in my head. What do you guys think of the new age spiritual movement and what do you think has happened to them during this pandemic?

@BadHippie Not gonna pull apart your points but im just curious, what would you consider an actual good reason look like? As in would there ever be a good reason to take a vaccine for a contagious virus, and if so what could that reason be?

Well maybe, i hope you find the answer you were looking for

Great!! So i think for you it would be better to accept that no one on here or anywhere else will come up with a reason that will convince you, then you can conclude your investigation. Maybe just check every now and then if new reasons pop up, but in general you dont need to spend too much time on it

OK so what i hear you saying is you havent heard any reasons so far that you deem valid, but if you heard one you would consider it as valid, however you cant currently think of a reason that possibly could be valid. But you accept that youre not completely right. Does this sum it up?