Giordano

I agree. It'll be good to have the parties on the actual weekend of, instead of this year the weekend prior. Plus sucks if H-Ween is on like Sunday for the kids. So today I found out that my old high school principal was arrested on suspicion of having sexual relations with a (minor) student. http://www.highlandn...da781863754.txt Pretty weird. Facebook is flooding about this. Before he was principal he was the director of student activities or something, and me helping at the student store had to frequently go to his office so he would sign papers. Never suspected that man to be guilty of anything this serious. And Disney bought Lucasfilm? And they're making a Star Wars 7?! If you're at the bottom of the world, how is it possible to go even DEEPER?

Well, lets be honest. Republicans hate when Democrat presidents lie, but defend Republican presidents whey they lie. Democrats hate when Republican presidents lie, but defend Democrat presidents when they lie. The anit-Bush hate was just liberal reaction to not having a Democrat in the White House, and this anti-Obama hate is just conservative reaction to not having a Republican in the White House. Bill Clinton impeached for lying? No, impeached for having bad conservative values. [rant] So forgive me if I don't give a damn why you think X President is bad, because I doubt you don't see it as a party issue. [/rant]* Regan-loving, pro-life, anti-socialist hates Obama? Gee, I wonder why.

And what the hell do you know what they've done Noxx? Nobody is a nice-guy, we all have aspirations for something or someone. You're putting these girls on too high of a status. I'm not saying you ARE better than them but you must realize that you'll never know and it's pointless to put yourself down like that, regardless what you've done. Pretty interesting. I've had certain feelings about this thread, but I never could put it to words. You did.

I'd say she likes you. Ask her out to a date, quickly. You've waited too long already.

Sometimes you have to sit back and enjoy the karma before you.

Well duh, if you don't pocket heabies u r terribad medic. ever1 knows that I can't go Medic for that reason. People are generally bad and I feel I fight better than the guy I'm healing. :mad: I am becoming a good Demoman though.

I couldn't agree more. Especially with Californian propositions, their only arguments always were "they are deceitful". It has been this way since as long as I can remember...

The kid's show?

An extreme question gets an extreme answer. It avoids people using "pity" scenarios to prove their points, because no one in their right minds would oppose it.

I realize there's a severe risk that I'm overdoing it with my example, but here goes. Girl is in abusive relationship, doesn't really make her truly happy, yet she says she still loves the guy and wants to stay with him. It's objectively obvious that she would be better off without him. Yet she reacts angry and violently to the suggestion of breaking up or something along those lines. Now, I apologize in advance for using such an extreme example. But could this to a lesser extent be the case with people and monogamy? They're happy when it works, but when it fails, which statistically seems highly likely, they get very sad. When you think about it, most people go through many relationships before they get married, and often the end of the relationship makes people sad and angry and bitter towards each other. (Not all the time - there can be healthy breakups where it's mutual and they stay friends afterwards. Mutual as in mutual, not mutual as in one person wanted to break up and the other person agrees.) For an extreme example, I'll use an extreme answer: She's probably better off WITH him, most likely with finances. So while she gets beat, she also gets a roof, food, and some luxeries. So maybe it's not entirely objective to say she'll be better off outside of that relationship. So thus, it is again, a subjective matter. I think she's good within one, you don't think she is. But yes, that was an extreme example and perhaps an irrevelant one. What we're talking most here is normal, respectful relationships. The problems based in absusive ones are not even remotely related what we're talking about. It's not a matter of your own safety when considering to choose "monogamy" or "polygamy". :wink: But again, I don't think's much of a matter between polygamy or not, but rather how you can handle break-ups: when they come unexpectingly by the other or when you yourself got to go. "Polygamy" is just a easier way to explain to those who don't realize you shouldn't be so tied up in a relationship. You can have one, or you can have twenty, relationships, the point is not the number, but is how you handle yourself after the relationship wanes or breaks apart.

My plan? It's simple, don't get butthurt over a broken relationship. That's the core trait of polygamists, isn't it? "Oh who cares if Ashley doesn't like me anymore, I'll go with Becky". Tha'ts my plan. Enjoy the relationship while it lasts, but prepare for the worst. Have that value in someone's heart but realize you'd probably not be there forever. I just do it with one girl at a time, because I subjectively know that would give me a more meaningful relationship to my own personal tastes. It makes me happy - a subjective trait. Again, it's always a game of being committed to someone or not. Being exclusive or not. There's no right or wrong, only how bad you handle the fallout...which I agree people need to work at it a lot more. See, what you're describing here is serial monogamy. In other words, being monogamous but probably only for about a few years at a time. And I'm fine with that. Not exactly my cup of tea, but it at least makes sense-- much more sense than expecting monogamy to last forever. You also acknowledged what will happen when you two break up, which is good. This is another issue that people tend to tiptoe around if they plan on being monogamous forever. Again, my beef isn't necessarily with marriage (as long as it's an open marriage w/ a pre-nup) or monogamy. My arguments are against people who actually believe in monogamy lasting forever, without either side ever cheating, and without sacrificing their happiness due to drama, rules, sacrifices, commitment, etc. Glad to see you've got your head on straight here. Yes, our opinions don't really clash at all. I was going to say I think you may be assuming a lot of "monogamists" want their current signifiant other to be with them forever, but then I realized maybe in your experience, unlike mine, you've seen a lot of unprepared individuals in regards to a possiblity of a breakup. I'd like to say, I haven't seen much disillusioned people, in that, I'd say most people understand relationships aren't forever...but maybe I haven't been observant too much. Thinking about it, break-ups seem to be a much bigger problem than it should. Instead of saying "everything's going to be alright" or the opposing extreme "ditch monogamy all together" we should advise more on preparing for the worst. I know I will now.

My plan? It's simple, don't get butthurt over a broken relationship. That's the core trait of polygamists, isn't it? "Oh who cares if Ashley doesn't like me anymore, I'll go with Becky". Tha'ts my plan. Enjoy the relationship while it lasts, but prepare for the worst. Have that value in someone's heart but realize you'd probably not be there forever. I just do it with one girl at a time, because I subjectively know that would give me a more meaningful relationship to my own personal tastes. It makes me happy - a subjective trait. Again, it's always a game of being committed to someone or not. Being exclusive or not. There's no right or wrong, only how bad you handle the fallout...which I agree people need to work at it a lot more.

Its hard to provide rational thoughts on such a subjective matter. As I said before, some people like being a special someone to someone else and vice versa. Others don't. I don't see how polygamy or monogamy is better or worse. :\

Not the first time iirc but certainly it's been a while. God Stev forbid we get more than 10 posts in a day haha Hm, I never recalled that happening. But everything is possible for the TIF'er. Today I updating my main dekstop to Windows 7 (gf my subborness) and transfered my main softwares/games to my second harddrive. I shoulda done this years ago, but never got around to do it.

Whoa, what happened? Today got LOCKED? :eek:

He lives!

Well in that regard, I can see where you're coming from. Douche-status, revoked. I could go on and ask some questions, but what's the point. As long as we can acknowledge our differences we'd be fine. I always have a tendicy to speak more than I really should... oh well.

Doesn't that make you like a douche? Assuming people can't handle themselves and will get themselves hurts sounds like a superiority problem - as in, you view yourself higher than others. As long as you recognize it and you try to to think about it that's fine. It's not a real good trait as somebody who thinks and gives advice.

I'm not trying to defend Muggi, I'm just saying what I feel this thread's direction has been going. I'm not trying to issue this point to just you Kimberly, but everybody here. Sincere apologizes if it felt that way. You're committed to one person or you're not committed at all. That's just how it is, you can't share your romance to others because if you do you're not committing your entire romance onto one person. Again, some people like having this status on someone. It doesn't make it less right or less wrong. That's all I'm saying.

Committed relationships, Kimberly. Committed. Those are the ones that require a trust that non-committed ones (as Muggi calls "polygamy") don't have, because well, they're not committed. Committing defined as, obtaining a special romantic status in someone's heart. Whether or not you appreciate the value of that is up to you. There's so much backslash on Muggi's posts and while I can see why, I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here. What Muggi calls a "polygamy" lifestyle is neither a lifestyle nor polygamist (I'll argue there's no such thing as polygamy). It is called keeping your options open or "freelance dating" where you're not becoming committed until you find someone special. I always thought this is how it's done and I still see it as that. This "lifestyle"(for a lack of a better word) is supposed to go on until you find someone special to become committed to. But until then, I don't see the problem at flirting and dating (as in, going on dates) different people. The moment you commit to someone, yes, you obtain responsibilities to that person (exclusive dating., no cheating, etc. - but also completely different for each relationship, Muggi keep note). That's how it goes. Some people are like this until they meet someone special, others like Muggi claim it can go on forever. Let them do whatever they want. The thing I do disagree with Muggi's concept here is his claim that the non-committed "lifestyle" (for a lack of a better word) is better than the committed one. There is no right or wrong, for how can I criticize your decision to commit to that individual or to even commit at all? It is whether or not you are committed or not, it's like being Catholic or a Jew, there's no right answer. Muggi can state some benefits of being a Catholic over a Jew all he wants, like the ability to eat non-Kosher foods, but it's not "you're wrong, I'm right" thing and it never can be. Muggi's "polygamist lifestyle" really is just a long dating game without committing to someone. But we have to recognize some people like the feeling of being committed by a special someone, it gives them value and self-worth, and the opposing side: not everybody gives a damn about being committed to. **EDITED a few times.

Lol, who compares sex to a supply and demand chart. :mrgreen:

But to be fair, as a pilot you have to say a whole lot less words. :wink:

Where were you yesterday, man? I went to mine today and they were closed. :?

Well that sucks. :sad:

PONIES! Oh wait I'm not a Brony. I forsee mixed, but generally negative, replies from TIF in this thread.