Poly familiesFollow

You could have tried to have both or not have either, yet one was chosen. That was not necessary. Unless a coin was flipped, a decision was made based on the individual.



I don't think it's feasible (but still possible) to experience "True Love" with someone and not know that type of information. I believe that it's possible to love that person without knowing that information, but I don't believe it's feasible to have that deep connection and not know that information. I say that because that would consist of spending a lot more time than "late work nights", to include but not limited to Christmas/EVE, Valentines Day, New Years, weekend trips, Vacations, etc.

I believe, if you don't feasibly know everything about a person, then you can't possibly truly love everything about that person. You may love that person and certain aspects of that person, but it takes time with that individual in order to elevate to higher levels of love.



I wouldn't have gotten involved with her in the first place. If I found out afterwards, then I would be upset that she lied/deceived me and wouldn't want to be with her. My heart may want to be with her, but my mind wouldn't. At that point, I would listen to my mind.

You asked me a question and I answered it. I'm not sure where the lack of imagination comes into play or what else you want?

If I knew about the information before hand, then I could never experience True Love with her. This is true for two main reasons.

1. I would have to accept the fact that she is sleeping with another man. A third person in the blind puts a wrench in that necessary bond for True Love. How can you trust someone who's cheating on their spouse?

2. I wouldn't be able to spend the time necessary to develop the bond needed to experience true love.

I already explained this and I answered your question.

You're describing love and not true love for the reasons in post 202.

People fall "madly love" with the best person ever ALL OF THE TIME. They break up and think the world is over because they don't think that they can find an equally as good person or better person. Then they find a better person and the cycle repeats.

Each time those individuals found a new love, they realized how much they DIDN'T love the previous as much as they thought.
The point? Just because you are in love with a person, doesn't mean you hit a/the plateau.

Well tell me exactly what part you fail to understand? Don't say "Everything", because your post displays your knowledge of the English language. Unless that is you can't read or have a failure of overall comprehension.

To blave....



Edited, Feb 6th 2012 8:58pm by Elinda

Well, it wasn't a nice MLT - mutton, lettuce and tomato sandwich, where the mutton is nice and lean and the tomato is ripe ... they're so perky, I love that.

My favorite scene from a movie chock full of good stuff.

Lol! You're kidding, right? You seem to think that 16th century Spain was just like 11th Century England. You're the one stuck in this vision of Europe that seems to have been derived from watching far too many crappy Robin Hood films.



Yeah. Still missing about 500 years there. Seriously? And you're pursuing a history degree?



Interesting, given that your first go-to answer about the Aztecs was to point to the size of a single city. You ignored how many people had to die regularly to maintain said city though. But it's about feeding and educating the citizens! You are suffering from an incredibly modern re-interpretation of what being "advanced" means. Today, we have advanced technology so we assume that and have focused on social issues instead (feeding, educating, employing the masses). But for most of human history that was *not* how we measured whether a civilization was advanced. And certainly, if we're going to compare two historical civilizations, neither of which came close to what we'd consider "advanced" in terms of social issues, then we are kinda left comparing what technologies they have, how large they are, how wide their trade networks, etc.


And on all of those levels, the Spanish were vastly more advanced than the Aztecs.



Great. But you're being selective here. The Aztecs also demanded tribute/tithes from their people. And they were much more brutal about it. You dismiss things like Cathedrals because they were paid for on the backs of the masses, but so was everything the Aztecs built. The difference being that the stuff the Aztecs built was (dare I say it?) less advanced.

Edited, Feb 6th 2012 1:31pm by gbaji

The people worked to death to provide the resources needed to maintain the city? Or the people who were sacrificed in the temples of said city? Or the people killed in their blood games to keep the citizens of said city distracted and happy? Do you get that the achievement of managing to put that many people into that small an area with the technology they possessed is not really a great accomplishment at all? It's an example of what happens when a civilization which can't expand directionally very much becomes too dependent on human traffic into the center in order to keep their empire going. You have to become more brutal to the outer edges. You must then find social outlets to eliminate the populations who might rise against you. You must put increasing amounts of people into the center in order to maintain power and you must find increasingly costly means to keep them occupied and entertained.


What was happening to the Aztecs was no different than what happened over and over throughout history. The Romans had the same problem. Except that their empire spread much much farther before they hit that point. At some point, a civilization turns inwards instead of outward. That's usually when it begins to decline. But what's funny is that those in it often don't realize it. Because from their perception it appears like their cities are getting bigger, their public projects becoming more grand, their entertainments more varied, and their apparent wealth is increasing. They don't see that what they are doing is ultimately unsustainable.

The Aztecs just happened to be in a geographical area where it allowed for their center to really get huge relative to the total area of their civilization before it collapsed.

That is accurate.



See above.



This is why I said that often times we never really know how much we love someone until we are away from them. Many times, we realize that we really didn't love that person as much as we thought. It's hard to gauge something that you have never experienced and/or is difficult to explain.



Exactly. The point was that if you subscribe to the belief that it exists, then it makes it practically infeasible to be in a poly-relationship.

I honestly don't know if "True Love" is a good thing either. The concept of willing to sacrifice everything for a person that might not even cause you to live in the highest form of love is illogical. Then again, love in itself isn't logical.

I'm not, I'm just creating a feasible and logical definition for the sake of the argument. I'm sure that the actual definition (if there exists one) is much more complex and or detailed.

He puts the moron in oxymoron.

I've discovered I wouldn't put my True Love above the law. I wouldn't cover for them if they murdered someone in cold blood. But I'd always put their happiness above mine. That's why I can fall deeply in love with someone, and get to know them soul deep, without necessarily getting to have them for my very own.

If you choose not to add or take away from a basis to start with, then that's your problem. That isn't me SETTING the definition.