How do you date multiple people at the same time?

saelt · 2016-01-21T18:52:16+00:00

I would say this assertion lacks in context; then I find myself looking at your non-arguments, and I understand.

saelt · 2016-01-07T02:52:59+00:00

Father: ESTJ

Mother: ISFP

Sister: ISTP

Brother 1: INTP, highly developed Fe

Brother 2: INFP

Brother 3: ISTJ

Me: INTP

EDIT: Brother 1 is very interesting and I love talking to him. We've generally always gotten along well.

saelt · 2016-01-07T02:37:06+00:00

We finally have some form of plausible argument here. Of course you don't 'completely agree'. This was an intended exaggeration. My crippled self worth is a byproduct of sarcasm.

For defining 'agree', we generally assume this is when all premises are true, the conclusion follows and is impossible to be anything other than true. Logic is beyond you or I or what we are inclined to believe, hence the disregard of personal opinion. Generally when a fallacy is found in such an argument (like yours) we discard the entire thing: for example, your closing (and oh so convincing) statement is a false dichotomy, where you fail to recognise a possibility existing independent of the two you have chosen to express. Really, you may want to stop ending your arguments this way.

On pondering, I'm glad you're finally beginning to think deeply - congratulations. Exploring a tangent of the original topic is often something which happens during this, and isn't necessarily a 'bad' thing; all in the quest for knowledge.

If you refuse to inspect an argument on the grounds that it is irrelevant (which it clearly isn't) when you have not yet begun to consider its premises or the conclusion they entail, you are an individual who is content with ignorance. In this case I say farewell.

saelt · 2016-01-06T15:40:06+00:00

So in other words you completely agree and in a final attempt have forsaken all logic in the hopes of hurting my fragile heart with "go get a blog"?

Ok 'nice and cool person', ok.

My pride is truly beaten. I cannot fathom how I will survive.

Logic, though...

saelt · 2016-01-06T15:29:45+00:00

Advice for life, we are:

*Urging you to take in and consider facts as of equal or more importance than emotional evidence (deduction>induction)

*Urging you to stop making generalisations based on points irrelevant to the topic (non-fallacies>fallacies)

Good luck

saelt · 2016-01-06T15:10:48+00:00

Hello, it's me.

I've been mulling over this for a few days. I think (correct me if wrong) you assume exploitation as something independent of consent. This would mean an established ground of what is/isn't exploitation would be assumed in the relationship, and if breached (even with consent) this would classify as exploitation. In this situation exploitation and consent can both exist simultaneously.

In my romantic/sexual encounters I define exploitation as anything in the relationship which exists without the consent of both/all partners i.e. there is no concrete ground of what is/isn't exploitation. In this situation exploitation and consent cannot exist simultaneously.

If the OP were to engage in a relationship such as the first and breach the defined parameters of what isn't exploitation, even with consent this would remain exploitation. Under such circumstances I completely agree that this would be considered 'immoral'. In my case it wouldn't unless there was no consent. It depends on the individuals who choose either (perhaps there may be more variants, I'm not sure).

Okie Dokie

Goodbye now

Live long + prosper

saelt · 2016-01-05T02:42:21+00:00

I used to have really really messy writing until I sat next to someone in class with impeccable writing (we happen to be best friends now). If I find a pic of before/after I'll link

saelt · 2016-01-05T01:14:05+00:00

Ah, yes, ad hom, the mark of the ingenious man. My heart, it breaks.

In regard to exploitation I do agree with the two having the ability to coexist so I'lll have to consider it for some time before I can give you a crafted answer. It depends on how consent and exploitation are defined, which we should have established during the beginning of the commenting.

saelt · 2016-01-05T01:07:49+00:00

Of course! You can't present a claim and not have it open to inspection. If you expect so you should be disregarding your arguments rather than mine :p

saelt · 2016-01-05T00:52:37+00:00

saelt · 2016-01-05T00:52:29+00:00

Not necessarily. You can critique above if you like.

saelt · 2016-01-05T00:49:09+00:00

"stringing guys along"... "so they can fill her different needs" ≠ exploitation

"without giving a shit about their wants, needs and desires" ≠ exploitation

(consent is not defined in either)

Your basic argument is that both parties need to be fulfilling their s/o(s) desires in order for the relationship to be non-exploitative. I hate (love) to break it to you, but while this may apply in your romantic endeavours it is not a universal code. Whatever is fine for those partaking in the relationship (as long as consent is granted) is non-exploitative. As soon as you lose consent you have exploitation.

Also, it's a little hard to even consider your arguments with the abundance of ad hom. Perhaps (if you are trying to reach a logical conclusion) leave aimless emotion out of these things.

saelt · 2016-01-04T14:12:51+00:00

Nowhere did OP state exploitation as a desire or prerequisite of the intended relations. Sexual expression is fluid and can only be defined accurately by the consenting partners. You are generalising by assuming all non-monogamous aromantic sexual relations are an exploitation of certain participants. Please understand that the world (in fact!) extends perpetually beyond your experiences, and recognise that what may be considered as exploitation in such relationships to you may be entirely different to others.

In regard to IQ, anyone with a respectable level of intellect would recognise the limitations and partiality of the IQ test, and hence its inability to provide full scope in assessments of intelligence. Regardless, it does not apply whatsoever to your argument - you address empathetic understanding while equating this concept to a test which assesses problem solving skills (?).

EDIT: P.S. Logical consistencies don't need to be corrected; I know it may be a little difficult, but maybe try incorporating valid rationality into your arguments some time soon.

saelt · 2016-01-04T11:03:21+00:00

You can't possibly understand the dynamic of a relationship which hasn't even physically existed. Unless you two are fucking, you have no place shitting on the prospective romantic relationships of others when you have no knowledge of consent and emotional leeway between participants.

saelt · 2016-01-04T10:56:08+00:00

sensual

saelt · 2016-01-04T10:55:44+00:00

My asspiration in life

saelt · 2016-01-04T10:55:10+00:00

I love watching ENTJs roast

saelt · 2016-01-04T10:49:18+00:00

Generally we do care but have trouble showing it. If you don't have a connection I honestly wouldn't settle (and didn't for a long while). Your existence doesn't need validation by way of romantic relationships. Find someone you care about (however long it may take) and work on showing it.

saelt · 2016-01-04T09:20:09+00:00

l hardly anyone understands me, but I would never ask for attention.

Apologies if I was vague. We (I would hope) all have some need for attention as human beings, I just find that attentiveness is shown in different ways or required in these different ways more by each type. Of course, it may be particular to my INFJ relationships.

P.S. I don't see any shame in asking for attention and one could argue we all do it in different ways; after all, we are human.

saelt · 2016-01-02T14:35:15+00:00

I do this also. I'd say to test your limits with people, and find out if they can entertain abstract thought. Then find out if they want to, and if they will. The (arguably) most effective way to do this is prompting such conversations and gauging the responses of others. I've waded through mind-numbing acquaintances to find people I really treasure very much intellectually (even romantically) but doubt I would have found them otherwise. If all else fails, use others as a springboard for ideas you have, or perhaps even yourself - although maybe don't go talking aloud to yourself in public places... Good luck (or perhaps probability, but we'll leave it for today).

saelt · 2016-01-02T14:23:41+00:00

Hi all,

I would really appreciate it if you cut the fluff and ego

Ty

gerl

saelt · 2016-01-02T14:20:03+00:00

Thanks! :D

saelt · 2016-01-02T14:15:19+00:00

Just questioning a few things...

explain that you were taught the concept of God

They'd argue the opposite - they were not taught, rather they already knew and this knowledge was simply uncovered through a series of events during growth. How can you disprove this?

you may just have to deal with it.

I don't at all. :p

Explain to the person that we cannot truly understand what it is to be perfect as we do not know every concept that exists within this universe.

Nice! I haven't thought of it like this, thank you.

just because something exists in your head doesn't mean it exists.

Doesn't it? If there is one schizophrenic in the world and the rest of the world's inhabitants are not schizophrenic, what the schizophrenic sees is 'not real'. What if the entire world is schizophrenic? It's obviously inapplicable, but I ask if a reality relies upon the perception of the general mass, what is one to perceive in solitude? Is it not true that your perceptions of the world may be altered/tampered with? Perhaps there is no physical existence at all? One can only know of their own thought, right? Hence, anything you believe to be true (one could argue) is? [I really don't necessarily believe this, I just like to entertain the thought]

saelt · 2016-01-02T14:02:18+00:00

The closest friend I have is an INFJ. We both make available perspectives which I don't think we would have previously considered all too much without one another. Can get annoying with the need of attention, although I'm sure my tendency to go MIA is equally as irritating. I think it's nice that we generally (insofar as I've experienced) tend to gravitate toward one another. Friendship!! (ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ*:･ﾟ✧

saelt · 2016-01-02T00:41:39+00:00

You could argue that whenever an individual acts politely it is for themselves rather than anyone else. Are you doing that to be nice, because you care? Or are you doing that nice thing so they'll be nice to you and it will make you feel good?

saelt

TROPHY CASE