Two Assholes

A great review of The Game. Accurate. And I apprec...

2014-10-25T22:23:32.783-05:00

A great review of The Game. Accurate. And I appreciate all the personal story behind it. I found your post because I was trying to find out what happened to Neil and Lisa. Is she The One he married?

Another thing I liked about the book was how brutally honest it was about the nihilism of the Pick-Up life. When Mystery is on the floor moaning and despairing that "all of it means nothing", Neil doesn't' argue with him. And he isn't the only one to discover the emptiness in being a PUA. Roosh has a post about it, I think recently, himself. Sex is never enough. Never was. Never can be.

And that is another thing I learned from Neil and the others. Yes, Men Are The Romantics! We are the ones who believe in love at first sight and buying flowers and singing in the rain. I used to think most loves songs were written by men because we are always trying to get laid and love songs attract women. But that's bassackwards! We write the love songs because we believe in LOVE! So much more than women do.

And you know what I'm thinking? It just might be possible to be an Alpha - AND a White Knight! An Alpha - AND a romantic. As long as that truly is your frame and you DOMINATE with it. You COMPEL HER to submit to your goodness. Your kindness. Your Protection. Who says an alpha has to be an ass? OK, he does! But he can be an ass about being GOOD to her. Do your deeds NOT from neediness but because you ARE the Man!

Just some thoughts. Thanks for the reveiw.

nicely reviewed, i love this game :D

2011-06-27T15:19:24.156-05:00

nicely reviewed, i love this game :D

This was great. Especially the lines of the yokel...

2010-03-10T20:15:45.730-05:00

This was great. Especially the lines of the yokel.

Brett Favre's back in football! The universe is u...

2008-09-09T16:29:00.000-05:00

Brett Favre's back in football! The universe is unbalanced!

Gary Gygax dies the same day Brett Favre retires. ...

2008-03-09T10:09:00.000-05:00

Gary Gygax dies the same day Brett Favre retires. The universe balances itself out.

Sounds good, although I still have a hard time acc...

2008-02-18T18:37:00.000-05:00

Sounds good, although I still have a hard time accepting "Narnia" as urban fantasy. However, this is nothing new. Hell, if Narnia works, f'n Tron was urban fantasy. However, I do agree. There need to be more "actual" fantasy movies. The best we've got recently is "Eragon", which I haven't seen since I value my eyes. However, maybe a glut of "original" fantasy movies would result in all of the Conan ripoffs we saw in the 80s. In retrospect, maybe this lack is not such a bad thing.

And time has spoken, with an emphatic "NO!"

2007-07-25T14:25:00.000-05:00

And time has spoken, with an emphatic "NO!"

A most excellent review, Ted.I'm glad you finally ...

2006-01-25T15:27:00.000-05:00

A most excellent review, Ted.

I'm glad you finally got on the band wagon. 24 is not only one of the most watched shows in the US, but IMHO the only most watched show in the US that actually deserves to be the most watched show in the US. Get that?

I can tell that you're a bit skeptical on whether or not Fox can keep the quality up in the following seasons, but I assure you, they do. Season 2 begins with a terrorist threat of a nuclear attack on (what else?) Los Angeles and blossoms into an even bigger threat. In fact, one of the only things I can tell you with certainty about 24 (other than the fact that Jack will disobey orders and get away with it every time) is that the seasons almost always start small and end big.

It's worth mentioning that Season 5 seems to be messing with that formula by introducing the "big" much faster than usual. This leads me to believe that Season 5 will contain a third or even fourth level of "big". As odd as it is to attempt to make predictions like this, I think you will agree with me that the beat of the show starts to become familiar after you watch Season 2.

This is both to the show's credit and detriment. The detriment: you already know that there will be twists, turns and that peoples' civil rights will be suspended to serve the format. Knowing that allows you to predict the them a few minutes in advance, but never farther than that. The credit: the writers know all this and keep throwing the twists into unexpected directions. This is a very smart production pattern that forces you to consider all possible permutations of the story as the show hurtles towards its conclusion.

The clock is a harsh yet seductive mistress.

I will just pop in and say that I for one don't th...

2006-01-21T11:12:00.000-05:00

I will just pop in and say that I for one don't think that Resident Evil should be considered "horror". Just like the most recent "Friday the 13th" movies, it's really more of a "Haunted Hayride" game. It takes you through a semi-scary environment, with costumed characters jumping out and yelling "Boo!". Fun, but not really scary.

Silent Hill, though, takes time, sets up a creepy atmosphere, gets into your head, and genuinely scares you. That's true horror, and it's why I love the "Silent Hill" series.

Oh, that's new. Must learn to type with the weddi...

2006-01-15T00:18:00.000-05:00

Oh, that's new. Must learn to type with the wedding ring on.

Good review. I will say that you get out of the movie what you bring to it. If you were a Jesus freak before hand, you'll think this movie was the best thing since... well, Jesus. If you hated Jesus or his fans before hand, this movie won't change your mind.

I thought that it was powerful and moving, but I actually like the Catholic faith, so I'm pretty familliar with torture. :)

Any of their videos would be classic, and a Christ...

2005-12-22T17:35:00.000-05:00

Any of their videos would be classic, and a Christmas version would be even better.

What I would like to see is B&B watching (and doin...

2005-12-21T22:35:00.000-05:00

What I would like to see is B&B watching (and doing their traditional mockery of) some of the truly horrific Christmas-related videos, like Bing Crosby and David Bowie's sign-that-the-End-Times-are-near "Little Drummer Boy" duet.

-- david

That's hillarious. Of course, it's from Nintendo,...

2005-12-21T18:05:00.000-05:00

That's hillarious. Of course, it's from Nintendo, who made their last console use a smaller-than-DVD disc to discourage piracy.

I remember this episode... it was one of several o...

2005-12-21T01:14:00.000-05:00

I remember this episode... it was one of several of the extremely cool cross-over episodes they did for the two series. I highly recommend this DVD as well.

This was some of the most fun I've had in this gam...

2005-12-08T17:45:00.000-05:00

This was some of the most fun I've had in this game. Even though I died.

That one almost hurt. Are you a fan of Schwarzene...

2005-12-01T18:50:00.000-05:00

That one almost hurt. Are you a fan of Schwarzenegger too?

My web browser's auto complete box is filled up wi...

2005-11-29T20:01:00.000-05:00

My web browser's auto complete box is filled up with gibberish because of this stupid Word Verification thing.

ZMRYAYWF!!!!!!

“For the last time, I'm not saying that love is ju...

2005-11-29T19:59:00.000-05:00

“For the last time, I'm not saying that love is just and only a chemical reaction.”

I know, I know. In my last comment I was trying to acknowledge that, but I guess I wasn’t clear enough. My apologies, good sir.

”You're saying here that people go into relationships not expecting anything back and get something anyway. “

I’m just saying that, for most people at least, a relationship is about giving and taking. Most people wouldn’t go into a relationship strictly to make themselves happy, but to hopefully make the other person happy as well. So it’s not entirely selfish.

“Calling respect and understanding for humanity "unconditional love" is like calling a secretary an "administrative assistant": we made it up to make it sound like something it's not.”

Well, usually that kind of love is reserved for a romantic relationship.

”I never said they were exactly the same - that's twisting my words.”

I thought you were saying that love is the same thing as a drug addiction. If all you’re saying is that they’re similar because they both make you want something really bad and cause reactions in your brain, I don’t disagree. Though I do wonder why you brought it up, as it seems to have no bearing on this debate.

”I found an interesting article on my POV that has more scientific evidence dispelling the metaphysical nature of love.”
(Quoted from website): “Despite Dr Fisher's reservations, might they also help people to fall in love, or perhaps fix broken relationships? Probably not. Dr Pfaus says that drugs may enhance portions of the “love experience” but fall short of doing the whole job because of their specificity.”

Yeah, that really proves that there’s nothing unexplainable about love.

I’m not entirely sure what we’re arguing. I started out saying that love doesn’t equal sex. I think now the argument is whether love merely a scientific reaction of chemicals, associations, and social interactions and expectations, or if there’s some unexplainable aspect. Am I correct? I still want you to answer those questions I asked earlier. Do you believe everything that takes place inside people can be explained by science, or do you think there’s something more?

And I was saying Bloodrayne has really sluggish controls compared to Prince of Persia. I think Prince of Persia has the best controls of any game I’ve ever played, and that’s saying something.

I only remember what you said because it was so di...

2005-11-29T18:18:00.000-05:00

I only remember what you said because it was so different from my opinion. I thought the movie was wildly uneven, which you just stated. Some scenes were dead on and some made me say "WTF?" I think they handled such things as the dememtors as well as they could (for a public with Nazgul fresh in their minds), but the scene in the shrieking shack was just clunky exposition that proves the old storytelling adage "Show, don't tell".

I would agree that it was Alfonso Cuarón's inexperience with this type of movie that led to this, but for Mike Newell's resume. Before "The Goblet of Fire", I think the closest thing to this he directed was "Four weddings and a funeral", which, though action-packed, wasn't as character driven as Harry Potter. :)

I think Moaning Myrtel is a character written for children that needs to be abandoned as the series grows up. It's already bad enough that the characters have serious discussions using words like "muggle".

Dumbledore is an interesting character in the movies. We now have two very different Dumbledores with two movies each, and I'm honestly not sure which one I prefer. I definately think his scenes in books 5 & 6 are more Michael Gambon than Richard Harris, but I don't know if that's more Michael Gambon adapting to fit the character, or the character adapting to fit Michael Gambon. It's a moot point though, as they can't go back to Richard Harris.

One scene I wish they would have included at the end was Dumbledore sending everyone on missions to prepare for the coming war (which echoed to me the end of The Two Towers, with Gandalf trying to rally Rohan and Gondor to war with Sauron). That scene sets up the next book perfectly, in particular the rivalry between Sirius and Snape, and a "big" development for Hagrid (forgive the pun). It'll be interesting to see how it's dealt with in the next movie, or if those threads will simply be excised in the interest of time.

For the last time, I'm not saying that love is jus...

2005-11-29T16:04:00.000-05:00

For the last time, I'm not saying that love is just and only a chemical reaction. What I'm saying is that it is formed by an interplay between societal forces, hard wired genetic drives, and the God-given biological template we were endowed with.

I believe in what you might call "progressive evolution." You may have heard of this as its been creating a boatload of discord in the religious community lately. Progressive evolution meets the faithful and the scientists halfway by supposing the Bible explains the why and Science describes the how. That God created the Universe and that it happened by His will, I have no doubt. I also believe that God created our biological template with the ideas of friendship and love in mind and then turned it loose to do as it evolve over time. The origin is metaphysical, not the act of love itself.

"I'm not saying people don't get anything out of relationships. They obviously do. I'm saying that that's not the main reason people get involved in relationships."

You're saying here that people go into relationships not expecting anything back and get something anyway. This is a cyclical concept. To me, the idea of love simply for love's sake is idealistic and unrealistic. Everything up to and including paternal love is genetically motivated. Unconditional love, or or love for humanity, or philanthropic love all really mean respect and understanding. This idea is completely separate from love in a romantic, paternal or closed social context. If you're telling me that you'd hop into traffic to save someone you don't know (and, for all intents and purposes, could be a complete piece of shit) then I'd like to see a demonstration (heavily armored, of course). This stems from some high minded abstract faith (having nothing to do with God, before you ask) that attempts to make us feel better about our aforementioned factors by turning them into something they're not. It's socially motivated because it's a heroic thing to do, and everybody likes a hero. Calling respect and understanding for humanity "unconditional love" is like calling a secretary an "administrative assistant": we made it up to make it sound like something it's not.

"But I think it's quite a leap to say that love is exactly like a drug addiction because some people deal with the death of a loved one the same way people deal with drug withdrawal."

I never said they were exactly the same - that's twisting my words. What I am saying is that they're very similar in most every respect and are most often fixated on a specific thing, be it a person, a state of mind, or a narcotic. Drugs, in particular, administer very specific reactions creating a chemical dependancy both in the brain and in the rest of the body.

I found an interesting article on my POV that has more scientific evidence dispelling the metaphysical nature of love. You can find it here: http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=2424049

I'm not sure if you're referring to Prince of Persia having sluggish controls or Bloodrayne. I've never played Bloodrayne, but I did enjoy the precision of Prince of Persia's controls.

I don't remember what I said about Azkaban. It was...

2005-11-29T14:20:00.000-05:00

I don't remember what I said about Azkaban. It was last year, and apparently, everyone except me has a stenographic memory. Regardless of what I said then, looking back, it was the weakest chapter in the movie series so far. From what I remember of it, the movie varied in quality from scene to scene. Some scenes were rushed and ham-fisted, others nailed the the subject matter on the head.

This could be attributed to the director, Alfonso Cuarón, whose previous credits include artsy-fartsy, meandering drama movies like "Y tu mamá también" and "Great Expectations." The man obviously had no idea how to advance a complex plot within a given timeframe. A perfect example of this inadequacey is near the end of Azkaban during the scene when Sirius explains his innocence to Harry and Pettigrew's identity is revealed. So much dialogue is belted out in two minutes that it even threw me for a loop, and I had read the book twice.

I did forget to include some mention of the performances, but perhaps its an indication of the pacing of the movie. The movie moved so breathlessly from scene to amazing scene that I didn't really have time to notice the performances except for those that stood out.

Overall, just about everyone on the cast turned in a stellar performance. Both Dan Radcliffe and Emma Watson turn in great performances for the blossoming child stars that they are. Rupert Grint isn't really given much to do in this movie except get pissed off at Harry. I also noticed that Michael Gambon, whom I was pretty sure could fill the seat of the next Dumbledore, has slacked off in his performance this go round.

To me, Dumbledore was portrayed in the books as being a gentle old wizard who's always willing to listen with a stern wand at the ready for smiting evil. Richard Harris did a fantastic job of portraying Dumbledore as the kind hearted Wizard/Headmaster. Gambon seems to take on the role as more of an authoritative Principal (Think Snyder, but much less annoying and certainly less bald). The polar opposite of Harris' performance, Gambon's Dumbledore seems hard-hearted and indifferent. His performance completely fails to project the image of a man that would choose to password his office after his favorite candies. This a major blemish on the movie that should have gotten mentioned in the review.

Moaning Myrtel is annoying for a reason - she's supposed to be! She's the single reason nobody ever uses that bathroom. 'Nuff said.

Speaking of annoying characters, Rita Skeeter didn't really have a lot of screen time anyways, which is a good thing since she's an annoyance to both the audience and the characters. In this respect, she did give a good, transparently shallow performance that certainly deserves mentioning.

I disagree with you on Moody. I think Gleeson's Moody needed to be more over the top than he was portrayed as in the movie. It disappointing to me that I never got to hear him scream "CONSTANT VIGILANCE!" even once during the entire movie.

Oh, so now The Prisoner of Azkaban is "awkward and...

2005-11-29T12:11:00.000-05:00

Oh, so now The Prisoner of Azkaban is "awkward and stilted"? Last year you were talking about how it was the greatest thing since books were invented, how "It feels like the magical world of the books that the first two never did", and now it's "awkward and stilted"? Geez, tough crowd.

I will say this: the movie suffered from a 'Serious' lack of Gary Oldman (man, that was worthy of Schwarzenegger). Hopefully the next movie will feature more of him. ;)

C'mon man, a movie review needs to be more than just a plot summary and "I liked it!" What about the performances? How Brenden Gleeson never seems to go over the top, despite playing a very over the top character. How Miranda Richardson plays Rita Skeeter as the annoyingly oblivious, would-be-perfect-for-Gilderoy Lockheart intrusive reporter she is. Or what about the scene where the girls from Beauxbatons and the boys from Durmstrang are introduced? How that scene is a little demonstration of the stereotypical expectations of each sex? (Christina noticed that too)

I agree that the movie did leave a lot of stuff out, but it's understandable. If it didn't, we'd still be watching it. At least in this one there's a reason for the Dursley's not even being there. In every movie since the first one they feel like they've been almost forgotten. And I agree, the part about the wand's was a neat touch that they should have left in, but the typical public probably wouldn't care about that.

One thing I wanted to bring up is how annoying Moaning Myrtel (spellign?!?) is in these movies. I would they rather have come up with some other way to explain her actions in the movie. She's just a bad character all over.

All in all a pretty decent review.

Lunchtime post! BAM!Ok, because it sounded like y...

2005-11-29T11:14:00.000-05:00

Lunchtime post! BAM!

Ok, because it sounded like you said, "It's not a chemical reaction, it's a complex chemical reaction!" That just sounded stupid. I agree that all these things are present in love, but there's something else, something that makes it different than a simple addiction. All these same things are there in sex. If there wasn't something else in love, you could say that sex=love, and as any wise person can tell you, it doesn't.

Perhaps I should explain faith and religion better. To quote Serenity, "Why is it that when I talk about faith you always assume I'm talking about 'God'?" Set aside your religious biases (which I know you have) and try to look at it from a blank slate. Faith, as I define it here, is your connection to the metaphysical (I called it God for lack of a better term, and you're right in that that is due to social conditioning, but we could call it anything we want). We can't really define anything about this metaphysical entity other than it exists (This seems to be a pretty popular belief, from Buddhism to Judaism, "I am who am"). The only person who can define your connection is you. Religion is the attempt to find a common ground where this faith is concerned, as it can obviously be different for everyone. Unfortunately, some people used (and still use) religion to try to control people (this was a big problem with the catholic church during the middle ages). But you see, the beauty part is that no one can use faith to control you unless you allow it, because no one can tell you what your faith is! In this aspect, all religions are right or all religions are wrong, depending upon how strict you want to be. I personally believe that, as long as you're not hurting someone else, do whatever. That's why I love the idea of America so much; it’s this philosophy carried out in a governmental form. Unfortunately, that idea rarely gets carried out, but that's a different debate. I guess I can sum up my feelings on faith by quoting Serenity again (Damn, Joss Whedon's awesome); "It doesn't matter what you believe, just that you believe in something."

"love is something that rarely happens by choice."

But most addictions are. People usually choose to try that first step, and it becomes an addiction there. Love is different. It can go against everything you believe and hold to be true. I agree that love can appear very similar to an addiction. But to say that love and addiction are the same thing is great folly.

"Yes, it is selfish, but it's the way the brain is wired."

It's not necessarily the way the brain is wired. It's a popular school of thought, but it's not proven. In fact it's far from proven, it's just a theory. And it's not one I subscribe to.

"In other words, we made it up."

This is a very cynical and sad outlook on life. I'm not saying people don't get anything out of relationships. They obviously do. I'm saying that that's not the main reason people get involved in relationships. That would be like ordering a pizza because you wanted some cheese. There are easier ways to be happy. I still say that dieing for someone you have no investment in is as far from selfish as you can get. How can you say that dieing is all about making yourself happy?

I heard about a theory that there are 5 stages of love, usually progressing as you grow older. The first stage is love of self. It's all about making yourself happy and satisfied. Infants are in this stage. Next comes the love for a parent, as they're the first ones who provide for you and make you happy. Third is romantic love. Then comes love for a child. Last is philanthropic love, or love for humanity in general. Each stage is moving away from this selfish love you're talking about and toward the selfless love I'm talking about. You can have the mindset of one stage while in another stage. I think that people in a relationship just to make themselves happy have regressed to the first stage. I'd also say that if they think they need a relationship to be happy, they aren't comfortable with themselves, and they couldn't possibly move on to another stage, so they couldn't truly love someone.

"Regardless of how people deal with death, they do deal with it."

Yes, people do deal with death. But I think it's quite a leap to say that love is exactly like a drug addiction because some people deal with the death of a loved one the same way people deal with drug withdrawal. C'mon man, even Evel Kenivel wouldn't try to make that jump.

Oh, and isn't Prince of Persia a great game? I'm always trying to communicate to Dan what I mean by "poor or sluggish controls". So I told him "Play Prince of Persia then go back to playing Bloodrayne. It's like trying to walk while your leg's asleep."

It seems I wasn't clear on a lot of that last resp...

2005-11-29T03:26:00.000-05:00

It seems I wasn't clear on a lot of that last response (it was late, so sue me).

"I don't understand what you're saying though. You say that you're not suggesting "love is borne simply out of a chemical reaction." You then say that love and addiction are the same, "a complex reaction cobbled together from social conditioning and natural drives based on an underlying chemical dependency." It seems these two statements are contradictory, except for the addition of social conditioning. Are you saying that social conditioning is the only thing that makes love more than just a chemical reaction?"

A clarification, not a contradiction, my friend. A complex (bolded for empahsis) reaction cobbled together from social conditioning and natural drives based on an underlying chemical dependency. Or, since you're a math wiz: (social conditioning * natural drives) / chemical dependency = love = addiction. All of these elements come together to form both love and addiction. My purpose in that statement was to introduce how I was going to present my evidence that love is really addiction in disguise by grounding both concepts in tangible terms. They both form in similar ways and the end results are very similar when examined on different levels. I also admit that substance addiction happens much more simply but for the same basic reasons. You could also say that love is addiction focused on a person.

For example, the loss of a loved one results in great mental pain but very little physical pain. Addiction withdrawl also produces similar results depending on your choice of poison. The most potent drugs like heroin and crack cocaine cause the subject intense physical pain and moderate mental anguish. Even stopping smoking (the low end of the speed spectrum, I grant you) makes a person more irritable and temporarily weakens their immune system far below levels they achive when they were active smokers.

Faith is merely the weapon religion uses on the unsuspecting masses to control their behavior, as I was attempting to illustrate (and failed, apparently) how deeply ingrained religious morals are in our society. It is so deeply ingrained that most of the laws that govern us conform to the general specifications laid out by religion. You can cry "you can't legislate the way people think" until you're blue in the face, but the fact of the matter is that, given enough time, you can legislate the way people think. This doesn't just take place through our laws, but through the morals and ideals that have been handed down from parent to child for centuries.

What I am suggesting is that this idea you have was not something you chose consiously, but was socially conditioned into you without your consent. Go to church and you'll pick up their ideas. Go to a KKK rally, even with active disinterest, and you'll pick up their ideas too. The difference is that the influence of religion is *everywhere* and the human mind is its battlefield. In the same way that the government limits our actions preserving a stable nation, religion attempts to use faith to govern the way we think with the noble-but-deceptive goal of creating a stable society.

"I think your statement of love strictly being a way to protect an investment or make ourselves happy is a very selfish viewpoint and is missing a big point of love. Real love is wanting happiness for someone else regardless of your own. Dieing for someone isn't protecting an investment."

I left an important out of this equation: love is something that rarely happens by choice. Could you choose not to love someone you would say you love currently? Conversely, could you point to someone in a crowd and say to yourself that you unconditionally love that person? I think not.

Be that as it may, the protecting of the investment and making ourselves happy both happen on a subconcious level. We don't even think about it, we just do it. But on some level, these interactions are in fact taking place. Yes, it is selfish, but it's the way the brain is wired. If you choose not to be selfish, then feel free to lock yourself into a room and not interact with anybody. I'd be willing to bet you wouldn't like that much. If you were to tell me that when two people love each other, they do it "just because," you'd be lying to yourself. Both parties derive something from the relationship, whether they intend to or not. On an again subconcious level, someone might justify their act of loving someone by chalking it up to nobility or unconditional love, owing to deeply ingrained religious and/or social ideals. In other words, we made it up.

Regardless of how people deal with death, they do deal with it. Whether it's on a physical level or a mental level, the loss of a loved one, regardless of how it was initiated, is a painful event.

I've got more to say, but it's obscenely late. Stayed up at Dan's playing Prince of Persia. More to come soon.

See, what you think of as a fatal flaw I think is ...

2005-11-28T16:50:00.000-05:00

See, what you think of as a fatal flaw I think is the proof (or at least a very strong argument, as you cannot "prove" something): John loves his wife even though his brain has been totally changed around. All the chemical processes and instincts were shuffled around by the strangers, until they weren't even his anymore. Yet his love for his wife remained, signaling that it's something other than instinct or chemicals that caused it. Keep in mind we're discussing a work of fiction though, none of this is proven. I just used that quote to show that I think humans are more than just collections of chemical reactions and electrical processes.

I don't understand what you're saying though. You say that you're not suggesting "love is borne simply out of a chemical reaction." You then say that love and addiction are the same, "a complex reaction cobbled together from social conditioning and natural drives based on an underlying chemical dependency." It seems these two statements are contradictory, except for the addition of social conditioning. Are you saying that social conditioning is the only thing that makes love more than just a chemical reaction?

I think that when it comes to religion, you can't see the forest for the trees. Or, to put it another way, you have too much religion and not enough faith. Faith is what I think is important, as religion as I'm using it here refers to a system of control (what is The Matrix?) imposed upon the masses by the rich and powerful. I believe that's what you think of when you think of religion, faith, and the whole aspect of metaphysicality (is that a word?). I think that's a real tragedy, as it takes pure faith and twists it into something evil and totally against faith (Not what you'd expect to hear from a good ole' Catholic boy, huh? Call what I believe a form of Catholic Buddhism, or Buddhist Catholicism, with a bit of Taoism thrown in). God isn't some man with a white beard sitting up in the sky saying "Do it or I'll spank you!" But if you think He is, you'll be much more likely to do what the church tells you to. And because of this the greed of the medieval church is still felt today.

I think faith should carry with it a form of control, as I think balance is the key. Too much of anything is bad. Is it a bad thing to enjoy a bit of ice cream now and then? No. Is it bad to eat a lot of ice cream with every meal? Yes, it's unhealthy and bad for you, even though it's fun. Sex should be the same way. A little isn't bad, but too much throws the balance off. I choose to bring forth this balance in myself by not having sex until marriage, until after I've found "the one". It also helps to separate "love" from those chemical reactions we've been talking about, and I think it's a lack of control and restraint that leads so many people to confuse the two, thinking that sex=love.

People need restraint and control. But here's the difference between faith and religion (which is also the whole point of the book "A Clockwork Orange", and it's also a big point of The Matrix trilogy): This control can't be forced upon you by an outside entity, be it religion, government, or society. It has to come from within; to quote Neo, it has to be "because I choose to". In the novel "A Clockwork orange", Alex learns this lesson. His kids will have to learn it on their own, and their kids in turn like clockwork, until the earth is consumed in a big orange blast (that's where the title comes from, so you can see how much the movie dropped that ball, despite being an excellent movie in its own right).

I think one of the greatest explanations of my view of love is from the Bible; “No greater love is there than this: To lay down one's life for a friend", which totally goes against our genes. I think the use of the word "friend" is very deliberate. Not your husband, wife, or child, but friend. It involves dieing for someone who doesn't help you carry on your own genes at all. It just shows that in order to reach the next level of consciousness, you must control your instincts and become their master, instead of letting them control you. This helps form my view of sex, as animals go around having sex uncontrollably to spread their genes, but humans can control this.

Man, that was one big sidetrack.

I think your statement of love strictly being a way to protect an investment or make ourselves happy is a very selfish viewpoint and is missing a big point of love. Real love is wanting happiness for someone else regardless of your own. Dieing for someone isn't protecting an investment.

Likewise, I believe that people are more than the sum of their social interactions. "To thine own self, be true", or "Know thyself" to keep with the Matrix theme. If you're nothing more than what society tells you to be, you're not doing it because you choose to. And if you don't even know yourself, how can you begin to love another? If you bury yourself in all these other things looking for happiness, you'll never find it. You have to find it in yourself first. "Remove the plank from your own eye before trying to get the splinter in mine." (I know that doesn't really fit, but the first part does.)

It is because of this lack of personal happiness that people become addicted to things, such as drugs or another person. And I say that's not really love, merely addiction, and the two are very different things. If you think love and drug addiction are the same thing, you're missing that spark I keep talking about. However, if you take everything you're saying about love and apply it to sex, I think that comparison is very apt. I think it's more appropriate to compare a drug addiction to a sexual addiction rather than love. Real love is not an addiction, and sex coming from that love is a wonderful thing. However, sex without love is just another drug, and can be unhealthy.

And that totally pulls the rug out from under your "damning evidence" against something extra in love. Not everyone deals with the death of a loved one in the same way. Those who have an unhealthy addiction to someone else can deal with that loss as you described, leading to suicide. However, someone who has truly loved and has a healthy sense of self will deal with it differently. Yes, they will feel sorrow for the loss. But they will be able to pull through it and live on, because if someone truly loved you they wouldn't want you to become a wreck. Real love is giving of yourself and expecting nothing back in return. Unhealthy love, which is often the result of wanton sex (relating it back to the start of this debate), is a chemical addiction that boils down to selfishly wanting nothing more than your own happiness.

You can talk about any of that if you like, but I feel I should clarify my original statement here. I'm not saying that sexual urges based upon chemical reactions have nothing to do with attraction, which leads to romantic love. I'm saying that there's more to that love than just those sexual urges and chemical reactions, so much so that the sex isn't even necessary. I believe that if you think all love is made of is sex and chemicals, you're missing a vital part of this crazy little thing called love.

I submit these questions to you: Do you believe everything can be explained by science? Do you think humans are nothing more than a pile of chemical reactions and electrical processes, or is there something more?

Oh, and just so you know (I'm not trying to be an asshole, it's just a pet peeve of mine): effect = noun, affect = verb
(Even though she's gone, Mrs. Vido lives on! ;D )