›
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE

"Love is a not a finite resource".

ChagenChagen
edited 2011-05-26 23:06:46 in General
[tɕagɛn]
Another argument put forth by polyamoury activists.

Okay, so love isn't finite (except it is, but I'm ignoring that small detail right now) .Except, time is a finite resource. One only has a limited amount of time on this Earth, and to divide it up between multiple "lovers" is a wasteful allocation of resources. One must be as efficient as possible, and polyamoury is horribly inefficient in this regard compared to monoamoury.

I'm started to get sick of seeing this argument.
«13

Comments

  • VorpyVorpy
    edited 2011-05-26 23:08:02
    ☭Unstoppable Sex Goddess☭
    (except it is, but I'm ignoring that small detail right now)

    This comment is fucking stupid.

    ...nevermind,this entire base of the argument is all stupid.

    /thread
  • Tnu1138Tnu1138
    Sorry Chagen i'd have to agree with Vorpy on this one. I want my Free Love Future.
  • ChagenChagen
    [tɕagɛn]
    My time argument still stands. People are not immortal.
  • BobBob
    So, if people were immortal, than it would be wrong if they weren't polyamourus?
  • VorpyVorpy
    ☭Unstoppable Sex Goddess☭
    You are acting like it's generated from a little pool in your brain that can only be used for so long, like having multiple partners makes it run dry faster.

    Since that is not the case, it sounds more like sour grapes to people getting more lovers than you and letting your personal morals make your arguments for you than founding them on things you've actually looked into.
  • ChagenChagen
    [tɕagɛn]
    No, what I meant is that if you "love" two people, then you should probably spend equal amounts of time with them, so one doesn't feel less "loved" than the other (at least, in that situation, I would try to do that). Since you only have a limited time each day, you have to spend less time overall with them than if you were monogamous.

    Bob: People aren't immortal, and they never will be.

    Ergo, that question is useless.
  • Tnu1138Tnu1138
    Chagen that's the talk of a COMMUNIST!
  • AXavierBAXavierB
    Polyamory... isn't for me. At all. But I will not judge people who are into it.
  • BobBob
    edited 2011-05-26 23:24:48
    ^^^No question is useless. If we allowed questions to be things that we kould just label as "useless", than, due to subjektivity (and bitjhes), everything would eventually be kalled "useless", and nothing would have any meaning. Like, someone kould kall that question useless, then this thread, then this forum, then the internet, then humanity! We'd all die old and alone and useless with nothing to save us from our non-funktionality! NOTHING! WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE, JHAGEN?! HUH?!? WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LIIIIIINE!!???!
  • PoptartPoptart
    edited 2011-05-26 23:17:15
    PARKER. I NEED PICTURES.
               

    Right here.
  • BobBob
    edited 2011-05-26 23:24:09
    And how long until someone tramples that line into the dirt and the sykle begins anew, hmm? What will you do when your presious little line is torn asunder and everything you know is destroyed?

    What will you do?

    TELL ME!
  • ChagenChagen
    [tɕagɛn]
    "Chagen that's the talk of a COMMUNIST!"

    No, it's the talk of a pragmatic rationalist.

    One must be as efficient as possible.
  • MillerCrossMillerCross
    You can change. You can.
    Chagen...why can't you understand that there is more than way of leadng a healthy, stable life?
  • Tnu1138Tnu1138
    distributing all the love equally sounds pretty communist to me.
  • ┻━┻ ︵ ヽ(`Д´）╯︵ ┻━┻┻━┻ ︵ ヽ(`Д´）╯︵ ┻━┻
    edited 2011-05-26 23:20:56
    Tableflipper
    and to divide it up between multiple "lovers" is a wasteful allocation of resources. One must be as efficient as possible

    In that case, I see no reason to have anyone to love at all.

    "I want my Free Love Future."

    Please tell me you aren't talking about the TV Tropes description thingy.

    ^ What he is speaking of is nowhere near equal.
  • BobBob
    edited 2011-05-26 23:21:08
    Ed's right, you know.
  • VorpyVorpy
    ☭Unstoppable Sex Goddess☭
    No, what I meant is that if you "love" two people, then you should
    probably spend equal amounts of time with them, so one doesn't feel less
    "loved" than the other (at least, in that situation, I would try to do
    that). Since you only have a limited time each day, you have to spend
    less time overall with them than if you were monogamous.

    Most people who willingly go into polyamorous relationships don't have that kind of thing happen to them, since that is called "jealousy" and is generally bad for ANY relationship. You may THINK it will develop, but I know it HASN'T developed yet, because your ideals of love are different than others.

    You know, since people don't all fall in love the same way and all do the same shit as you? does that ring a BELL? DIFFERENT? DIFFERENTNESS? D-I-F-F-E-R-E-N-T? As in not the same as YOU?

    Since you only have a limited time each day, you have to spend
    less time overall with them than if you were monogamous.

    It sounds more like you are describing a need to fixate on one person as opposed to casually having a good time with the two people you love in the same house. There is no fighting over time or making a fucking time schedule to define who spends the time with the other person, and there is no "scale of love" where you go "no, I am too tired to feel extremely strong emotions for you, try again tomorrow".
  • PoptartPoptart
    PARKER. I NEED PICTURES.
    Yeah, if humans wanted to be as efficient as possible, we wouldn't have friends, play games, go on the internet, etc. We would just wake up, bathe, eat, go to work, do work, come home, have very vanilla sex, go to sleep, repeat.
  • BobBob
    edited 2011-05-26 23:27:27
    Tell you what Jhagen. Just try Polyamory out for, like, a week, just to see what it's like (and don't give me any of that "it goes against my morals" krap), and deside whether or not you like it, then report bak to us.

    ^Also, this.
  • MillerCrossMillerCross
    You can change. You can.
    Um...Middie...what happened to your spelling?

  • inkblotinkblot
    000
    I get what Chagen is trying to say, but this:

    "...and to divide it up between multiple "lovers" is a wasteful allocation of resources. One must be as efficient as possible..."

    is throwing me off.
  • BobBob
    ^^The letter known as "C" is evil and must be done away with. Stop akting as if you don't already know this, Juan.
  • GelzoGelzo
    Pony Sleuth
    If one should spend their time efficiently with regards to love, doesn't infidelity make sense if you're separated for several years? 
  • BobBob
    edited 2011-05-26 23:46:21
    Really, the only thing that would make sense would be finding a new person to love as soon as your lover is away from you for more than three sekonds. Anything else is just wasting time.
  • GelzoGelzo
    Pony Sleuth
    Your pony Panty avatar goes so well with that post.
  • ChagenChagen
    [tɕagɛn]
    Bob: That's violently throwing yourself towards someone else without any precaution. That's not just inefficient, that's stupid.
  • BobBob
    Exaktly, whijh shows just how bad this kind of logik that you're using is.
  • GelzoGelzo
    Pony Sleuth
    I see you skipped my hypothetical and chose to respond seriously to Bob's sarcastic one.
  • VorpyVorpy
    edited 2011-05-26 23:58:38
    ☭Unstoppable Sex Goddess☭
    I see you skipped my hypothetical and chose to respond seriously to Bob's sarcastic one.
    You expected him to NOT evade your well-made points or questions? He does that in every fucking thread. It's like talking to a teenager gang-rapist in a police interrogation.
  • ChagenChagen
    [tɕagɛn]
    I assumed Bob was serious. And my statement technically answers Gelzo's as well.
Sign In or Register to comment.