Metropol

oh shut the hell up you bloody weirdo.

well it might work

Hows this for a cracking new idea on a rather bored Saturday night-

The Metropol line...



To draw a 'line' under the conversation and move on from there with the view of getting back on topic. 8)

Never cross the line

Getting back on topic... I lost mine on holiday. Luckily someone handed it into hotel reception the following morning.

Baddum tish!

Like it Martin, very nice.

I was 18, don't remember much about it, i think it was about 5 pumps and a squirt, she didn't seem to mind though.

CraigF wrote:

cat wrote:I hate the argument that love is just some sort of chemical reaction, etc. (You sound like that pillock from NY-LON, by the way).

You hate it because it takes away the mystery... It sounds savage and entrenched in physicality, whereas people want it to be wonderous and magical.

If you want to have that approach to live, you may as well not exist at all.

Why? I'm trying to be objective. I find your response mind-blowing. Kind of like when you tell a child that Santa Claus is a lie and he refuses to believe it.

You are almost suggesting that people have a choice - that we should never ever allow ourselves to be in love because, oh, it's just fake, it's a chemical.

What a nonsense. Stop being so silly.

You are now suffering from cognitive dissonance; like a cat (pardon the pun) caught in the headlights, which scarpers quickly from the light after seeing the terror of the situation.

You keeping making these statements but you haven't told me what "love" is yet. What is it to you?

People who snort cocaine can love a perfect stranger, once they reach that 'high'.

i'll tell you what love is.

love is the feeling you get when you wouldn't ever want to wake up next to another person. you could wrap your arms around them forever, and it still wouldn't be long enough.

it's the feeling you feel inside when you make them smile or laugh

it's the tingle you get when they kiss or touch you

love is the feeling that, you want to be with this person, not because you have to (ie family), but because you want to, and they feel the same about you for the same reason.

when you love somebody, the sex, it's a completely different experience. a quick shag on a friday night after a few pints is one thing, but when you love somebody, it's not just about you, it's about them, it's about making them happy, and of course making them happy makes you happy.

if you try to define love logically, you will fail. love is not built on logic, it's built on emotion. chemical and electrical messages they may be. everything i see and do is chemical and electrical, so it's a pointless analogy.

it would be foolish and stupid to allow the low level nuts and bolts mechanics of love override the sensation of contentment and happiness one feels, and anybody who tries to reduce it to such, all i can say to them, you've never experienced it, and i feel sorry for you.

Jesus Craig, you can take the joy out of anything sometimes, can't you?

But then of course, joy fits nicely within your terms of nuts and bolt emotions.

Well let me break it to you gently - that's all we've got.

You can pretend you are Lt Commander Data, or some other type of automaton, you can isolate every neuro-chemical response; but life is *about* having these emotions. Without it, it is a fleeting, empty biochemical process from start to finish.

I'm glad you feel you understand how it all works. I would be sad for you if you didn't at least feel it once.

Love is patient and kind; it is not jealous or conceited or proud; love is not ill-mannered or selfish or irritable; love does not keep a record of wrongs; love is not happy with evil, but is happy with the truth. Love never gives up; and its faith, hope and patience never fail.

1 Corinthians 13 verses 4-7, Good News Bible.

oh dear, don't mention religion or he'll start on that too.

CraigF wrote:BTW - Gavin, when you said, I'm taking all of the joy out of it, that proves my point exactly. We get joy from these descriptions about love. We do not from MY description. Which one do we always choose?

Semantics.

Its not a question of semantics Craig, it really isn't. Emotional responses, illogical though they may, can be (in some cases) too powerful to ignore.

I'm not comfortable giving this example, but I feel its the one that illustrates what I mean. About 20 months ago I became very ill, very quickly; and was alone. As I was lapsing into unconciousness a friend with spare keys called, got me to hospital and effectively saved my life.

When I returned from the hospital many days later I was alone in my flat again. I had a panic attack. I didn't know what it was. I was sure my heart was going to explode in my chest, I thought I was going insane. At 4 in the morning I got up and dressed and wanted to run. I didn't know where.

A panic attack, as I discovered, is nothing more than a chemical fear response. The stomach floods with adrenalin, and the urge to "fight or flight" surfaces. It is terrifying and was totally outwith my control. I was 31 years old have an emotional experience I had never had. I was sure I had felt everything there was to be felt - but I was wrong. I was humbled by the event, and the sheer power of emotion.

To say that humans can somehow choose to view their emotions as basic 'stimulus/response' exercises, or take the 'fluffy' approach, is crediting us with more than we are made of.

Its not about what we 'choose'. We feel what we feel. Don't underestimate the reality of that.

Gavin Scott wrote:

CraigF wrote:BTW - Gavin, when you said, I'm taking all of the joy out of it, that proves my point exactly. We get joy from these descriptions about love. We do not from MY description. Which one do we always choose?

Semantics.

Its not a question of semantics Craig, it really isn't. Emotional responses, illogical though they may, can be (in some cases) too powerful to ignore.

Especially if they involve chocolate!