Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT

WCDT: 2741-2745 (07-11 July 2014) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread

<< < (42/91) > >>

Detachable Felix:
Please, this isn't an LSD trip at all. That little C.E.R.E.A.L. is just fucking with Steve.

T:

--- Quote from: NilsO on 09 Jul 2014, 00:13 ---Well, introducing Steve and his cereal at this time just makes me mad. I do not want cereal strips. I want to know how the Marten/Emily or Sven/Faye/Angus storylines develop. Next week, I believe there will be guest strips (OK, Jeph deserves a vacation). But the waiting will be intolerable.

We are being trolled. The suspense may kill us. Help!

--- End quote ---

And after the guest strips he will back to May, and Marten, and Marigold...  :evil:

Detachable Felix:
Prediction: Guest strip week will consist entirely of Dave Willis and Butts. (At least, if his guest week on Girls With Slingshots is to be believed)

Thrillho:
What an amusingly deliberate 'fuck you' to the audience.

Shjade:

--- Quote from: snubnose on 09 Jul 2014, 00:04 ---
--- Quote from: Mad Cat on 08 Jul 2014, 08:10 ---You're not in love with someone unless they are in that love with you. Otherwise, you're in love by yourself and just wishing the object of your affection reciprocated.
--- End quote ---
... the hell ?!?




--- Quote from: Barmymoo on 08 Jul 2014, 09:32 ---I've never heard of being in love with someone being something limited to reciprocal love.

--- End quote ---
+1

Love itself isnt selfish ! Love is THE ONE AND ONLY MOTIVE of humans for altruistic acts !

--- End quote ---

While that last statement may (or may not) be accurate, you can't possibly argue that people only use the word "love" to describe what is actually love as opposed to using it as a descriptor for far less noble and more selfish feelings. When I hear someone claim they love chocolate, I don't consider the statement to contain anything resembling "altruism."

That said, regarding "I'm in love with ___" vs "I love ___," while I have no official ruling on the topic, I always had the impression that any distinction between the two statements, if any were necessary, would likely be one of distance and knowledge, but not necessarily reciprocation.

You can't be "in love with" Taylor Swift if you don't know her. You can love her, maybe - or at least you might love the idea of her, the concept you've created as representation of who you believe her to be in your head, but there's no relationship between the two of you on which you can base some claim of love; there is nothing there with which you can be "in love." You can only direct love at the idea, if indeed that is what you are feeling.

You could, however, be in love with Taylor Swift's music. That's a tangible, concrete thing with which you can interact, even if it isn't a sentient entity that has the capacity to love you back.

*shrug* Like I said, nothing resembling official definitions there, just how the two phrases work in my head.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page