I don't get upset if someone says that she is their waifu because often I see people just using the word waifu as a synonym for favorite character. If I do find out that they're actually serious, I still don't get mad provided that they're showing her proper respect. I pretty much agree with the idea that gets thrown around here pretty often about how we all have different interpretations of our waifu's character and thus kind of have different versions of her in our minds.

When people don't respect her I do get mad, though. A couple days ago I was reading a thread on a different site and a few people were talking about how she's perfect girlfriend material and about how "fuckable" she is and one guy mentioned that he had a dream about having sex with her. I wasn't punching holes in my wall or anything, but reading those posts was enough to make me think "oh, fuck you" and stop browsing the thread.

I get angry because most of the time I hear it from douchebags and chronic masturbators. Like >>11707 said
>people were talking about how she's perfect girlfriend material and about how "fuckable" she is

If I knew these people in real life I would beat them up and steal their computers.

I do not mind when people show her the respect she deserves. I can't stop people from thinking about her, though sometimes I'd like to.

I've never seen anyone with same waifu as me. Except one 14 year old girl who claims Kurisu as one of her "waifus". I didn't really feel anything after hearing that.

Post edited on 13th Feb 2013, 7:59am

Not at all, if anything i feel flattered.

>>11707

>I don't get upset if someone says that she is their waifu because often I see people just using the word waifu as a synonym for favorite character. If I do find out that they're actually serious, I still don't get mad provided that they're showing her proper respect. I pretty much agree with the idea that gets thrown around here pretty often about how we all have different interpretations of our waifu's character and thus kind of have different versions of her in our minds.

This, exactly. When they post lewd stuff and other disrespectful things I just sigh it off and move on. I used to be very troubled by this but I realized how it can't be helped. If I had the power to stop these people from doing lewd things I would, but I don't. Getting worked up is a waste of my time and effort, these people aren't worth it.

I really was surprised to find out that there´s someone else who´s devoted to her. I am pretty glad about it actually, that way, there is always something more to find out and it makes it more rewarding to find something new about her that I can share here.

No. Quite the opposite of angry and jealous actually. I actually talk to three other people who also share their love for her with me, and it's really heartwarming and nice to hear about it. It's precisely because we synchronize so well and all share the same desire to see and make her happy that makes it heartwarming. Sometimes it even goes into lewd discussions, but only out of romantic desire for her. It's usually nothing too dirty, weird, or anything we all agree she may not enjoy or be comfortable doing (which is based on our collective and very similar interpretations of her).

The only time I've gotten angry at someone for it, but not outloud, was when someone claimed her as his "waifu" but actually had a RL girlfriend. He even tried roleplaying as her, which absolutely disgusted me. People like this do not truly love them and treat it as more of a joke, not taking their relationship with them seriously at all.

I don't get upset over it to some extent. If people honestly feel love or care about her, then I don't mind them sharing their feelings.

Though like >>11707 said, when people say things like "I want to fuck her" or "she is so lewd" I just get furious. I mean, I find her sexy but I don't post about that; its intimate.

I'd be lying if I said it didn't bother me a bit, but I don't get too mad about it. My Minami is not necessarily their Minami, after all.

I do. It bothers me, but there is nothing I can do about it. I can't really blame someone else for falling for her though. Still bothers me of course. I usually just ignore them though, however if they tried starting shit with me or shitposting using her that's when I'd have a problem with them. Otherwise I just ignore them, unless they say something I agree with.

Post edited on 14th Feb 2013, 10:32am

I've seen at least one person besides me who has her as a waifu and is serious about it. Not in /mai/ though.
If the person is serious I feel proud, I can't explain it but I respect those that have similar feelings towards her. Maybe it's because I can understand how they feel. You could say that if I feel someone is trully in love with someone I can't help but respect them a little more, even if they fell for the same girl I did.
Also, since I find her so beautiful I think the other one has great tastes, but that's only subjective.
If the person is not serious I feel more annoyed than angry or upset. So no, it doesn't bother me.

>>11706
Nope. If they're serious about it, I'm actually happy that they can appreciate her too.

Nope. Like many others I think of my waifu as a separate entity unconnected to the waifu's of others who love her. When I see someone claim she's their waifu, seriously or not since I usually can't tell from one post, I just congratulate them on their "great taste." and move on.

Yes, to the extent that I have no choice but to divorce them. I have done this twice but the first one was bit of a problem as someone noted me that I happen to have the same waifu as him that he made a drama wank about it, leaving me no choice but to silently drop her while the second was was driven by jealousy that I decided to kick her out.

At present, I found out that someone also happens to like my present waifu which is Lizlet even before I knew the character, making me think that I should eject her.

>>11754
Sounds to me like you don't really love your waifu.

I can't imagine anyone else choosing Kagari

I feel like >>11710 and >>11749, basically. I've yet to see anyone else write her name in this kind of context, so it doesn't really matter.

>>11706
No: I'm not a stubborn baboon who insist in behaving as such, by mistaking a waifu for an existent woman to be won on a battle royale...
For the nth time: even if based on the same character, the other guy's waifu is NOT the same entity as mai waifu, so 2D jealousy of all kind is childish and retarded.

You may want to take a look into this:
http://tohno-chan.com/mai/arch/res/3408.html
http://tohno-chan.com/mai/arch/res/4458.html

Post edited on 24th Feb 2013, 4:26pm

>>11819
>even if based on the same character, the other guy's waifu is NOT the same entity
I'm so sick of this argument. I didn't make up my waifu. Just because I love her doesn't make her a different character.

>>11819
>>11820
I think people on this board are starting to forget different people experience waifus in their own different ways, as they are in nature very personal. I've spoken with people who worship their waifu like a deitie, people who want to be their best friend or their lover. some who idolize them and others who despise them. Some who are believe they are in fact out there trying to contact them, others who accept they aren't real and fantasize about the what if. people who have a waifu becuase they couldn't get a real girl, and people who treat the relationship as if they would a real women. and people who who wont accept anything that isn't cannon as their waifu, and people who believe you create your own waifu. I wouldn't say anyone of them is wrong, and I think we need to be more tolerant of eachother. That includes bullying people who divorce their waifu or have more than one.

I could care less if anyone would have the same waifu as me. As long as our POVs are different, and as long as she's cared for, it's fine. I see no reason to have to find a new waifu because there are others who care for her as well. If she's popular, it should be expected that she'd gather so much attention. Having to switch her out over a childish reason such as that is very stupid and just wrong.

>>11821
That's why I said I'm sick of that argument. It's different to everyone.

>>11825
Die jealous (and wrong), then.

>>11826
So explain to me how I made up my waifu? I don't fill in details about her or make assumptions. I think she'd find that rather rude.

>>11820
>>11827

. . .

Read >>4654 at http://tohno-chan.com/mai/arch/res/4458.html and then do as you please, believe what you want and live as you may.

>>11827
You abstract a character into a relationship with yourself. That's the work of your own imagination. No author or artist made your waifu yours - you did. That's why she's unique to you.

>>11829
>every single thing you ever interact with in the world (fictional or not), gets (automatically) biased by your own perception
Bullshit. That's like saying because two people are staring at the same tree that there's two different trees.

>>11830
The same could be said for someone else imaging her being in a relationship with her. I love her, they love her.

As I said earlier I don't make up little facts about her. All that I know about her is what I know from source material.

>>11832
No, Einstein: it means that the only "tree" you'll ever get to know and make use of, is the one that you in particular can see/perceive and somehow understand over you finite existence (spatially and temporarily), and thus all you can possibly tell about that tree and all relationships you may establish with it (including making that tree your waifu) are hopelessly based merely on your own (biased figure of the) "tree", and not the actual/immanent tree which is cognitively unattainable for you, me or anyone.

You know what your problem is? Ignorance, period. Your horizons of both information and reasoning are far too common place, too narrow. Currently, you're here (at the most): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism -get out of there, as well educated people did over a century ago, and then you may have the right to call "bullshit" to a couple more things.

Post edited on 24th Feb 2013, 6:14pm

>>11834
>it means that the only "tree" you'll ever get to know and make use of, is the one that you in particular can see/perceive
So no one can see the tree I see? We all live in our own little world. Okay then, whatever.
All this is is an excuse used to try and prevent people from getting jealous. That's all.
Also,
>philosophy of mind
It's just a philosophy. Mine is different than yours. I apologize for being different. Different is wrong.

Post edited on 24th Feb 2013, 6:23pm

>>11835
No, boy, you can't have "a philosophy" you're not even aware of: you have prejudices that you're either blind to, or stubbornly embrace. This is far broader than jealousy or falling in love with anime characters, if you had the eyes to see it. But you don't, and likely won't. So keep on being average; you might even be happier, that way.

Post edited on 24th Feb 2013, 6:43pm

>>11836
Wow. You are so much better than me! Thank you.
Again I apologize for not believing such a retarded thing as everything is different because my eyes are different or whatever it is, but since you said it's a better way of thinking it must be. I also apologize for loving my waifu, and not some fan fiction version of her that I made up.

Post edited on 24th Feb 2013, 6:52pm

>>11821

>>11832
>That's like saying because two people are staring at the same tree that there's two different trees.
And what's wrong with that? Objectively there is only one tree, yes, everyone knows the textbook definition of a tree. Still, each person may see different things. Is this tree just any tree, or is there something different about it from what we read or heard? Can we trust that everything objective that there is, was and ever will be to know about any tree can be comprised in one true sum of facts? We're talking information overload at this point, some degree of conciseness is required. Realistically, different details will catche each person's eyes, and so our impression of the very same tree becomes different. That tree gains different traits depending on who sees, describes and reimagines it. Such is the power of the mind. The person who only sees the tree for the tree - he doesn't understand what the other guys are talking about, does he? After all, you didn't fall in love with a description, did you?

The reality is that even if 2 people were to perfectly redraw the same tree based on intricate observations, it may still turn out different. Why? For an objectivist it may look like information degradation. For an artist, it's recreation. Even cameras can't capture objects perfectly as they suffer from a varity of data artifacts (digital) or imperfect chemical processing (analog).

>The same could be said for someone else
Yes of course. It wouldn't be a very good statement on my behalf if it would only apply to one case.

>All that I know about her is what I know from source material.
In this train of thought you undermine your own imagination and willingly declare the creator of whoever produced the subject of your affection as God. Some kind of objectivism. Honestly, true objectivism has no place in escapism, as it is unheard of in art of any kind. I hope you won't invest too much in this way of thinking.


>>11836
>>11837
Guys, please try to be civil about this.

>>11842
> Still, each person may see different things.
There are things called facts.

>After all, you didn't fall in love with a description, did you?
Well I didn't fall in love with her just because of the way she looks. In a sense yes I fell in love with a description. I didn't write anything about her or make anything up about her. I could describe everything I know about her.

>In this train of thought you undermine your own imagination and willingly declare the creator of whoever produced the subject of your affection as God.
What? That's a bit of an extreme comparision.

>>11844
>There are things called facts.
lol, don't tell me. And how do you identify and capture them?... with the so called (and provenly inexistent) "Scientific Method" that we're taught in basic education and Sagan preached about?...

PROTIP: The Circle of Vienna (even after Neurath's protocol sentences) couldn't give a positive answer to that question, and Feyerabend later started to explain why (although Saussure or Peirce or even Wittgenstein could have tell better long before). You're gonna be a fucking genius if you outsmart all of them with your answer.

Post edited on 24th Feb 2013, 7:59pm

>>11844
>There are things called facts.
Yes there are, an infinite number of them, even. Consciously or not - you will narrow the selection down to whatever catches your eye. Given that an object is complex enough, that selection of facts will almost always be unique by the power of a number bordering towards infinite - which is the conceivable "fact pool". We've yet to account for the variable set that make out the person making this fact selection, and what he or she would be inclined to choose; my point is rather that you can't mathematically translate these floating variables into numeric functions. If it appears that your perception of the given object aligns perfectly with someone else's I'd call it a fluke and blame one of the parties for being unable to communicate their perception perfectly of that object.

>I could describe everything I know about her.
Everything that comes out off the top of your head, anyway. Can you account for how your subconcious conceives that character as well? It is in the subconcious that alot of your emotions reside, no? We as human beings do not have perfect control of our emotions, otherwise there would be no such thing as mental illness.

>That's a bit of an extreme comparision.
Yes I agree, it's a bit extreme. I'm surprised it wasn't wordfiltered.


To any potential mathematician reading this: Please do not murder me in my sleep.

>>11847
>To any potential mathematician reading this: Please do not murder me in my sleep.

Oh, don't worry: mathematicians, insofar as such, don't give a fuck about actual phenomena. They do maths, not use them. The sole idea of using numeric methods is out of the question, and hence not of their concern.

Post edited on 24th Feb 2013, 8:09pm

>>11846
>The Circle of Vienna
I don't give a fuck about philosophy, honestly I find philosophy to be a fucking waste of time. There is no point to. Just a bunch of morons trying to find hidden meanings that don't exist, or trying to push the way they view the world on everyone else like it's true. Most of them are whinning idiots or self righteous jackasses.

>>11847
So facts are supposed to be different for everything to everyone? That doesn't make sense.
A tree with brown bark has brown bark. I don't give a fuck if you're color blind. Brown is brown, people are people, the sky is blue, money doesn't grow on trees. These are facts. Just like my waifu is a character, who I fell in love with, who is made up by some japanese guy. Those are facts.

>>11850
Well, news are: you're not a genius. But with that mindset, you very well champion at peasantry and resistance to knowledge.

Congratulations.

>>11851
So me not giving a fuck about philosophy means I'm an idiot? Okay then. My IQ is 137, but I guess that's pretty low. I don't view things the same as you so I guess I must be stupid.

>>11852
Mine's is the same (or was, ten years ago)! but you just disproved the value of IQ at all. Thank you! It's liberating.

>>11853
If you would be so kind, could you enlighten me to what makes so "stupid"? I fail to see how the way I view the world has anything to do with that.

This is why I don't like eva fans...

>>11854
That you judge things you still don't minimally understand and resist to start doing so. You can't call polymaths like the ones I mentioned a bunch of whinning idiots with a straight face, out of anything but utter ignorance (and being a "self righteous jackass" yourself). And you embrace it. That's the mind of a slave: the one who thinks that he knows enough and prefers to remain unaware and untroubled. Your relatively high IQ only means that you're skilled at solving mathematical/logical puzzles. I also have one because I was trained as a mathematician and logician for several years. But believe me: that's not intelligence; as far as those tasks go, you or me can very well be replaced by cheap computers (not even AI: no need to); if intellingence has any relation with solving actual problems in life (and one must define that, the notion of "problem", very precisely), IQ certainly does not measure it because life doesn't work that way; logic, as an specific semiotic space ad hoc for a propositional calculus, require of a static state of things, which does not match our effective human/sentient experience of the world (nor of the mind, nor of language as a whole), other than as an attached model useful for very specific purposes. This entire way of thinking which culminated (read: died, epistemologically) with the Circle of Vienna (and which far from being inconsequential shaped and keeps shaping our civilized world) is not a path towards the face of truth at all, but merely another possible way out of many others that, in this case, started with no one else than Parmenides, over 2600 years ago... which you'd know about, if you finally dared to study philosophy, history et al. You could get a much broader and thus more aware figure of the indisputably artificial world and everchanging culture you happen to be a son of, if you just start considering the possibility of (who would have say it!) being currently wrong.

>>11855
Mmh.

Post edited on 24th Feb 2013, 9:27pm

>>11859
>That you judge things you still don't minimally understand and resist to start doing so.
I just don't see how the world is different for everybody. I don't see how someone seeing something in a different way than someone else means it's a different object.

>You can't call polymaths like the ones I mentioned a bunch of whinning idiots with a straight face, out of anything but utter ignorance
So how is it ignorant? Because I'm not interested in it?

>That's the mind of a slave: the one who thinks that he knows enough and prefers to remain unaware and untroubled
Don't see how I have a slave mind. I'm going to assume it's because I don't question everything, but whatever.

>which you'd know about, if you finally dared to study philosophy, history
I like some history, only the cultures that interest me though. I still fail to see why I should care about philosophy. You haven't given me an example of why I should.

>You could get a much broader and thus more aware figure of the indisputably artificial world
What? I don't understand what you mean by "artificial world". Are you talking about that whole nothing exists and it's all just in my head shit.

>if you just start considering the possibility of being currently wrong
I'm curious about this. I don't care if I'm wrong or right, but I'd like to know a bit more about what you mean.

>>11860
>I'm curious about this. I don't care if I'm wrong or right, but I'd like to know a bit more about what you mean.
I think he means, if you start to question everything you "know", it will wider your vision of everything in life. Currently your vision seems very narrow. You seem to think everything which doesn't interest you, isn't useful to you, therefore it doesn't matter.

If you call philosophy just
"Just a bunch of morons trying to find hidden meanings that don't exist" you should also question, do you really love someone at all? Because there is absolutely no proof (fact) you do. Just my 2 cents and I won't start arguing about it.

>>11860
If it wasn't for Peirce's remodelling of logical operators (within his semiotic/epistemological -and thus philosophical- theory of triadic signs) and thus his first theoretical insight about the possibility of translating them into electronic circuits, there hadn't been Turing machines, nor foundations of informatics, nor computers, no internet, no /tc/. So, at least, you owe your infammant posts to that whinning idiot you know nothing about that was Charles Sanders Peirce.

About the rest: go figure out yourself, really, whatever that interests you. I have no further wish to endure your bouncing me the same dry rebuttals again and again and I am by no means obliged to (I am not yours or anyone's teacher; I just post on forums at my heart's content).

I'm off. Enjoy your thread, guys.

>>11850
>I find philosophy to be a fucking waste of time. (...)
That's a shame.

>So facts are supposed to be different for everything to everyone? That doesn't make sense.
Facts are facts, there's no way around them as long as they're true. There's nothing more to discuss - that's why they're facts after all. It's the selection of facts and how you use them that's interesting and will discern viewpoints.

In reality facts alone don't do much on their own in the way of defining meaningful truths. We use intersubjective information to define truths that are composite and complex. We've been trying to drive home the fact that there is no such thing as perfect knowledge. This is the kind of stuff the philosophers of ancient Greece would philosophize on. It's the reason why there are seperate schools of modern philosophy, like hermeneutic philosophy, to help enlighten the ever eluding truth, and help us work around it. Granted philosophy is a tool for the mind, not a set of answers. If it has an answer it's philosophically irrelevant. You have made your point that this is none of your concern, though, and I will respect that.

>>11860
>I just don't see how the world is different for everybody.
You know the concept of subjectivity, yes?

>Are you talking about that whole nothing exists and it's all just in my head shit.
I believe he's talking of human societies; a society is an abstract way of understanding the sum of all social relations among a larger group of people, which is in a sense artificial. Correct me if I'm wrong.

>>11868
Have a nice trip.

>>11864
>if you start to question everything you "know", it will wider your vision of everything in life.
I don't really any useful ways it would. I don't see why I should start thinking everyone lives in some alternate world because they have a different view of things.

>You seem to think everything which doesn't interest you, isn't useful to you, therefore it doesn't matter.
Well it doesn't. I have no use for it.

>you should also question, do you really love someone at all? Because there is absolutely no proof (fact) you do.
I don't see how someone can't prove they love someone. Of course this is the internet so there really isn't any way too.

>>11867
>So, at least, you owe your infammant posts to that whinning idiot you know nothing about that was Charles Sanders Peirce.
Well that was sure nice of him, but I don't time to thank everyone for everything.

>>11869
>That's a shame.
Can't be helped. I never had much of an interest in it. I've tried it, but most people get sick of trying to explain it to me. Guess I'm just stubborn or something. That and as I said a lot of people seem to try and shove it done my throat. I don't appreciate that. A lot of people act like it's terrible that I'm not a fan of it.

>You know the concept of subjectivity
I don't see how that means everyone lives in a different world. If everyone lived in a different world how would I be talking to them? Just because someone thinks about an object a bit differently doesn't mean that there's two different versions of the same object.

Post edited on 24th Feb 2013, 10:30pm

>>11874
It's not so much that you're "not a fan of it", but that you're writing it off as trivial. I mean, I'm not a fan of economics, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't have a profound influence on my life and the world that I live in.

>>11870
>I don't see why I should start thinking everyone lives in some alternate world because they have a different view of things.
Nobody said you should start thinking like that. Stop making stupid straw men or do you really lack ability to read? You should consider it is possible.

>I have no use for it.
Use for what? Based on what? How you are able predict everything precisely?

>I don't see how someone can't prove they love someone
According your logic, you don't love anyone then, right? What is use to think you love someone, if you can't proof it? Don't say you "just know it" because you don't.

As you can probably see, you have pinned yourself down. If you claim something so abstract like you "love" someone without any sort of proof, how can you deny everyone might perceive this world bit differently?

>>11874
>That doesn't mean that everyone lives in a different world.
Metaphysically - no; psychologically - oh yes. Everyone is entitled to their own subjective reality.

>If everyone lived in a different world how would I be talking to them?
Simple: through abstract systems of communication that can be understood intersubjectively, or language for short.

>Just because someone thinks about an object a bit differently doesn't mean that there's two different versions of the same object.
Metaphysically - no, psychologically - oh yes. Those different versions are simply differential interpretations based on each own's subjective reality.


On a friendly note, you might suffer from autism, which makes things like this naturally difficult to grasp.

>>11878
I just don't see how it as much of an impact on my life. I've never really been able to see eye to eye with it. Most of it just seems nonsensical to me, as I stated earlier about perceiving things differently somehow means alternate realities or something. I don't see how.

>You should consider it is possible.
I can't see anyway as to how it would be. As I said, if we all lived in different worlds how do we see and talk to each other?

>Use for what? Based on what? How you are able predict everything precisely?
So what? I should just go out and start learning a whole a bunch of stuff I don't have any interest in? Sure it might potentially benefit me in the future, but I'm more of the type to enjoy myself at the moment, rather than worrying about things later on.

>According your logic, you don't love anyone then, right?
What? I said you can't really prove it on the internet. There's things you can do to show you care about someone.

>Don't say you "just know it" because you don't.
So you're saying I have no idea what my feelings are? How does that work? I'm pretty sure I can feel love, anger, joy, and the others.

>how can you deny everyone might perceive this world bit differently?
That's not what I was saying. What I'm saying is just because someone may perceive something differently, doesn't mean it's a different object. I don't see how it becomes another object.

>Those different versions are simply differential interpretations based on each own's subjective reality.
And I'm talking about the physical object. Again, as I said, there is only one version of the actual object. There may be other ideas and thoughts about it, but the fact remains there is only one of it. On the topic of having a waifu, as I said earlier I don't make up facts about her. I don't love the idea of her in my head, I love her herself.

>On a friendly note, you might suffer from autism
I tried to get diagnosed for it for free money from the government. I went to three different shrinks and they all said that I don't have it.

Post edited on 24th Feb 2013, 11:03pm

>>11882
>I just don't see how it as much of an impact on my life.
Huh? Assuming you're not an uncontacted tribesman in some remote rainforest, all of the social norms and mores that you adhere to (to some degree, at least), your government and laws, all of these have their roots in philosophy, most likely of the western tradition. I think you have a rather stunted understanding of philosophy, which is why you were called out as ignorant earlier in the thread.

>>11883
I know they do, but as I said I don't see why I should learn about it. I don't usually discuss it with anyone, and I don't really spend time thinking about it either.

>I think you have a rather stunted understanding of philosophy
I think that is to be expected, as I said I don't have much of an interest in it.

Also.

This thread.

What have we done?

>>11885
I don't know. People kept complaining to me about the fact that I'm not a philosopher and view the world like they do.

I'm getting tired of this and my head is really starting to hurt, so I think I'll just quote this guy >>11821 and explain how I feel about this as best as I can, though my migraine may make that difficult.
What a waifu is, is different to everyone as said in the post I quoted. If that's what you people mean by different versions than fine. What I have been saying or trying to say, is that the "version" I love is her herself. Though that's not a very good way of saying it I guess. Though as I said earlier, I don't make things up about her, I do daydream quite a bit about what life would be like with her though. I don't love some alternate version of her that I added a bunch of facts to, what I don't know about her I don't know. It's unfortunate that I don't know everything, but I don't view my waifu as some idea in my head that I should play around with and change like she's a toy or something. I don't think she would appreciate that. I know she is a fictional character, but I treat and think of her as my lover, as if she were an actual person right beside me. I wish I could spend my life with her by my side.
If this doesn't make any sense or something I apologize, but my head is starting to really hurt so I need to go lay down.

>I think we need to be more tolerant of eachother
This I completely agree with.

Post edited on 25th Feb 2013, 12:15am

Could you guys please stop trying to force your ideas and philosophies onto other people and just accept it's not for everyone?

No one's forcing anything on anyone. How could we ever? When people here referenced foreign authorities and concepts it wasn't to act dominant, it was a courtesy to the discussion. You can only stretch a subject so far before you're forced to reference something, right? It's food for thought - completely harmless.

>>11890
Did you miss the part about calling someone retarded for not wanting to accept their teachings?

What a mess.

>>11891
Yes. You should try to miss it next time too. Such misconduct usually leads to bumfucking nowhere anyway.

>>11891
Well it can't be helped. People shouldn't be shoving this down someone's throat anyway. This kind of stuff is all it leads to.

You guys should understand, this isn't forcing anything on other one. This is called discussion. When one claims his opinion, I am allowed say my opinion too.

>>11882
>I can't see anyway as to how it would be. As I said, if we all lived in different worlds how do we see and talk to each other?
Again whole "different worlds" is just your strawman. Nobody has anything about different worlds. Whole point of since post >>11820 point has been people perceive world differently therefore, one's object of love cannot be the same object as other guy's object of love. Unless "different" or "alternative worlds" are just metaphor.

>What I'm saying is just because someone may perceive something differently, doesn't mean it's a different object.
Because object cannot be objectively identified as reality therefore we cannot say we love same object, unless we perceive world in same way. Possibility that everyone perceive world differently cannot be denied, therefore way how everyone perceives and loves his waifu is different. Because we assume there is no sensor which could perceive only the reality objectively, object you perceive is the one who you love and that your object of love isn't the object in reality, it is the one you perceived which probably is entirely different one than other one has perceived.

If you say it is true you haven't changed anything in your waifu, it's okay. But you should realize you haven't changed anything in character you perceived. Even if other one claims to love same character and even he hasn't changed anything, still character in his eyes is probably very different than one you perceived. Therefore they, objects of love, are different entities because reality one, "original one" cannot be objectively identified.

Like there is this old joke where woman says to her husband "I love different man", man asks "who?" and woman answers "you, 20 years ago". Does she still love her husband?

>>11891
No, it was because he hadn't understand the argument, and still don't, yet he was already looking down at it and its unknown to him references.

If you honestly think that it's unfair to call stupid to such stupid behaviour, you're advocating for idiocy, here or anywhere.

>>11897
>Because object cannot be objectively identified as reality.
This is why I hate philosophy. It's a bunch of crazy bullshit. Hurrr you can't prove anything exist, hurr I'm not real, nothing is as it seems, we are all dreaming.

>cannot say we love same object
Things don't physically exist to you people do they?

>>>11898
I'd rather not understand it.

Refer to this post I made.
>>11886
I'm done arguing about this stupid shit.

>>11903
>Hurrr you can't prove anything exist, hurr I'm not real, nothing is as it seems, we are all dreaming.
You don't understand it and you don't want to understand it, yet you say things like this about it. All he's saying is that you can't confirm something as objectively true through a subjective reality. But you don't seem to grasp the fundementals of objectivity and subjectivity, so what's the use? While other posters have done their best to reference higher authorities in credibility, you've been stuck on chanting your personal opinion.

I can say with confidence that certain anons made some really good posts in this thread, obviously excluding myself. It's not like everything was a stupid argument.

>>11908
>All he's saying is that you can't confirm something as objectively true through a subjective reality.
So in other words you can't prove anything is real. Nothing is what it seems. Yeah I've heard that stupid shit before.

>you don't seem to grasp the fundementals of objectivity and subjectivity
Because as I said, this shit is fucking stupid, and to me it's a waste of my time.

As I said. I don't give a shit about that stupid way of thinking. It would be nice if this argument could just die. Though philosophy people never seem to be able to stop going on and on about how great it is to think there's no world and everything is make believe.

Seems >>11851 said it really well.

>>11912
Yeah. I think it's funny how I'm supposed to care about this philosophy shit and no one gives me a reason to. I'm expected to believe this stupid shit like nothing is really what it seems and question everything I see like a new born baby. I guess I'm just stupid for not considering the possibility that the green grass might actually be purple.

Post edited on 25th Feb 2013, 12:51pm

>>11913
Do the epoché, dude, or you'll never be free...

>>11919
Free from what? Let me guess, my own mind right? Go back to /v/ Descartes. I don't want you to give me the dick. Especially to my head.

Post edited on 25th Feb 2013, 3:55pm

>I'd rather not understand it.
That was indeed the stupidest answer I've read in a while: it was pointed out as the attitude problem behind your fallacious judgement at the very same post you answered to.

>>11920
>Free from what? Let me guess, my own mind right?
No, that's poorly worded: from the stereotyped and provenly troublesome/wrong schemes of thinking that you just inherited and cling to like a limpet, of course.

Unlike your own posts, philosophy is not aimless echoing of one's own improvised retors against all revision and critique. Contrary of what you keep saying, you've been given lots of reasons for why philosophy is at the very core of the (yes, artificial) world you live in, rendering it unintelligible without it other than as a pedestrian technician; you just olimpically refuse to hear them, and take authentically idiotic pride on doing so. You've also been shown how, disregard of your final agreement or not with certain statements, it's absolutely ridiculous that you judge and bash them without well knowing and understanding them beforehand; that's called a prejudice: that's how your reasoning works and why you've been called so by others.

I'm wondering now about how old you are, because I find really weird and shameful that a 137 IQ non autistic guy lacks of even the very basics of reading comprehension. Are you, as a counterpart, a savant of some sort?

Post edited on 26th Feb 2013, 4:52am

>>11931
I don't see how it's stupid that I don't care about this shit. So what if it's at the core of the world I live in? Why am I supposed to waste my time learning, or even giving a shit about something I have no interest in? It's boring to me. I'd rather have fun.

>that's called a prejudice
Oh no.

>Are you, as a counterpart, a savant of some sort?
Nope. I just don't give a fuck.

I really think it's funny how it's such a big deal to you people that I don't care or like philosophy. God forbid I don't find the same things interesting that you do.

Post edited on 26th Feb 2013, 7:24am

>>11932
Why are you even talking about this, then? What is it that you must prove?

>>11934
>Why are you even talking about this, then?
Why are you? Is it really such a big deal that I don't like philosophy? Can't this discussion just be left to die?

Someone posted Flan in the 'who is your waifu' thread and I don't know how to feel about it. She isn't even mine - Remilia is - but Flan and I have our own very close relationship. She's like my own little sister.

I wonder if this is how all big brothers feel when they find out their sister has a boyfriend.

>>11983

I'm the guy with Flandre as his waifu.

huh. That is... interesting to hear. I'm umm, not quite sure how to respond. I would only ask that you don't hold any ill feelings towards me for loving her, even if you love her yourself as an older brother would his younger sister.

On topic, I've always been kind of possessive of Flandre. When I see people who happen to like her, I get rather angry. I feel she is my special girl, and that they don't deserve to be with her because they don't love her nearly as much as I do. I try to avoid thinking what other people think about her, because that would just make me feel upset, and there's nothing I could do about it.

Although, If I did meet someone who was as serious about her as I am, I would try to respect that, and just try to ignore them for the most part.

I had someone recently say 'mai waifu', and I know he didn't mean it since the post itself and the image of her in it was disrespectful but man, I just got incredibly angry. I'm over it, but still - I guess since it never happened like that, I'll have to change my stance from earlier.

As much as I would like to say that it doesn't bother me, I have to admit that I do get upset and feel slightly annoyed about it. Especially whenever people say that she is their waifu, love or anything remotely similar to that. I'm overprotective and possessive of her. I feel that she is my girl, she exists within my heart and nobody can take her away from me. It's just that I've gotten so used to how people say that they want to fuck/rape/ravish her and that most say stupid things about her that I just not care anymore. They're all assholes and douchebags who treat her as cheap fap material. And even though I would like to pretend not to act that way, it always manages to get me angry. I want to feel flattered about it, but I just can't because whenever that happens, it feels like I'm agreeing with those jerks who like her just because she's attractive/cute or how much she's 'fuckable' or 'waifu material'. They keep saying nasty shit about how much they want to fap to her or how many times they came to her.

I don't think that they actually love her like I do. I doubt that they would respect her, so why would I assume that they would appreciate and understand her?

But if I ever met someone who claims to share the same waifu I have, I will just show some respect and ignore them. Provided if they show the proper respect towards her of course.

As much as I would love for people to stop talking about her, it can't be helped and it isn't within my power to make them stop. But if I had the power to do any of that, I would.

This is sort of a tangentially related post that I'm mostly writing for my own benefit. Sorry.

I have the (mis)fortune of loving a girl from a work with a large and lively group of fans who have sincere romantic feelings towards the characters. There's plenty of obnoxious behavior, I guess, but also a lot of love. Seeing that, I feel like my own love for her is reaffirmed, and that she'd be happy, having so many people who care about her so much.

Today I found out that one of the people whose love for her I most admired at a distance has moved on. At first, I felt really betrayed. Not just on her behalf, but on my own, too. I thought awful things, like 'oh, I guess he found some other girl of the same archetype.' So I spent the better part of 8 hours heartsick and angry. It was only after so long it suddenly occurred to me that these fabrications don't correspond to reality. He loved her. Ending it with her must have been really painful and scary. Really, I was thinking about myself the whole time. He loved her more than I ever could. If he can't keep the flame alive, what hope do I have? I don't want to go back to how I was before I met her. But in thinking about myself rather than him, I just demonstrated that I have a long way to go to be the person she deserves. I'm going to keep trying, and I really hope, more than anything else in the world right now, that he's able to be happy.