I honestly don't know.
I haven't experienced it yet. Though there was a time someone on here was doubting their love for Konata and was looking at mine, but they never actually did.
I was panicked the whole time though.

There you go:
>>3408

I thought I was the only person who fancied Kanako but then Yasuo came to this site. At first I thought he was here to troll me, and felt mildly perturbed, but he seems like a decent person so now I don't care at all.

I felt that way before, Asukafag. You'll learn to respect if not admire the people who love your waifu. You will also learn to realize that your idea of "Asuka" will generally differ from other people's ideas of "Asuka; resulting in different "Asuka"s. I think that's reasonable enough to escape from that inferiority/jealousy mindset. It's also great if you can feel their genuine love for the waifu too, because then you know that even though their idea of "Asuka" is different, they still love the character your idea was based from-- which (I'm going to go total 180 on this but..) is way better than all the assholes and jerks that treat characters like objects that are seasonal and ones who just downright insult/hate them for no absolute reason.

I hope that answered your question OP, I'm no good at focusing too much on the actual problem at hand; but that is just my opinion on the matter.

tl;dr : AS someone posted earlier on this board, a total good piece of advice to remember is "She loves you". Say that to yourself everytime you feel bad.

I've had this problem too. It was really hard for me when I found out my waifu, because I found out I wasn't the only one who liked her. That's one reason why I was hesitating to start this relationship.

Today I understand that because they like her too doesn't mean we are enemies or my waifu is a whore. All of them has different mental impression of her. In my world my waifu exists for me only and loves me only. Like I said I dont think other people who consider her as their waifu as my enemies. More like together we are sort 'community' and we all have something common as long we respect each others opinions.

Only thing I consider enemies are people who just sexually lust my waifu and use her as sexual object. I don't mind that people have sexual thoughts but yelling them all around and lusting isn't nice.

>>4463 I am glad that i could make a good impression. Hehe.

To my shame i must admit that i feel that way pretty often, not when i see somebody else likes my waifu, just when somebody mentions her in an forum or something like this. Everytime i get this ill feeling of "jealousy", but after i discovered /mai/ i´ve learned that there is no reason for it. Now i can handle it pretty well and i am always glad that Kanako is important for somenone else.
After all it is like
>>4466
>>4468
said. Everybody has his own image of her waifu, so there is no reason to feel that way, since the Asuka you love is different from the Asukas other ones love.

>>4458
I understand how you might feel that way brah, I have Saber for instance as a waifu, and she is pretty damned popular. However I don't know of any Saber-lovers who can spend time with a hallucination of her.

Take that you bastards.

But in all seriousness: I have much respect and feel a special kinship with people who share love for a waifu with me, means they have excellent taste. I've never felt particularly hostile or jealous, there really isn't a reason to be as such.

The important thing to remember here is that your mind is the world you share together, nobody else can take that away from you right?

If your waifu actually existed at some point through some miracle, then you'd have an entirely different issue on your hands. Not necessarily fighting over her, oh no, it'd be figuring out exactly who's version is the one that exists.

I am double retarded and kept putting the name in the e-mail field.

Holy shit I'm going to sleep now I promise.

Post edited on 3rd Aug 2011, 6:30am

Thank you everyone. Your words are a great help. I have been thinking about it and you are all right. There's no way anyone can take away the Asuka that I believe in and love, and even there may be others whose waifu is also Asuka, their version of her will never be the same as mine.

i hope I can start thinking this anytime I get that feeling and am able to browse forums and such more freely.

Here, have this picture as a thank you.

I still haven't come across anyone else who loves my waifu, but just the thought makes feel jealous. I personally don't understand the whole she's your interpretation thing. To me it makes no sense, it's still the same girl.

>>4473
It's like this: she's the same girl, but she's not the same person. Your waifu is your own personal interpretation of the character (a "triple doppleganger", as one anon put it, of the beloved, the lover, and Love) because unless you can honestly say you know EVERY single minute detail about your waifu and can back it up with the Word of God, you have made up your own "facts" that fit with what you know of her. You fill in the gaps to give her a more complete and versatile personality (as opposed to relying only on the lines and actions she displayed in her original source material, thus forcing the only interaction you two could have to be like a visual novel-- scripted, predictable lines and actions).

>>4475
>back it up with the Word of God

That was a good one. Consciously or not, you stressed how any notion of a predicable categorical certainty (even if scientific), culminates on the belief of this world as the consequence of a supreme and unavoidable (set of) antropocentric law(s), that we could very well take as our God (gimme my filtered-word fix, btw), animic or not, as the one Einstein used to believe in...

So no God (i.e. atheism, like ours) means no possibility of objectiveness. Good.

>>4475
I don't try and fill in gaps, I go with what I know of her, I don't see how that makes the relationship limiting. And in my view there's only one of her and one of me. I don't think just because someone has a different view of her means it's a different person.

>>4480
>I go with what I know of her
>what I know of her
>what I know

See it now? that is the personal interpretation some of us keep talking about. Effectively, all you can possibly love is what you've grasped: that is the limit. Rest now.

>>4479
...When I said "Word of God", I was talking about the series' creator's say on something (i.e. whether two characters were really supposed to be together as the OTP). I have no idea where you got all that. Interesting idea, though , if I understood it right. Exactly how does the existence of God or not render truth absolute or relative? With morality it's rather obvious but scientific fact? Don't misunderstand, I'm not one of those people that think science is infallible because it is science, but do you see what I'm saying?

>>4482
>that is the personal interpretation some of us keep talking about
uh

no it's not

>>4485
Actually yeah. As I said, unless you know your waifu as well as you know yourself, if not better, it is not the original character's true self. How can you call something that, though close to the original, is different in various ways the exact same thing as the original? All paper is paper, but if my paper is ripped in a corner where another is not, it is different though still the same in the respect that it is paper.

>>4483
Oh, don't sweat it then (sorry). Starting it against science is a long way and doesn't belong to /mai/ at all.

>>4485
Really? How so? I sincerely thought we were over this already...

Don't worry, it goes away with time

What you have to consider is that...no one in this world will ever get her, so there is no point in feeling those things.

Now, as is customary between Asukafags, we must now fight to the death...nah just kidding

>>4489
I'd like to see that happen, actually. Sadly the last time I remembered two people having the same waifu (Hanako Ikezawa) they became friends instead of fighting! Ugh, when am I going to see a biff again?

>>4486
It's still the same girl. If two people love the same girl for different reasons that doesn't change the fact that it's the same girl. I love her, not my interpretation of her.

>>4492

Well, I like to avoid starting arguments with other people in love with Asuka. I just don't want to spend my words arguing for the sake of a person that will never be able to chose between us.

Although, I would probably lose. I do very little to "deserve" her, because honestly I am far to rational to attempt to deserve someone that does not exist. I just wallow in self pity and longing

>>4494
Sorry, but that doesn't sound very rational to me. If you wanted to feel you deserved to call her your waifu, you would work towards that ideal. That would be rational.

inb4 Easier said than done.

>>4498

Alright, consider this. Are you ever going to BE with her? As much as you may desire it, you aren't. It's just your fantasy

Now don't get me wrong here. It keeps you floating, that love. And it's real as any other. But you are never going to have her. And for that, I respect people with the raw capability to motivate themselves into deserving something they will never have

But I can't do that

>>4493

"You love her"
You sure do. Now, do you know everything about her? Do you particular enjoy her only in whatever she's from? This means that she probably isn't your waifu-- but someone you admire and possibly love. Having her as your waifu would mean that you'd have to create your own interpretation of her, because the real her(from whatever she's from), doesn't acknowledge you. It is up to us, the denizens of /mai/ to give our own characteristics, memories, and experiences to create our personal waifu. This is what differentiates us from boards like /a/, with the whole "pick your waifu" thing.

>>4505
Not that guy
You know...I actually agree with that.
This is also the reason I hate the term waifu.

Also I figured this board was the waifu board in the sense that it discussed all aspects of loving a 2D person, not just that idea of how loving a 2D person should happen

>>4505
So in your opinion, she shouldn't be my waifu if I don't know everything about her, and don't make stuff up about her? I don't see why I shouldn't love her for not knowing everything about her. What you're saying is is that I should just start making stuff up about her and fall in love with that?
I love her for who she is. I don't think just because I don't make stuff up about her shouldn't change anything. Also I fell in love with her. I didn't pick her.

>>4517

I think he means she technically can't be your waifu because she being YOUR waifu would mean that you have to add the detail to her character acknowledging you as her "husband". I call your situation intense admiration, not waifu.

>>4519

No. His situation is simply unrequited love.

>>4519
Well whatever, I love her, I don't see why I should have to make up my own version of her.
>>4520
I'm pretty sure I've seen people on here say that "Me and my waifu live in separate worlds." or that "Me and her will never be together." So how is my case so different? Simply because I didn't make stuff up about her?

Post edited on 3rd Aug 2011, 11:32pm

>>4517
You're misunderstanding. He's not saying you have to do this or that. To say, "I love mai maifu for who she is" is to say "I love the whole set of ideas that come together as one to form the meta-idea that is her self". This would be loving the true original, the pure, unfiltered concept that is your waifu. Well the fact of the matter is that's just not possible. To know every inch of a person's self. There are ideas missing here and there unknown to you that stop you from truly loving who your waifu "really is" so to speak. Thus it is not the true original that is loved but an interpretation that has things added and maybe even some things tweaked.

No one is saying this means you do not love your waifu. You do love her, just not her. We are not saying you cannot love your waifu without knowing everything. If that were the case no one would be able to love anybody, but people do. It's only a small, barely noticable nuance between loving the "ghost" and loving the true meta-idea (or concept, soul, ego, etc.) that is the self (of your waifu). No one is saying the love is genuine or false, we are only trying to explain better what we mean when we say "interpretation".

>>4522
>There are ideas missing here and there unknown to you that stop you from truly loving who your waifu "really is" so to speak. Thus it is not the true original that is loved but an interpretation that has things added and maybe even some things tweaked.

So you're saying, because I haven't made stuff up, then I don't truly love her? So I can't truly love someone until I know everything about them? Well I disagree. I love her more than anything, knowing what I know about her. I don't really see why not knowing everything should mean that I shouldn't want to be with her.

>>4526

You're saying the same things over and over. It's impossible to "not make stuff up" about your waifu. You may say that you love her as she is in the anime, but that's impossible, because the way you view her is different from how other people view her. You may say that the way you view her is different from how other people do, but that just digresses back to the main point, you have your own idea of your waifu.

I still have yet to read how differing interpretations of a waifu results in a completely different character. Just think of it in terms of a real girl: some guy might think she likes lemons when she actually hates them, but that doesn't somehow create a clone that loves lemons as the guy imagined.

>>4526
You seem to be putting more importance on this than it deserves. This is one of those topics that philosophers could have a field day with while everyone else finds it all pointless. Which it is, because we're arguing about the same thing: falling in love. The only difference being what I say is loved and what you say is loved.

Think of it this way. A puzzle is not complete unless every piece is put together to form the picture. Let the puzzle pieces be the individual ideas that make up a waifu and the picture they make be a waifu as a whole. Certainly you do not need to use every piece to see what picture is made, but without them the picture is not whole. Say a person gets the exact same puzzle as our example and puts it together using every piece so the picture is whole and perfect. You would not be wrong to say they are the same, but you would also not be wrong to say they are different (due to the first missing a piece or two). What seperates the two puzzles is on a detail level.

Another example would be cheap copies of famous paintings like the Mona Lisa. Same picture, but to say the copy is exactly the same as the original Mona Lisa and try to sell it as such is sheer stupidity. Why? Do they not depict the same thing? What seperates the Mona Lisa from her street-vendor counterparts is the fact that she is the ORIGINAL, the archetype. The copies are just that-- copies. Same picture yet there is a world of difference just because one happened to be made by a certain guy at a certain time. It is these DETAILS that seperate the pictures. The parts affect the whole.

It's the difference between a picture made up of 2999 pixels and one that is made up of 2998 pixels.

>>4528
Also this.

>>4531
waifus aren't real bro.

>>4531

I think that's where you misunderstood. Let's say the guy loves the girl because he thinks she loves lemons.

In reality:
Guy loves Girl who HATES lemons.

In Guy's Mind:
Guy loves Girl who LOVES lemons.

In this sense, there is actually 2 versions of the girl, the original-- who just so happens to hate lemons, and the "fake"(aka the one the guy truly loves), because she loves lemons.

>>4536
No, I get that. That still doesn't result in two different people.

>>4540
>Facepalm.jpg
Yes and no. There are two girls on the ideal plane but on the physical there is only one. We are talking only about CONCEPTS.

>>4541

You can't say that for certain. You're probably right when you say you love her but everyone is different, so they all love her differently. If you could just explain why you love her and describe it in detail, it will definitely differentiate with someone elses' reason with why they love her. Just saying "I just love her as how she is in the anime" is dodging the question.

>>4546

We all have different eyes, bro. If you want to make it extremely simple, just by saying you love her as she is in the anime means that you love her in your own sense. After all, you're the one that decided to love her as she is in the anime. Stop trying to make it complicated, I'm sure anyone of us can explain it, and I'm sure there are already plenty of posts about it in /mai/. I just don't know if you're forcing yourself to deny it or you just truly don't get it-- in which we're either the worst teachers ever or you're just prone to misunderstanding.

>>4546
But you did. The human mind likes to cut corners in its mental processes, so it makes assumptions based on what it already knows. That way you don't have to reinvent the wheel every time.

That's less important, though. It's not as blatant as adding something. The interpretation can also be that because of what you do NOT know. Because if you do not know one part, you do not know the whole. This also causes a diverges between the character and how you see her.

>>4543
I know what you're saying, I'm not an idiot. The problem is every time someone says, "I love her," someone else jumps in with, "No you don't, you love your concept of her." The miniscule differences between people's interpretations aren't important; it's still the same girl.

>>4552
I hate to sound rude, but it doesn't sound like you understand because you brought the talk full circle. "Physically" (in this case referring to the media) there is only one girl. However, ideally there are many. This is why many can love the same girl yet have her love only them.

>>4553
No one's waifu actually loves them, because she's a drawing; they pretend they're in a relationship. I don't have some interpretation of mai waifu that loves me, because more than likely, she wouldn't; I just pretend she would. If she were real, she'd only love one person, and the sad fact is that's probably not one of the people who love her. I know users here like to imagine having a waifu is completely perfect and without the problems of a 3D relationship, but love is love and I personally can't see a difference.

>>4553
It's not really the same girl if stuff about her isn't true. It's just an idea of how she might be or something then.
I fell in love with her for who she is, not some idea of how I think she could be.

>>4557
>pretend she would [love me]
>If she were real, she would love only one
Yes, you have it! Right there! That pretending is what we mean when we say interpretation!

imagination, mental image, how you personalty perceive something, your minds eye ect.
how can you not get it?

>>4560
What I don't quite get is how that makes it so different. That's basically like saying that two guys looking at the same girl. It's the same girl, they might be thinking different things about her, but it's the same girl.

Post edited on 4th Aug 2011, 12:58am

>>4558

>Reply to the only post that wasn't intended for him.

This is getting tiring. You saying that you only view he as she is in the anime and that you do not view her differently from anyone else is saying that everyone is exactly like you.

>>4557

I hope you know that the concept of waifu should have the big factor of ignorance. The way you typed that out seemed like you were just fine with tormenting yourself. Do you like doing that to yourself?

>>4562
Honestly, I think he is just trolling us at this point. How many times have we repeated the same thing?

>>4559
How can it be an interpretation if you know it's not true? You have to actually believe an interpretation of something is correct, otherwise it's just doublethink.
>>4562
It's not a like or dislike thing, that's just how I view it.

>>4561
the girl does not change, how you perceive her does.

>>4564
I don't know where you got that definition of "interpretation", but this is my first time coming across it. Interpretation has always been used in a relative way. "My interpretation is..." for example.

But that's not the point. If you want to call it doublethink, go for it. Whatever works. So long as you now understand the distinction that we are making.

>>4565
But I haven't made anything up about her. I go with what is a fact about her, not what might be a fact, which is the actual girl not an interpretation of her. I see her as the girl that she is in the series.
>>4562
How does that make everyone exactly like me?
I also am finding this tiring. I'm tired of everyone trying to tell me how I view her, and that my view of her isn't really her but how I view her. I'm saying I view her as the girl I fell in love with. All I know about her is all that's in the novels and such. Which ishow most people probly see her. I'm saying that my waifu isn't some idea I have of her, but the her who I don't know everything about. If you're opinion is that I shouldn't love her because I don't know everything about her than I disagree.
>>4563
I don't quite get how I'm trolling.

your waifu is not the same waifu as the next guy over with the same character for a waifu, they have completely different experiences with you, and each person views her slightly differently, since the original work doesn't always fill in every single exact detail of a characters life.
one guy with the same character for a waifu as you might have gone to the beach with her for a day, built a sand castle, smacked around a watermelon and so on.
on the same day, you and your waifu might have gone to the movies, where at she got scared and held onto you tight with eyes closed for most of the film, this is something the other guy knows nothing about, as such, he can't imagine his waifu having done that, even if he wanted to, to the best of his knowledge, this never happened.
you both have different versions in your mind of what happened on the same day, how would you explain this? she can't be in two places at once right?
Each person that shares a waifu experiences different things in their mind.

>>4568
>Perfectly sums up everything we have been trying to say.
Also once more, NOT KNOWING also causes a split between your waifu and the character. Do you honestly think her media will go over every single detail about her? No. Therefore there are things MISSING from your interpretation of the character. The only one who can know a character completely is its creator (there's that God reference for the anon who thought he saw one earlier today).

>>4568
That is the interpretation of her though. I fell in love with the girl in the series, not an idea of how she might be. I still don't understand why I need to know everything about her life.

>>4569
>Perfectly sums up everything we have been trying to say.
>Also once more, NOT KNOWING also causes a split between your waifu and the character. Do you honestly think her media will go over every single detail about her? No. Therefore there are things MISSING from your interpretation of the character.

No I don't think everything about her will ever be said. I just love her for who she is. I wish I did know everything about her, but I much more than likely never will. As I said earlier, I don't think I should need to know everything to truly love her and want to be with her. But that's just my opinion. I'm sure not everyone agrees with it.

Anyway I'm getting tired of this. Maybe there's some kind of misunderstanding or maybe I view it all differently or something I don't know. I just know I love her for what I know of her.

Post edited on 4th Aug 2011, 1:43am

>>4570
>I still don't understand why I need to know everything about her life.
usealy people want to know as much about their loved one as they can, see as much of them as they can and so on, if you just don't care, then it sounds like you don't really love her after all.

>>4570
I'm done for tonight.

>>4571
I think that came out kinda wrong. I said I wish I knew everything about her. I know all that I can about her. I really wish I knew everything about her, I really do. I just don't assume and make stuff up about her.

>>4572
I am too.

>>4573
you might not, but others do.

>>4573
>I know all that I can
>Meaning he doesn't know everything
For my final words on the matter, please refer to my previous posts where I used the analogies of the puzzle that was MISSING a few pieces and the pictures that was SHORT a few pixels.

If you do not know even one tiny detail about the character, then the one you make your waifu is an interpretation. She is not the original for whatever reason. So whether you make stuff up or leave the blanks blank, you cannot possibly know the true, actual, whole character; that is what we have been saying.

If that STILL doesn't click for you, dig around for the posts that deal with character love. Specifically the pictures. They're probably around page ten now. Or maybe the anon who originally posted them still has them and will give them to you here.

>>4580
I kinda get the puzzle thing, but it still confuses me.

>If you do not know even one tiny detail about the character, then the one you make your waifu is an interpretation. She is not the original for whatever reason. So whether you make stuff up or leave the blanks blank, you cannot possibly know the true, actual, whole character; that is what we have been saying.
I'm kinda confused? Are you saying because I don't make up stuff about her and make assumptions she's not my waifu? And how is she not the original, if I leave the blanks blank? And I understand that I won't know everything about her. The way I see it though is that I fell in love with the girl in the series. If I started thinking things about her that are just assumptions and not the actual facts about her that have been said or released, doesn't that make a different character? A version of her that's not the original girl from the series that I fell in love with? I mean after changing her characteristics or adding your own which aren't facts about her, that makes her someone else. Not her, because those assumptions aren't true facts about her. I didn't fall in love with my idea of how she might be, I fell in love with the girl in the series. Not my personalised version of her, which is the original.

If I'm pissing people off I don't mean to. I'm just trying understand.

>>4584
I do believe that is the point everyone is getting at, some people fall in love with their personal variation of a character which they call their waifu. Whether or not YOU do this is a personal preference, but for the ones who do this nobody ever could fight with them over their waifu because she only exists to them.

>>4584
I am not saying you don't love your waifu as a character or as your waifu. The only difference between what I am saying and what you are saying is the... concept that you hold dear. I am not saying you did not fall in love with the character; I am not saying she is not your waifu because you do not know everything; I am only explaining what is meant when someone says "interpretation". I am only saying it is always an interpretation due to our limited knowledge. That's it. Nothing more. If you couldn't love a character she wouldn't be your waifu.

Tohno's analogy fits the best in my eyes. Anyway, I'd like to interrupt this somewhat lugubrious debate with a question.

What's wrong with doublethink?

Works for me...

>>4585
I think I get it now. And I guess that makes sense for why some people shouldn't get jealous if their waifu is a their version of her and not really the original. However not everyone's waifu is their version of her. Like in my case, as I don't make assumptions about how she might be, my waifu is the girl in the series. So as in some peoples views, jealousy is probly an unavoidable feeling.

OK, let's see how this thread's been go-... OMG.

>>4613
No, you still don't get it (and apparently neither did half of /tc/); it's not about fantasizing additional situations with your waifu or not: it's way deeper than that; it's not an option...

You, like everyone, DO start building a version of any given character, from the very begining, unintentionally and unavoidably, whether it becomes your waifu or not, because every single thing you ever interact with in the world (fictional or not), gets (automatically) biased by your own perception (that is: by they way your own 5 senses are put in your unique body) and by your own cognition: by your own personal cultural heritage, unique and irrepetible, by the means of wich you ever learned to know anything (wich means: to turn it into a tool; to incorporate a given concept as useful for certain purposes).

If you really don't get it, it might be a consequence of the very same phenomena of determinant biasing, wich higher importance you're still unwilling to akcnowledge. That is: it doesn't matter how many times anyone tries to explain you something, if you do not already share a certain minimal common (linguistic/conceptual) heritage with your interlocutor (or persist against incorporating it), you will never understand what he says (for good or bad); in this case: you will never understand this "Your waifu is your concept of the character" thing at its full, as long as you believe (cause it's a belief, and a quite religious one) that is possible to know anything in the world "realistically" (just as it really is), or, that personal bias are negligible.

So, if you keep telling us (and yourself) that...

>It's still the same girl. If two people love the same girl for different reasons that doesn't change the fact that it's the same girl.

...honestly, you're still clueless (both in 2D and 3D). To know is to interpretate, to re-construct, to invent virtual entities... in short: to postulate signs; to substitute stimulus with useful concepts that we incorporate into our mental architecture and in accordance with our own heritage, to become capable of leading ourselves throughout the circumstances we happen to exist within and survive at all.

TL;DR You can only know anything in consequence -or by the means- of what you (somehow) already know. That is what interpretation means at all and what all this doppel-waifu thing is finally about: what you love is an interpretation cause we have nothing but interpretations at hand; like Bavli said: "What is the Torah [you ask]? Is the interpretation of the Torah"... We always put from ourselves on things, in order to grasp them at all; the things we put and the ways we do it, determinate the new things (signs, concepts, tools) we'll get.

Post edited on 8th Aug 2011, 9:54pm

>>4654
So what you're saying is that, just simply because I see her that makes her unique in my mind or something, and because I love her that makes her unique?

Post edited on 8th Aug 2011, 8:58pm

>>4660
Imagine if you will for a moment.
Person A asks: "why do people say 2 + 2 is 4? it's clearly 22"
Person B: "if you take two items and add them with two items, you get four items"
Person A: "but I'm not putting two items together with two items, I'm putting 2 with 2, which comes out to 22"
~skip ahead one week
Person A: "I'm just trying to understand, how can you have 2 and 2 and it not be 22?"
Person B: "God damn it..."

>>4660
No: I said what I said. What you just said is what you think I meant to say but, as far as I can see, is certainly not what I did mean to say; nevertheless, it is, indeed, given your own actual means, all you'll ever get (and be able to use) from what I said... and with your waifu is the same so, very probably, you're not gonna get this either (just yet).

>>4663
>>4654

We need more people like you around here. I'm not trying to say other people's attempts at explaining were necessarily worse or better, but the way you explained it definitely made me understand the concept I thought I knew a little bit better. Thanks.

>>4666
Why would we ever need more condescending assholes?

>>4667

Why is your post so negative? The guy was trying to explain the concept and he explained it quite well. His response to the one who asked was also well thought out and it did not display any arrogance or such attitude. Is there something I'm missing? Maybe you're just trolling? -- is what I would like to believe.

>>4663
>No: I said what I said. What you just said is what you think I meant to say but, as far as I can see, is certainly not what I did mean to say

I was kinda questioning if I understood what you were saying, which is why I used a question mark, since I wasn't sure if I understood you or not. I am trying to understand. I did have another thought about what was said. My other thought is this.
Are you saying that what I love just is my perception of her?And therefore since it's "just my perception" that some how makes her unique?

>>4668
How many times did he have to say, "You don't get it?" He always has to throw in some pretentious comment about how maybe someday you'll understand...

>>4670

Because that is the essence of the post. That's what he's trying to say. Because the one who asked doesn't understand-- it's likely because he views the explanation differently from what is trying to be explained. It goes along with what he is trying to say, and the one who asked is basically being used as an example. Cool down and read it again. I'm surprised people are still trying to explain this concept to the one who asked even after multiple posts. It's nice to see someone keep trying, and teaching in different angles help. If we just said the same stuff over and over again it will not go anywhere.

>>4671
It doesn't matter if someone you're teaching doesn't understand, the issue is how you teach them. Repeating "you don't get it" makes you a jerk, plain and simple.

>>4672

That's the point of the post, is what I'm trying to say.

The one who asked: Does not understand the concept of one's one interpretation

The poster: Explaining what it means while giving his own example.

The example: The post itself.

He's trying to prove that the asker is interpreting things in his own unique way. Since he does not understand the concept of it in the first place, he's trying to say : Since you don't understand my post, that alone means you interpret it differently from how I originally posted it.

There you go, you can basically replace words around and it will be the same question about the "one's own waifu" thing. The source displayed the original, but you understand it differently-- is basically in simpler terms what I think the poster is trying to display.

>>4673
It doesn't matter what they're talking about; they could be discussing the history of sneakers and the problem would still be there. My point is you can explain something without telling the other person they don't understand. Of course they don't understand; you telling them such is just insulting.

Good: "Sneakers were invented in a volcano in Germany."
Bad: "Maybe someday you'll realize sneakers were invented in a volcano in Germany."

>>4674

Good: You view things differently
- What we've been trying to say this whole time

Bad?: You don't get it. This means that you -- as you are now, will not get it (because you interpret it differently)

Honestly, before you posted, there was no name calling, no insulting. The one who asked was honestly curious and I'm sure he has thick skin if he really wanted to understand. I don't want to derail the thread that much, because I don't want to let anything go in vain, but if you don't like it, just report it, hell I wish there was a thread hider. No need to put your negative thoughts into an honest thread about a curious guy who purely wants to understand things.

>>4675
Like I keep saying, I have no problem with this thread, or the discussions in it. My problem is how >>4654 writes. All the time.

>>4669
It wasn't gratuitious that I distinguished what it's said from what is understood or meant to say; but, for now:

>Are you saying that what I love just is my perception of her?

Yes, because that's all you'll ever really get from anything: your own personal and biased concept of it.
Right now, I said "concept" and not just "perception", because that second term concerns exclusively to sensorial experience, and I want you to repair in boths human bias/limits: sensorial and intellectual. When, for example, the heads of 60's psychedelia talked about "opening the doors of perception", they were merely talking about LSD's qualities of providing us with a wider range of sensorial experiences -whether such assumption was correct or not- and not really about any specific ideas or concepts that could arise from such "amplified" physical experience.

>>4667
That's because I saw he hadn't got it yet, indeed, what you wanted me to say?

I didn't even say it was his or anyone's fault. As >>4673 noted, I tried instead to show how it could be consequence of a general situation: the difficulty of translation and communication, due to the impossibility of merely transposing signs from one person (and his personal heritage) to another, from one ultimately private conceptual world to another, without a reconstruction of the things those concepts signify taking place. I was actually very optimistic by saying that he -or anyone- might someday really understand (and really share) what someone else says... and why to even get into all that? because that seemed to be the very reason behind the polemic around the doppel-waifu: the lack of an adequate definition of "interpretation", wich allowed the acknowledgement of its inevitability.

>>4676

Indeed, you might not know this yourself yet but: I do not dislike you, honestly, not at all; intellectual disagreement doesn't imply lifelasting grudges or the need to fight to death; I do have fun arguing with you (I also do very much enjoyed some of your remixes on /cr/, if you may know)... and I'm quite sure you're not gonna like this either, but: we are not emotionally driven bitches or unfortunately illiterate slaves, are we? we are, more or less, men (or men-surrogates) and a man is a man because he doubts: because he is doomed into development and thus, into the perennial possibility of failing and meeting disagreements, that comes with (any possibility of the existence of any) freedom. I really think we can deal with this things; our skin isn't so delicate.

Post edited on 9th Aug 2011, 1:20am

>>4678
I mean this in the nicest way possible, but your posts are incredibly pretentious. You use big words and concepts to describe the simplest of things, which gives off the impression that you want to dazzle someone with your intellect rather than actually communicate with them.

>>4678
Well yeah, I don't hate you, I just hate how you write.
>>4679
Basically this.

Post edited on 9th Aug 2011, 1:28am

>>4679
I just jumped into this thread from the front page, and after skimming this thread, I agree completely with this post.

>>4679
>>4680
>>4681

I do heartly believe all those so called simple things aren't really simple at all: that embracing them as such is just displaying personal prejudices, and that defending poor revisions of them, disregard of the sight of further possibilities, pitiful; and I do belive that aiming to refined and precise ideas requires a careful selection of refined and precise terms and structures of exposition; so I do try my best... and in consequence, I am pathetically and nauseating pretentious, indeed: sorry.

Now, if you have finished calling me an ass: have you got anything else to say -to criticize, just as well- about the ideas concerning this thread that I just tried to expose? Cause that could be interesting too, you know? That's why I posted them!

Post edited on 9th Aug 2011, 2:10am

>>4678
>Yes, because that's all you'll ever really get from anything: your own personal and biased concept of it.

I don't love my view of her. I love her. But I get the idea of what you're saying. Though it isn't how I view things. But if that's how you view things than what if she was 3d? How would this make sense then? I mean multiple can love the same girl. But if she was 3d then only one person could be with her. Is it just because a waifu is 2d? If that's the case isn't it like treating her like fair game or something?

Post edited on 9th Aug 2011, 2:48am

>>4682
It's clear my views of having a waifu are drastically different from most people's, so I pretty much give up on the whole interpretation debate.

>>4682
I'm not calling you an ass. i don't have a problem with what you say, it's the way you say it. You use huge, overbearing explainations when they aren't neccessary to get your point across. Are you interested in communicating with others or stroking your own intellectual ego?

a lot of us guys have personality problems

>>4683

>I don't love my view of her. I love her.
>But I get what you're saying.
This 2 senses are contradictory. You don't have to agree with me (in wich case, you could refute me); but you wouldn't say that first sentence -again- if you had got what I said.

>But if that's how you view things than what if she was 3d? How would this make sense then?...
In a differently enough way, wich could probably show you how litte wise it is to ever let yourself fall for (your given interpretation of) any 3D. You might want to check these: >>3487 >>3490 ...but, really: better let 3D coupling aside from this thread (and board).

>>4687

>You use huge, overbearing explainations when they aren't neccessary to get your point across. Are you interested in communicating with others or stroking your own intellectual ego?
Yeah, I'm obviously failing and missing many targets, again and again (even thought I try to include TL;DR's as often as possible); and, as I said once before: it's really frustrating for me as well (aditionally, I have headaches very frequently, so this posting thing can get pretty intense, sometimes; althought that also can contribute to the excitement)...

But, honestly, after all this: you really think you can tell better than me what I need to get my points across, the very way I want them to get across? Do you think it'd be valid the other way around: to demand you to thin your ideas, for me to even consider them? I don't tell you guys how to post: I deal with what you give me and always adress (and answer) to your ideas, trying to make the best of them just the way you provide them; that implies an effort for me as well, but it's ok: that's the fairest way this thing can function (or so I think).

>>4688
>This 2 senses are contradictory. You don't have to agree with me (in wich case, you could refute me); but you wouldn't say that first sentence -again- if you had got what I said.

I was saying that I don't have the same view on things that you do. I'm really tired, so I it didn't come out right.

>In a differently enough way, wich could probably show you how litte wise it is to ever let yourself fall for (your given interpretation of) any 3D. You might want to check these: >>3487 >>3490 ...but, really: better let 3D coupling aside from this thread (and board)

That's right. I forgot I'm probly the only person here who would love her if she was 3d. Though I don't agree with sharing her still. If it's someone elses "version" of her, created because of their assumptions they made about her, then to me that isn't really her. But as I said before, just because 2 people love someone, doesn't mean that they both should be with her. That's how I see it.

Am I honestly reading this? Someone gets called an asshole who wants to show off how smart they are because they use "big words"? Doesn't that make you the jerk for wanting a higher level to be brought down for your convenience? If someone doesn't understand, they don't understand.

Do you also consider the great minds of history assholes? Are Einstein and Aristotle biggots because they used larger words to save time and didn't draw pretty pictures instead of formulas? Believe it or not, "big and unnecessary" words are often times necessary to better convey our ideas. Maybe you should do more reading if you can't understand. Why should someone dumb down their words to the point where the original idea is all but lost in translation? That's just being a fucking idiot.

When you are exposed to something for an extended period of time, you tend to absorb what is being exposed to you (in this case the writing style of many philosophers who's vocabulary is evidently twice the size of yours, giascle). Speaking from personal experience, I noticed I wrote in a more "scholarly" manner when such topics came up. I was not trying to be an asshole who wants to flaunt my "superior intelligence". I don't particularly like it because that's what I come off as, but it can't be helped.

I for one am happy Mr. Philosopher is throwing more difficult things at me. Why? Because that's how you learn. You don't improve by staying at or below your level. You overcome yourself. I actually wish he would talk more on this subject, as it is obvious he knows far more than what he has posted (maybe you could post on /mt/). It's a fascinating topic that is so BECAUSE you have to go into lengthy explanations.

Those have got to be some of the most rage inducing posts I have seen. "Stopping talking in ways I can't understand!" At this point, you should get the fuck over it and research shit. Maybe if the problem really was the teacher who was wording ambiguously and not giving examples and comparisons, the student would not be at fault. But when something is explained six ways to Sunday by THREE different people, the problem is obviously the student. How immature to get mad at someone for knowing more than you when you refuse to even try to learn what they know. Get the stick out of your ass and realize just because you can't understand someone, that does not mean they are wrong.

>>4702
Note how I never said I didn't understand what he's saying. There's a difference between using big words because the subject requires it and using big words as a cheap way to try and impress people; I have a fairly large vocabulary, but I understand it's always best to word things as simply as possible. If you can't explain a concept in plain terms, you probably don't understand it very well.

>>4704
Explain Russell's Paradox in "plain terms".

>>4705
Also note how I never said I understand Russell's paradox very well.

You may not have, but the fact that you got pissed off over large words is pretty similar to not understanding. Wording shouldn't be a problem if you truly understand. He isn't trying to be a haughty asshole. He's been very kind and put an effort into trying to help the guy understand, on the contrary. Seems like a dick move to insult the guy after knowing all this.

Post edited on 9th Aug 2011, 9:08pm

Giascle, try and calm down. You shouldn't take on the role of /mai/ sheriff. Not everything is an attack and not every unusual post ( in this case: Post with "complicated words" ) is a method to flaunt mental superiority.

>>4707
Like I keep saying, just because it's annoying doesn't mean I don't understand it. I've never seen a translation of a Greek philosopher's work that uses anything over middle school level vocabulary, because it's not necessary. And it doesn't matter if he wasn't trying to be a jerk if he was still being a jerk; if someone trips and drops their spaghetti on you, you're still going to be unhappy about it, even though you know it was an accident.
>>4708
I never said every post, just every post by that guy.

>>4709
>taking one instance and applying it to all like instances
Inductive reasoning. Not the best way to view the world.

So are you saying it's perfectly alright to punch that kid in the face for "being a jerk"? After all, a jerk is a jerk. You either are or aren't. Maybe you would even join in on beating someone who happened to spill their food on another, but I find this wrong. Someone who accidentally burns food and regrets it is not the same as one who does this on purpose to be a jerk. How do you just clump everyone together like that? Do you just ignore circumstances, intentions, etc.?

>>4710
Where did you come up with beating someone up?

There's a difference between an accident happening once and the same person making the same accident every single time. Wouldn't you start to think they were doing it on purpose? Especially if they didn't know they were doing anything wrong, so they never apologized for it.

>>4711
Where did you come up with this idea? The anon included tl;dr for most of his post and expressed an understanding and regret that he couldn't convey his thoughts (check his last post). You seem to have a very small understanding of behavior. Just because action B resembles action A, that does not mean action B is action A.

>>4712
>The anon expressed an understanding and regret that he couldn't convey his thoughts
Well yeah, he has now.
>Just because action B resembles action A, that does not mean action B is action A.
I know. My point is even though the intent is different, the result is often still the same.

>>4713
That doesn't mean they are the same, though. And treating them as such only guarantees the results will be the same.

Anyone with a sense of humor will not get upset if their friends insult them jokingly. I do not feel offended when my friends call me a faggot or say they hate me. They're only kidding. I do the same.

>>4714
Your friends are different; you know them well enough that you can tell when they're joking. If a random person called you a faggot, but he was joking, you would still think he's insulting you.

>>4715
So you do acknoledge the fact that intentions have an affect on actions? Because otherwise you should have treated both these instances the same - someone is insulting you.

The fact that he was willing to restate and rephrase the same thing over and over is convincing proof the anon wasn't out to show off his intellect by belittling others. He answered what was directed at him without malice. Even when name calling started happening, he was asking you criticize him in a productive way. He didn't return the same level of annoyance. I do not know this man in any way, but I can tell he isn't trying to be an asshole.

>>4716
Only when you know what the intention is.

He might have explained it, but it doesn't matter if the way he explained it makes it seem like he thinks he's smarter than the person he's explaining it to. My problem wasn't the big words, my problem was him saying "Maybe you'll get it someday."

>>4717
If you find yourself explaining something to another, you are smarter than them. That's like getting mad at someone for lapping you while running because you think they feel they are morre athletic than you. I'm all for equality, but not to the point where no one is allowed to be different from another. The truth is some people are superior to others in some things. Trying to get everyone to treat everyone like your average Joe will do more harm than good.

>>4718
Just because you happen to know one thing the other person doesn't (which doesn't even really apply to this situation, because it's all opinion) that doesn't mean you're smarter than him. I know more about animation than you, but I know that's just one area and is by no means the determining factor in intelligence.

>>4719
Yes, I wasn't saying one area of more vast knowledge made you above another entirely. In the case where a discussion deals with one topic, however, you would not be wrong to consider another smarter if they demonstrate that they are.

It doesn't matter how much I know about history, for example, if I am in a math class. I am not smarter or equally as smart as the one who is above me in this particular subject. And "waifu-interpretation" isn't opinion (though I know you will consider this an opinion). That's all I will say on that note. This has been dealt with already.

I'm content to let our derailment die now. We have brought ourselves to the point where we are only discussing views. I see now the main cause of our clashing heads was where we placed importance in an act. You look more at results as a whole also, while I prefer to take things case by case. Am I wrong?

>>4720
I place importance wherever I feel is most important; sometimes it's an incredibly precise aspect, other times it's the big picture.

This thread has derailed completely and beyond.

>>4721
I don't understand that. There's surely some rhyme and reason to how you perceive things. But I'm not going to push it. This isn't the place.

>>4722
Yes, but the original topic basically wrapped up. I only continue this long when it's not affecting the rest of the thread.
>>4723
No one does.

>>4722
Indeed.

Just stop please. I can't even put on words amount of will shame.

Just saying, whoever decided to derail the thread is a jerk.

Since the thread is already derailed, I just have to say: giascle, please watch your posting. I've lurked enough to understand that you're incredibly stuck up, the way you type and the circumstances you take in order to prove someone else wrong outweigh any amount of good intent if you ever had some. This is purely my opinion and you may even ignore it, but it's really becoming a problem. Just take a look at this thread. I'm sure it isn't this simple but, you were the only one complaining. You started the negativity and you still don't want to give up, even after derailing the thread enough to disallow further teaching. If anything, I would just like you to know that your posting hurts not only the one you're arguing with, but many people as well. /mai/ isn't the place for this. You didn't like the way the guy talked? Ignore him. That would have solved the problem instantly. Go ahead and complain about it on /fb/, report it for all I care. Singling someone out and calling them a jerk does not belong on /mai/. It just doesn't.

>>4727
I know many people don't like my posts, but if I have something I want to say, I say it, regardless of how people will react. And much of the time, I'm not the only one who thinks that way; I'm just the only one who actually says it (as evidenced by >>4679 and >>4681). No matter where I go, people would say that's not the place for it, so I just use what's most convenient.

It's not that I like getting into arguments, I'm just easily irritated.

>>4728
>I say it, regardless of how people will react
>The same guy threatened to send a whole thread into a shitstorm because he didn't like the way someone posted despite knowing the poster had no ill will
Now you just look like a hypocritical douchebag. Congratulations. I would suggest you stop now before you dig yourself into an even deeper hole.

Please stop fighting!

>>4727
>disallow further teaching

Too bad there wasn't any teaching in this thread.

>>4735
Too bad there wasn't any learning in this thread.

>>4732
I had a problem with how he said it, not what he said. If he wrote something controversial, but didn't think he was superior for viewing things that way, I'd have no issue. That's not being hypocritical.

What has /mai/ truly become?

>>4743

This kind of thing is bound to happen, I guess. There's so much free thought that people forget their boundaries in order to uphold their own ideas.

>>4739
>I had a problem with how he said it, not what he said.

Get back into topic, then: what do you actually think about the ideas I posted in >>4654? do you agree or not? why? what problems can you find? what am I missing?...

Take your time.

>>4745
Like I said in >>4684, I give up on that debate. There's no common ground here, so all I can say is "I disagree."

>>4746

>There's no common ground here
Yeah, that was kind my main point on waifus, actually: there's never really enough "common ground" between men to allow any claims of objectiveness, so all we have are our personal interpretations of anything, to ever use for any purpose (and by the means of wich we try to build intelligible links with others, at least in order to allow comunication and discussions like this one here)...

>I give up on that debate
You took a great deal of time to elaborate on how pretentious I am, but you can't do so for the topic? C'mon! Don't blow it out of unjustified bitterness. Prove me wrong if you believe so, or admit that what I said, as I said it, may have some value; show that what I said was mostly hollow trivialities adorned with cheap fancy words, or acknowledge someone else's honest attempts to share his ideas (just as he had built them) to make a contribution.

>all I can say is "I disagree."
That is simply a butthurt lie or, if you really have nothing more to say, then you never had any right to call me everything you did; sorry, but I'm not the one who's holding a cheap pride in here.

Post edited on 11th Aug 2011, 2:47am

>>4747
I gave up days ago, before I even insulted you, and I never said your points are invalid, I just hate how you state then. The interpretation debate has come up countless times, and I get what people are saying, but I just can't see it that way. It has nothing to do with pride; I'll admit when I'm wrong, as long as I actually believe I'm wrong.

>>4749

>I gave up days ago, before I even insulted you,
Yeah: you gave up on the topic but had no problem into coming again and ruin the thread just to disgrace me. You didn't stop this, so I'm asking you now to mend it (not me: the thread).

>I never said your points are invalid
Well: are they correct, then, or not? make a bold statement about this, already.

>I get what people are saying
Prove it: elaborate on what we say; review it and criticize it.

>but I just can't see it that way.
Why? that's what you should've really elaborated on: what are your parameters to disregard what was said here?

Stop making excuses in the fashion of "everyone is entitled to their opinion", wich common people use when they ran out of arguments and don't want to admit defeat; allow your rethoric to be tested as well, just like you were ready to hate (and bash) someone else's to no end.

Post edited on 11th Aug 2011, 4:26am

Thread is beyond derailed. Locking.