<p>Anyone have any good Valentine’s Day stories?</p>
<p>Whether they are nice and adorable or awful and epically hilarious this is the thread for them…</p>
<p>NB: While it was not my intention to make a single people sadness thread, that may well be amusing.</p>
<p>It came. It went.</p>
<p>I didn’t really notice.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think if you compared yourself to the sub-set of people of similar intelligence to you, it would emerge that your are missing the characteristic sort of empathy and awareness that actually makes that sub-set of people so unique and special and interesting and vibrant and sincere.</p>
<p>How can a single trait make many people unique?</p>
<p>How can someone be “so” unique?</p>
<p>Does empathy really make people more interesting?</p>
<p>Wouldn’t an empathetic person find someone without empathy quite interesting?</p>
<p>Aren’t people that lack empathy usually more sincere, even overly sincere?</p>
<p>you are challenging the literal meaning of what I wrote, to be clear. (like as opposed to the more subjective general idea, or feeling, etc.)</p>
<p>I can try to clarify, but language itself has some inherent limitations.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would argue that there are actually a very few select traits that define most of an individual. Of course, we are brought up to think that people are an endless, indescribable, composition of a myriad of traits, so your thinking is understandable.</p>
<p>And I would say empathy and awareness are two that are sort of universally central.
Also, I think its best to examine people by their individual actions, and then let our interpretations of those actions color our perspectives of them. Don’t try to look at someone as a whole, all they are to you, etc. - that only blurs things. (this is my view)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>well, the so was applied to all the adjectives, but obviously the “so” is redundant. It adds emphasis though, which was why I thought to phrase it that way, I think.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know. To me, the answer is yes. “interesting” gets into very very subjective territory though - interesting to whom? What I more mean is complete, I guess. But I would still say intelligence plus empathy has greater depth than either one alone. And I equate depth to interestingness. I realize others may not, however (or even think of interestingness in the same general way).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>maybe from some sort of psychoanalytical standpoint. I do not think I explicitly implied the opposite. And I am talking about interesting as engaging - as in that person is interesting in the sense that I want to be around them (not in the sense that they are an object of scientific curiosity to me).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I was meaning sincere a long the lines of sincerely empathetic to others. You are reading what I wrote rigidly. I think if you interpreted a little more this might have been clear.</p>
<p>I am wondering why you have responded to me in the manner that you have. I would have appreciated if you had told me what you were offended by (if you were) more directly. That would have been more productive, maybe.</p>
<p>@enfieldacademy: Lawl, what did TYIL say to you?</p>
<p>Mine was an everything that could go wrong, did go wrong kind of Vday. But it was nice nonetheless. </p>
<p>At midnight, my boy kissed me, but he had just eaten blue Doritos so I made a really funny face and everyone in the room laughed. Awesome start :). </p>
<p>Later on, he hid my Vday gift in plain sight in my room… on my desk in a dorm room. Didn’t see it for hours. He thought I would see it first thing in the morning. Once I finally did find it, it was a blue glass rose and a cute note. I was reading the note on my bed when he came in. So I left my rose on my bed. He started kissing me so I leaned back and heard this <em>crack</em>. I broke the rose. He started laughing hysterically because it is typical me- being a klutz. He ended up going to get another blue rose from his room until I can fix the original rose. He got me a dozen roses and hopes to give me one on every month anniversary for our first year together. It was cute, but totally like me to break his present. </p>
<p>We also had a mutual friend walk in on us, even though BOTH of us made sure the door was locked AND there was a note on the door that said don’t come in. That was awkward. </p>
<p>It was definitely a memorable day. There was more, but that’s about all I can share without getting censored lol.</p>
<p>I flirted with a cat on Twitter. Fun times.</p>
<p>Took an econ exam. Got 26/30.</p>
<p>Wanted to get <3 wrong.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You missed the point.</p>
<p>A shared trait cannot make people unique, by definition.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, this site isn’t productive.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It can make the people that have the shared trait(s) unique from those that don’t. And that’s what I was saying. I was talking about the sub-set as a whole, not about the variations within it (though certainly these exist to).</p>
<p>Then you should’ve used the word “different” rather than “unique.”</p>
<p>And frankly, if E={x|x has empathy} then it strikes me as rather trivial to point out that empathy is what makes x∈E different from x∉E.</p>
<p>I was using unique to mean different from the rest + in a good way. I think that is clear.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure, but I still think that the reinforcement (emphasis) has some value. Also, I was not talking about empathy as being the quality that makes the sub-set unique, but the specific combination of (the characteristic) empathy and awareness + intelligence that I think is displayed by that sub-set. So it is not just the simple matter of having or not having empathy (in which case pointing out I pointed out would have been less warranted).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s not what unique means.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So I guess your original post could be amended to:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, either you’re saying that people with empathy and “awareness” are more interesting/vibrant than people lacking said characteristics, or you’re not saying anything at all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know. To me, it can have the meaning I gave it. One definition I found is this:
having no like or equal; unparalleled; incomparable. This is along the lines of the way I was using it in.</p>
<p>There is no need to amend the post in that way. What I say I am meaning is not different from what I wrote (what I say I am meaning is implicit in my original post). I did not say (as you claimed) that empathy is what makes the sub-set unique; I said that it is the characteristic empathy/awareness in addition to the intelligence (of a similar level to that of theyankinlondon) that makes them all of the good things that they are.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No it isn’t. You said you meant something like different in a good way, which is not what that definition says.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fair enough, I’ll try again.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>unparalleled is, from my experience, usually used in a good way. In fact, this is hinted at in its definition: unequaled or unmatched; peerless; unprecedented. </p>
<p>To what degree the way I used unique is right or wrong is a relative question. It depends on all our various conceptions of the words in the definition of unique, and the words in the definitions of those words, and so on. Language is not precise or clear. I think words have some flexibility, and as long as we are willing to elaborate on what we mean (provide clarifications) it is ok.</p>
<p>like right now:</p>
<p>I was meaning there was no need to amend the post to clarify it in the way you were trying to, because it was already clear in that way. </p>
<p>In what I wrote to tell you that (my last post) I was paraphrasing myself at the end - good was a byword for vibrant, sincere, interesting, unique, etc.</p>
<p>I think why you have continued to respond to me (and why you did so in the first place), is because you maybe feel what I wrote applies to you (and that’s why you are so focused on refuting it - trying to finding loopholes in what I said, trying to argue that it doesn’t make sense, etc). The manner in which you have responded to me makes me think this. This is just my cursory analysis. But I am wondering what you think. You avoided answering these sorts of questions when I asked the first time, and I didn’t press you. But I do not think our current exchange is getting anywhere (if it is for you, tell me).</p>
<p>I did not not mean what I wrote to be mean, really. I only said it because theyankinlondon has made similar statements to that one (that show insensitivity to others) which make me sad for him. Sad for him because I think that he has the potential to be a kinder, more thoughtful person. And sad in general that people - ostensibly smart and bright people - say things such things.</p>
<p>^[Please :)](<a href=“http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/4/40222/1270873-dont_feed_the_trolls_super.jpg”>http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/4/40222/1270873-dont_feed_the_trolls_super.jpg</a>)</p>
<p>I repeat:
I can hardly believe that you posted a rant as splendid as that over that one little line.</p>
<p>he never said anything to me, ever.</p>
