sexkillz:

190 is a fine boy. Saw one of his pics,"2008, that year i bin dey try Small

Bro who are u seriously

2Praise:

Romeo and Juliet !!.Who can beat those 2?
They both died in love

[size=18pt]
YES

ROMEO AND JUILET PRATICED WHITE MAN'S KIND OF LOVE

BUT JACK AND ROSE PRATICED NIGERIAN KIND OF LOVE

BUT NO WOMAN WOULD TRY THAT WITH ME COS SHE WOULD BE THE ONE HOLDING THE BOARD FOR ME TO STAY ON [/size]

[size=14pt]AWON BOYS DON SMARTEN UP

BOYS ARE NOT SMILING!!  [/size]

Love knows colour?

Whts the diffrence white and black love!!

I don't do no Romeo & Juliet, Jack & Rose, Bonnie & Clyde. I wrote my own romance Cuddlemii & O.O (Nland baby love)

claremont:

Good stuff! You said "Truth is, there is a blissful state where your happiness is totally dependent on someone else's such that all you want to do is make them happy; you voluntarily put the person first before anything else". Surely a well learned person like yourself should know that basic morality demands that we treat others the same way we would want to be treated. We don't need to hide under the pretence of an imaginary "love" to do that, the way and manner we treat our partners is due to the fact that we expect them to treat us the same way. Surely, that is basic common sense, that's not what people call "love", is it?" If it is, then the proponents of love are more deluded than I thought initially.

What has the golden rule to so with this?!

Morality demands so much from us, how many of us actually act morally when it doesn't suit us? We are supposed to act in accordance to the golden rule - Treat others as you wish to be treated- but we are not, in a sense,  compelled to, so most times, we tend not to. But, when that emotion called love occurs, you voluntarily do more than the golden rule, strip yourself of your selfish nature, put that person first before even yourself NOT because you want to act in accordance to the golden rule or any moral principle but because it pleases you to; all you want to do is please that person even if it means displeasing yourself, you personally certify yourself a 'FOOL/MUGU' for that person and you're happy about it. Nothing else matters.
This is very different from doing something because you're expected to do it.
Pay me for the lecture. 

It is ethical that I give that blind man at the next bustop alms, the starving child bread, the unclothed man clothes, the stranded girl a ride, visit the sick child at the hospital but I don't . .
Meanwhile, out of the little I have, I VOLUNTARILY buy gifts for my mum even when they are the last things she needs, drive 960 km just to see her even when I have important things to do, deprive myself of certain pleasures just to make her happy.
Do you actually think I do all that for my mum because I want to obey the golden rule?

Couldn't Jack have put another woman instead of Rose on top of the floating door so he and Rose could be in the cold water? It would have been morally correct, no?

Couldn't the woman who donated her womb to her daughter have donated it to some other young girl in dire need of it? It would have been morally corrrect, no?
Point is - There are some things you do to/for people not because you're expected or compelled to do them but because you desire to, it makes you happy to do these things and, from personal experience, only when that emotion called love occurs, one does these things.

PS: Need I add that not all of us are adherents of the golden rule, some of us believe more in the platinum rule ; treat others as they wish to be treated.  

@sexkillz

As if love is a human being with brains and colour!!

if u meant environment you 'may' hv a point.but colour na! ur black arent u?

what is the colour of ur love?

naijababe:

OP, my post is not ad hominem in any way; take as it's written.

Love exists, I believe and know it. Just because you are yet to experience something or that it's intangible does not render it non existent. You posit that 50% of marriages failing means love does not exist, are you attributing the success of remaining 50% to mutual compatibility, wouldn't that be presumptuous of you ?

The biggest mistake you made in your original post is equating being in love with a person/loving someone to wanting to Be Intimate with them. Love and lust are mutually exclusive.

Spouses who cheat on their partners and do a good job of hiding it well will tell you they hide it because they respect their partners, however, those who truly love theirs won't do it no matter the temptation because they don't want to lose that special feeling that the other person brings them.

Here's some science; when in love, endorphins are released which gives you a feeling of being on high, however, as with all chemical releases into the bloodstream, it's effect only lasts for as long as its presence in the body. If the thought of someone constantly triggers the release of endorphins, would it be delusional to call the effect this person has on me love, especially when I think about a non intimate characteristic ?

Love also exists in varying degrees, this can especially be noted when you consider the love shown by parents. Most parents of more than one child favours/love one more than the rest and it's not always because the child in question is better than their other children. That child simply triggers a higher release of endorphins than the others.

Finally, it's wrong to say the West brought us love, if you mean buying flowers and chocolates on Valentines day, I agree.

Let me give you an example, I know a man who does not have the appetite of most men, he eats very little.  Whenever, he visited us, he'd politely turn down every offer of food however light; he'd swiftly follow his refusal with ' I won't be able to eat when I get home and my wife would have cooked and I won't like her to be upset', that has nothing to do with mutual compatibility but love.  He loves his wife and does not enjoy what he feels when she's upset, mutual compatibility does not bring out that kind of feeling.

Last words - The yorubas say that ' ai rin jinna lai r'abuke okere', literal translation: If you wander far enough, you'll see a hunched squirrel. Figurative translation : You are only as wise as your experience.

You believe and you know it exists, right?! Of course, I do recognize that there are people who believe in the existence of love, the same way they believe in the existence of a God, but alas, that does not mean they exist. Your belief and knowledge that love exists is based on your own moral conviction that a concept called love must exist, it is not backed by any form of proof or evidence whatsoever.

I must give you credence in your position on the relationship between "love" and endorphins. I have read the paper you were quoting, and I must say you totally misquoted the findings of that paper. That paper which you have tried to use to back up your argument investigated the role of endorphins when animals have orgasms, and concluded that the feeling of well-being animals receive after orgasm is as a result of the release of endorphins. Many people have wrongly called that the endorphins theory of love, they couldn't be more wrong, it is the endorphins theory of sex NOT love.

You just go on and on providing analogies, yet you have not answered the central question of this thread which is to provide an objective definition of love. If it lacks an objective definition, that means it has never been proven, if it has never been proven, that means it doesn't exist.

claremont:

You believe and you know it exists, right?! Of course, I do recognize that there are people who believe in the existence of love, the same way they believe in the existence of a God, but alas, that does not mean they exist. Your belief and knowledge that love exists is based on your own moral conviction that a concept called love must exist, it is not backed by any form of proof or evidence whatsoever.

I must give you credence in your position on the relationship between "love" and endorphins. I have read the paper you were quoting, and I must say you totally misquoted the findings of that paper. That paper which you have tried to use to back up your argument investigated the role of endorphins when animals have heavenly feelings, and concluded that the feeling of well-being animals receive after heavenly feeling is as a result of the release of endorphins. Many people have wrongly called that the endorphins theory of love, they couldn't be more wrong, it is the endorphins theory of sex NOT love.

You just go on and on providing analogies, yet you have not answered the central question of this thread which is to provide an objective definition of love. If it lacks an objective definition, that means it has never been proven, if it has never been proven, that means it doesn't exist.

Again, another false assumption. You read a paper and came to some crazy conclusion and worse and assumed that I read the same paper. Why don't you provide the link so others can form their own conclusions.

Here is a link for you, I hope the Economist is a credible enough link

http://www.oxytocin.org/oxytoc/love-science.html

Another link of a leading researcher of love http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Fisher_(anthropologist)

naijababe:

Again, another false assumption. You read a paper and came to some crazy conclusion and worse and assumed that I read the same paper. Why don't you provide the link so others can form their own conclusions.

Here is a link for you, I hope the Economist is a credible enough link

http://www.oxytocin.org/oxytoc/love-science.html

Another link of a leading researcher of love http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Fisher_(anthropologist)

First of all, you and I know that the links you provided are not credible. Any drunk can write a paper and get it published in The Economist, and in Wikipedia, it doesn't prove anything. Let us assume for the sake of argument that the Wikipedia link is credible, the author of that article clearly says that humanity has evolved three core brain systems for MATING and REPRODUCTION. She went further to term these systems LUST, ATTRACTION, and ATTACHMENT; the bottom line of what she posited is that lust is analogous to the love concept, which is the same position I have on this issue. Lust is often misconstrued as love simply because we are morally engineered to believe in the existence of love.

Missy ★ B:

What has the golden rule to so with this?!

Morality demands so much from us, how many of us actually act morally when it doesn't suit us? We are supposed to act in accordance to the golden rule - Treat others as you wish to be treated- but we are not, in a sense,  compelled to, so most times, we tend not to. But, when that emotion called love occurs, you voluntarily do more than the golden rule, strip yourself of your selfish nature, put that person first before even yourself NOT because you want to act in accordance to the golden rule or any moral principle but because it pleases you to; all you want to do is please that person even if it means displeasing yourself, you personally certify yourself a 'FOOL/MUGU' for that person and you're happy about it.

That emotion called love, right?! The problem I have with this logic is how do we know when the emotion has occurred or is occurring? If we can't rationally define what love is and it's characteristics, then how do we know if it has occurred? It is a misnomer really; our actions are motivated by our quest for a social group, it is not "love, it is merely a basic human nature.

claremont:

First of all, you and I know that the links you provided are not credible. Any drunk can write a paper and get it published in The Economist, and in Wikipedia, it doesn't prove anything. Let us assume for the sake of argument that the Wikipedia link is credible, the author of that article clearly says that humanity has evolved three core brain systems for MATING and REPRODUCTION. She went further to term these systems LUST, ATTRACTION, and ATTACHMENT; the bottom line of what she posited is that lust is analogous to the love concept, which is the same position I have on this issue. Lust is often misconstrued as love simply because we are morally engineered to believe in the existence of love.

Very convenient that you chose parts that suit your position whilst largely ignoring the following:

Love can start off with any of these three feelings, Fisher maintains. Some people Be Intimate with someone new and then fall in love. Some fall in love first, then Be Intimate. Some feel a deep feeling of attachment to another, which then turns into romance and the sex drive. But the sex drive evolved to initiate mating with a range of partners; romantic love evolved to focus one's mating energy on one partner at a time; and attachment evolved to enable us to form a pairbond and rear our young together as a team.

I guess I'm mistaken in thinking that you are interested in a dialectic discourse rather than a debate. I'm done!!!

Any 'drunk' can post on the bbc site too http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/love/

In India, arranged marriages is the norm, yet India has the lowest divorce rates worldwide, Go figure!

Not that I'd expect you to understand, being ignorant and all. Ever occured to you that divorce is low because of fear?

Do a google search on Chiman Rai

His son married a black female outta love and the father hired a hitman for $100,000. The wife was stabbed multiple times. Their daughter is now being raised by the wife's family and the son is now married to an Indian woman like the father wanted from the beginning

would you go against a family like that?

Go and sit down please.

naijababe:

Very convenient that you chose parts that suit your position whilst largely ignoring the following:

Love can start off with any of these three feelings, Fisher maintains. Some people Be Intimate with someone new and then fall in love. Some fall in love first, then Be Intimate. Some feel a deep feeling of attachment to another, which then turns into romance and the sex drive. But the sex drive evolved to initiate mating with a range of partners; romantic love evolved to focus one's mating energy on one partner at a time; and attachment evolved to enable us to form a pairbond and rear our young together as a team.

I guess I'm mistaken in thinking that you are interested in a dialectic discourse rather than a debate. I'm done!!!

Any 'drunk' can post on the bbc site too http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/love/

Take it or leave it, but "love" has no scientific rationale behind it. What science cannot explain rationally does not exist, the "Love delusion" is analogous to the "God delusion", both have passionate adherents who prefer to cling unto irrationality than produce logical evidence for their beliefs.

ThiefOfHearts:

Not that I'd expect you to understand, being ignorant and all. Ever occured to you that divorce is low because of fear?

Do a google search on Chiman Rai

His son married a black female outta love and the father hired a hitman for $100,000. The wife was stabbed multiple times. Their daughter is now being raised by the wife's family and the son is now married to an Indian woman like the father wanted from the beginning

would you go against a family like that?

Go and sit down please.

So you mean that the low divorce rates in India is attributable to fear, right?! Do you have any evidence to back that up, or are you just ranting on the basis of an isolated case found on the Internet?!

The Reason for this "Love" delusion: Almost from the moment of birth, we have been surrounded by "love" mythology.Every element of the popular culture assumes that love is real: television, movies, novels, poetry, soap operas, advertising, popular music of every kind, newspapers, magazine, & dating services. We grew up in a milieu of romantic love. Everywhere we turn, even though we seldom notice it, someone is making positive references to 'falling in love'.

The Way Forward: We can abandon these cultural delusions and begin to establish our relationships based on real information about each other and genuine commitment toward each other. The wild, extravagant feeling of being head-over-heels in love is certainly an enjoyable delusion while that emotional 'high' lasts, but should we attempt to build relationships on fantasy feelings? I think not!

Before you can grow up, you must fall in love three times. Once, you must fall in love with your bestfriend, ruining your friendship forever. This will teach you who your true friends are, and the fine line between friendship and more. Once you must fall in love with someone you believe is perfect. You will learn that no one is perfect, and that you should never be treated as anything less than you deserve. And once, you must fall in love with someone that is exactly like you. This will teach you about who you are, and who you want to be. And when you’re through with all that, you learn that the people who care about you the most are the ones that you hurt, and the ones that hurt you are the ones that needed you the most. But most of all, you learn that love is only a concept and is not something that can be defined

Frazy:

Before you can grow up, you must fall in love three times. Once, you must fall in love with your bestfriend, ruining your friendship forever. This will teach you who your true friends are, and the fine line between friendship and more. Once you must fall in love with someone you believe is perfect. You will learn that no one is perfect, and that you should never be treated as anything less than you deserve. And once, you must fall in love with someone that is exactly like you. This will teach you about who you are, and who you want to be. And when you’re through with all that, you learn that the people who care about you the most are the ones that you hurt, and the ones that hurt you are the ones that needed you the most. [size=12pt]But most of all, you learn that love is only a concept and is not something that can be defined[/size]

Exactly my point! Love is indeed a concept, and cannot be defined, therefore it is imaginary, a mirage only visible to it's adherents.

@ fart smell and science



You caused my laptop to crash!!!!!!!!!!!

cool down! count to 10 breathe in and out cz am 'feeling your anger' thousands of miles  away!

^^^ Lol Are you okay! Take a deep breath alright! out with the bad in with the good.

Heeyyy

Stop messing my air with fart!!! drop it lolest!

Why it smells? it isnt supposed to if u eat lots of veges.Junk food produces the worst gas!!


proper derailer!

Sexkillz, why are you taking NL too serious? Take deep breath and calm yourself down.

Dunno what that "sexkills" bloke is on about .

Sexkillz, i have 2 questions for you. Are you a moderator on Romance section? Then, how old are you? 

sexkillz

Where's freedom of expression

seriously if I were u I would skip this thread and stop making stopovers here.

Leave it to those tht want to read and engage. I dnt agree wth him but hey it dont bother me one bit am just laughing here.

Besides hes not making us sign anything to agree

Haloooooooooo?? relax and visit the other threads!

Dis dude s still on d imaginary stuff?
We hrd u sir
love doesnt exist
we only mk it
imagine
build
act
ok?

claremont:

The problem I have with this logic is how do we know when the emotion has occurred or is occurring?

Simple! There are some physical/psychological manifestations. How do you tell when you're angry, afraid or happy? There are some physical/psychological. You'd be an .  to believe there's an emotion as fear, joy and hate and not believe there's an emotion called love. Now the principal question is - is there an emotion called anger?

claremont:

If we can't rationally define what love is and it's characteristics, then how do we know if it has occurred?

Go through my posts again, you should be able to get a definition  [though subjective] and characteristics.

claremont:

It is a misnomer really;

Dude, what's the argument now? semantics?
Man named everything - tangible and abstract. Things exist irrespective of whether or not you name them or what name you attribute to them. That emotion 'love' exists irrespective of whether you want to call it love or ''basic human nature'' or >>>>> or """""

There's a state in which you feel weak, sleepy, lack energy and concentration is poor . . . someone named it tiredness. If I went to another planet where it's not called tiredness but XYZ, and displayed these symptoms,
1) I'd still feel the same way I felt in planet A where it's called tiredness
2) People in planet B would still understood that I'm XYZ

Use any device such as MRI OR EEGs to test my physical and mental responses to the question of whether or not I feel weak, sleepy, lack energy and concentration, I'd respond in a manner consistent to human expression of tiredness/XYZ. Same goes for love. . . .What you call it, does not change the fact that it is what it is.

Love is an emotion and like every other emotion, it isn't corporeal so I can't prove its existence to you with the use of a scientific instrument. I can only give you an argument/explanation but I can't give you understanding. . . I doubt my ability to convince you, too.

2Praise:

sexkillz

Where's freedom of expression

seriously if I were u I would skip this thread and stop making stopovers here.

Leave it to those tht want to read and engage. I dnt agree wth him but hey it dont bother me one bit am just laughing here.

Besides hes not making us sign anything to agree

Haloooooooooo?? relax and visit the other threads!

Exactly! Sexkillz acting like the dude is holding a gun to his head to make him agree that Love does not Exist.