The validity of online relationships.

[grant_s]

I think the argument about "definitions" is one of the most cowardly cop outs that people use. I really do. Their intention is to take the conversation from a grounded place and turn it metaphysical. It's pure avoidance.

You will not convince me that you can value your friends on the computer as much as you can value your friends offline. I'll believe you are a liar if you try it.

You will not convince me that E-Fucking is as satisfying as actually fucking. I'll call you a liar, outright, if you try.

You will not convince me that you are as satisfied with an online love as you would be a love that's actually with you. I'll call you a liar.

You will not convince me that an online relationship can have the same significance as one you forged in person. I'll call you a liar.

That's what the conversation is about. It's comparing a "real" relationship and its elements to that of an online one. There is no slick definition that will avoid those above points. There is no amount of dialogue you can use that can avoid how concrete they are.

This is especially true if you have no intention of meeting someone.

So you are calling yourself a liar, having called people on here gems and wonderful friends, not trying to look into definitions here, just your words.

 

[Light Ice]

So you are calling yourself a liar, having called people on here gems and wonderful friends, not trying to look into definitions here, just your words.

Alana is a gem and a wonderful online friend. She is not, however, as close to me as my friends offline. There is no contradiction here. I'm fairly certain she would feel exactly the same way about me in comparison with her offline friends and family.

Is that clear enough for you?

 

[fr33ks33k]

So you are calling yourself a liar, having called people on here gems and wonderful friends, not trying to look into definitions here, just your words.

He's not saying that you can't have valued friends online, just that those he has IRL are of more value.

Edit: *chuckles and feels like an echo*

 

[Trixabell]

I think the argument about "definitions" is one of the most cowardly cop outs that people use. I really do. Their intention is to take the conversation from a grounded place and turn it metaphysical. It's pure avoidance.

You will not convince me that you can value your friends on the computer as much as you can value your friends offline. I'll believe you are a liar if you try it.

You will not convince me that E-Fucking is as satisfying as actually fucking. I'll call you a liar, outright, if you try.

You will not convince me that you are as satisfied with an online love as you would be a love that's actually with you. I'll call you a liar.

You will not convince me that an online relationship can have the same significance as one you forged in person. I'll call you a liar.

That's what the conversation is about. It's comparing a "real" relationship and its elements to that of an online one. There is no slick definition that will avoid those above points. There is no amount of dialogue you can use that can avoid how concrete they are.

This is especially true if you have no intention of meeting someone.

A lot of this I see as true also except for the value part. I have several very close friends online that I care for just as much as my friends that I have the fortune of seeing everyday. I know in my heart that many of those online friends would be at my side if I asked or needed the help. This is simply my truth and I dont expect it to be so for anyone other than me but for this conversation I have to say that yes my online friends are just as valuable.

 

[Annisthyrienne]

deleted. I naively thought that this was begun as an actual topic for discourse. Now it is plain to see that it was a set-up to gang up on and attack a few people whose online activities are not generally approved of. It is not a thread I care to be associated with anymore.

 

[grant_s]

Alana is a gem and a wonderful online friend. She is not, however, as close to me as my friends offline. There is no contradiction here. I'm fairly certain she would feel exactly the same way about me in comparison with her offline friends and family.

Is that clear enough for you?

Please define an online friend, cause even though you like to say its a cop out, I am eager to learn, cause you cannot tell me, with the way you so quickly dismiss the notion of anything online being meaningful, you can catergorise a friend online being meaningful

 

[Light Ice]

A lot of this I see as true also except for the value part. I have several very close friends online that I care for just as much as my friends that I have the fortune of seeing everyday. I know in my heart that many of those online friends would be at my side if I asked or needed the help. This is simply my truth and I dont expect it to be so for anyone other than me but for this conversation I have to say that yes my online friends are just as valuable.

I remain skeptical of that line of thought, Trixabell, but you're right about one thing. It's the weakest of my assertions.

 

[Light Ice]

Please define an online friend, cause even though you like to say its a cop out, I am eager to learn, cause you cannot tell me, with the way you so quickly dismiss the notion of anything online being meaningful, you can catergorise a friend online being meaningful

This is pure nonsense.

Let me ask you something, Grant. If I told you that I defined an elephant as an octopus, would you think I was crazy or just think I had my own unique perspective on what an elephant was?

 

[grant_s]

He's not saying that you can't have valued friends online, just that those he has IRL are of more value.

Edit: *chuckles and feels like an echo*

I beg to differ, LI has always dismissed anything online as superficial so how come it can be anything different here

 

[grant_s]

This is pure nonsense.

Let me ask you something, Grant. If I told you that I defined an elephant as an octopus, would you think I was crazy or just think I had my own unique perspective on what an elephant was?

Thats not an answer, and you know it, its a cop out, just define a friend, here and in rl thats all

 

[Light Ice]

Thats not an answer, and you know it, its a cop out, just define a friend, here and in rl thats all

This isn't a definition game. It's a value game. I value the friend I can actually take out for drinks and spend time with, in proximity, more than the friend that I cannot. I don't understand where you are coming from or what you're trying to assert.

 

[fr33ks33k]

This is pure nonsense.

Let me ask you something, Grant. If I told you that I defined an elephant as an octopus, would you think I was crazy or just think I had my own unique perspective on what an elephant was?

That bit about the elephant and octopus made me chuckle...I'm gonna have to jot that down.

I beg to differ, LI has always dismissed anything online as superficial so how come it can be anything different here

Superficiality does not detract from value. It's only a descriptor.

 

[Ausus_girl13]

I beg to differ, LI has always dismissed anything online as superficial so how come it can be anything different here

Actually, he hasn't and to say that he has means that you truly aren't hearing him.

He's saying that there is a different dynamic at play and that to put one above the other is, well, stupid.

You are equating them as the same Grant. They aren't and that's what LI is pointing out.

 

[Tio_Narratore]

The argument only holds, LI, if you expect e-fucking to be the same a real fucking. Only a fool would, I agree. But if what you want is e-fucking (I am being metonymical here), then your e-partnering is perfectly valid.

One might equally say that RL will never match in-line because in the RW you have to be satisfied with the size of organs and orgasms you have.

Yes, LI, if you do think the two should be compared ina test of validity, you have a reality-testing problem.

 

[grant_s]

This isn't a definition game. It's a value game. I value the friend I can actually take out for drinks and spend time with, in proximity, more than the friend that I cannot. I don't understand where you are coming from or what you're trying to assert.

You quickly dismiss the notion of people having feelings for another online, yet you can call others friends, how is it, a relationship based on trust can be so (Friendship) can be so easily branded about?

 

[Light Ice]

The argument only holds, LI, if you expect e-fucking to be the same a real fucking. Only a fool would, I agree. But if what you want is e-fucking (I am being metonymical here), then your e-partnering is perfectly valid.

One might equally say that RL will never match in-line because in the RW you have to be satisfied with the size of organs and orgasms you have.

Yes, LI, if you do think the two should be compared ina test of validity, you have a reality-testing problem.

This conversation was started as an argument about validity, Tio. I've only held exactly what you've said as the case. People on here have attempted to assert that they are the same, both love and fucking, in an online and offline sense. I'm trying to say that's nonsense. The expectations are extremely different. The fact they won't admit that is bizarre to me.

Perhaps, if you would, you'd clarify with how you and I disagree. I'm not sure that we do.

 

[Light Ice]

You quickly dismiss the notion of people having feelings for another online, yet you can call others friends, how is it, a relationship based on trust can be so (Friendship) can be so easily branded about?

I can't have a conversation with someone who doesn't know how to read or lacks the intelligence to comprehend the words as they've been written.

 

[grant_s]

I can't have a conversation with someone who doesn't know how to read or lacks the intelligence to comprehend the words as they've been written.

Please explain the validity of your FRIENDS then is that simple enough for you

 

[Light Ice]

This isn't a definition game. It's a value game. I value the friend I can actually take out for drinks and spend time with, in proximity, more than the friend that I cannot. I don't understand where you are coming from or what you're trying to assert.

Again.

 

[Ahren]

Apparently, according to Grant, having friends online is the same as having romantic feelings for someone online so they're either both valid or invalid. I obviously have already explained how I think this makes no sense.

 

[grant_s]

Please explain the validity of your FRIENDS then is that simple enough for you

Again.

Apparently, according to Grant, having friends online is the same as having romantic feelings for someone online so they're either both valid or invalid. I obviously have already explained how I think this makes no sense.

You both seem to be intelligent, please read my post and reply to the validity of your friends, if you cant, then please drop this, this was supposed to be about your experiences, and LI, you have offered nothing, just arguement

 

[Light Ice]

And people wonder why my dialogue turns into vitriol. Honestly. The lack of integrity and comprehension is fucking startling.

 

[Ahren]

Romantic feelings and considering someone a friend are not the same thing. I'm not sure how to explain this any further. You seem to think they are, and if they are to you then whatever, but it's not like that for everyone else.

 

[grant_s]

The lack of integrity and comprehension is fucking startling.

Yes it is
Is friendship a relationship and what is it based on, its a simple enough question

 

[fr33ks33k]

This isn't a definition game. It's a value game. I value the friend I can actually take out for drinks and spend time with, in proximity, more than the friend that I cannot. I don't understand where you are coming from or what you're trying to assert.

I've bolded his example. The capability of doing these things is what he holds more value of than say, having a 36-hour chat session on Skype.