24 replies to this topic

[truepurple]

Great grandpa got his "first love zombie" just by laying eyes on a girl for a brief moment. Previously it's been shown that "first love zombies" can appear just by seeing a girl you don't know for the first time. and because of their level of physical attraction. For example MC's young brother and the athletic girl.

 

You can not love someone you don't know, that is lust. So in fact, a majority of these are first lust zombies.

Edited by truepurple, 26 March 2017 - 10:47 PM.

[bbqx]

You can not love someone you don't know

 

Well if you define love as needing to be mutual, but that does not hold up to scrutiny.

Parents may love their children, but that does not guarantee or require the children love them back.

Again, Parents cannot know their newly born children...their mind is not developed enough to define as a person they know. Parents learn who their children are as the children grow up, but they love when far before they find out. Some of those children may find out later in life they are gay. Some parents will continue loving them and (unfortunately) upon finding out more about their child some parents will opt to stop loving them.

 

Love can be defined by a measurable change in hormones and chemical reactions within the body (specifically the brain). Hormones and chemical reactions can detected and defined on an individual basis. Their are also extremist views of the topic attempting to redefine love as being mutual. Their are legitimate reasons behind the desire to do so, but their reasons do not respond to science.

 

Irrational behavior often goes hand in hand with love. When two people are in love that irrational behavior is often seen working in tandem. When a single person is in love their irrational behavior is carried out alone. That irrational behavior often ends in a way society deems wrong if it is not reciprocated. Its often a joke, though it makes the point, but if the balcony scene from Romeo and Juliet we transposed to the social climate of today the police would have been called and Romeo branded a stalker.

 

You can imagine the responses.

• Officer: Why are you here?

• Romeo: You see sir, I am in love with the women who calls this place home.

• Officer: No, kid that's not love its called stalking your coming with me back to the station.

Of course we have to hind sight to know that Romeo was in love, but that does not excuse his irrational behavior.

A better response would be to knowledge Romeo current state and explain to him that it is not a valid excuse for his behavior. Unfortunately, love has been used as a trope excuse to get away with several bad behaviors. Therefore a backlash against its use has flared up in popular culture. We live in a world where men are taught by society to suppress their emotions rather then face then and learn to deal with them. Their are many positive movements aimed at fixing that, but a few logical conundrum appears when talking about love. If we successfully teach men(and some women) that when ever they start feeling something about another person, that we could define as love, and ask them to stop feeling that way and suppress it. Then we risk adding another emotion to list of emotions a person should avoid.

 

 

 

NOW, after all that said....! 

 

I agree with you...

 

I agree with you about the way most of the zombies have been written, but its part of a massive real life vs manga continuity hole of this series in general. Biggest being that you fall in love forever and never forget the first person you had feelings for. I feel if you pull that string out the tapestry falls apart.

[truepurple]

??? I don't even know how to respond to that because you said a bunch of stuff that doesn't fit at all with what I said. So I'll respond to a select bit and ignore the rest of your strange tangent.
 

bbqx

truepurple: You can not love someone you don't know

Well if you define love as needing to be mutual, but that does not hold up to scrutiny.

 

No, I mean if you define love to be love, not sexual desire. Mutuality has nothing to do with that!

"First love" in this series is like  the "love" you experience when you watch porn.

You can not love someone you don't know, just like parents don't love kids on the other side of the world they have no relation to and know nothing at all about, just because they saw a photo of them . Just like you don't love toasters. Or blenders (that love would hurt anyway) Or sex dolls!

 

Even when you claim to "agree" with me, you are saying something completely different.

 

It's not first love, it's first lust zombies. So your biggest issue is that when they sexually lust after someone, they never forgot those sexual desires for that person, in the form of first lust zombies. My biggest issue is, that it's lust, not love!

 

You can love someone, and have it not be reciprocated, you just can't love someone at first sight! Seems like you struggle more with confusing love and lust than the author does, bbqx.

 

And if it was changed so that people had to get to know someone, and gain first love zombies because they fell in love with who they are, then the "tapestry" would be fine!

Edited by truepurple, 01 April 2017 - 02:00 AM.

[bbqx]

 

Seems like you struggle more with confusing love and lust than the author does, bbqx.

 

 

 ad ho·mi·nem

ˌad ˈhämənəm/

adverb & adjective

 

1. 1.

   (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

 

1.  

 

Rather, I don't believe in love in the way many people do. They apply a sort of magic property to it where as I see a evolutionary method of attaching two mammals together.

 

 

love to be love, not sexual desire

 

you just can't love someone at first sight!

We, humans like to dress up the fairy tale we call love. Scientifically speaking, its completely possible that a persons brain can release all the chemicals associated with the process of attaching two humans together.... at first sight(no thoughts of intercourse required). Some people with specific types of mental illness have been documented to have extreme irrational feelings of connection with people they only just meet... Leading to stalking and other negative social behaviors.

 

I've got good news for you though, It tends not to happen because we have evolutionary "safe guards." Many safe guards are social(some are biological), but cultures that only value a persons looks/status may not have they same reasons not to fall in love at first sight.

I've got bad news for you though. By extracting the hormones associated with attachment and trust and spraying them on people preliminary research has suggested a measurable increase in trust. One day with sufficient technology it may be possible to "program" a person to love another person, yes, even a person they have never met. 

Edited by bbqx, 02 April 2017 - 12:52 AM.

[truepurple]

A ad hominem argument is where you insult someone in place of a proper argument. I gave a proper argument, what I said about you confusing lust and love was because of the outcome of that argument, rather than a replacement for it. Also, not really a insult. At least not some vague put down for its own sake, but specific to the topic. Also your lecture about love could be said to fall in the same category. Also, it was very rude for you to completely ignore my OP in that first reply of yours, if it wasn't because you lacked the required reading comprehension. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem has a much better definition for it then the one you posted here. If I say your wrong because your stupid, then that would be a ad hominem. If I say you are wrong because X Y and Z reasons, and thus I think you are stupid, that is not a ad hominem.

 

People can love friends, people can love pets, people can love adoptive children, people can love groups of other people. There is different types of love, and not just based on recipient and romantic verses nonromantic.

 

If you truly love someone, even in the romantic attachment sense, then you are willing do almost anything for their well being and happiness. Like lets say they got horribly disfigured in a accident, someone in true love would not care. If you really loved someone, and they loved someone else and can not be convinced otherwise, you'd be willing to let them go if you think that person is good for them.

 

What are you willing to do for someone you just set eyes on for the first time and know nothing about? Very little. It isn't love.

 

Also, you say no thoughts of intercourse AKA no lust, but this comic as shown over and again people falling in first lust because of how people look. Like the MC little brother and athlete girl, he likes her in large part because of her breasts.

 

I am not saying that lust can't grow to love, but it doesn't start out there.

Edited by truepurple, 02 April 2017 - 07:47 AM.

[bbqx]

Also, it was very rude for you to completely ignore my OP in that first reply of yours

 

 

Hmm? Ignored? 

 

My first post

I agree with you...

 

 

I agree with you about the way most of the zombies have been written

 

 

Regardless, I'll reiterate...

I agree with you about the way most of the zombies have been written. Your example of Nasuto and Ebino-Z being prime examples.

 

 

 

The off topic?(About "love")

 

I would argue a mother who has just given birth to a child has feelings attached to that child because of chemicals released into her brain while she is carrying that child to term. There are also many science based studies about mothers that have had to under go premature birth and surrogate mothers feeling they don't properly love their children. It's a topic that heavily comes up when taking about a future that where we develop artificial wombs outside the body and if that kills our instincts of "love."

If you truly love someone, even in the romantic attachment sense, then you are willing do almost anything for their well being and happiness.

 

 

This topic is layered, but I think I have locked down one of the key places we disagree.

 

In the example I gave about the mother who had undergone and premature birth a question was asked, "does she love her child?" Well, we(science) could tell that the chemicals associated with forming a bond were actively being released into her brain. What was she told? ["Yes, you love your child, but you need to give your self more time to fully feel that way."] From person to person the time it will take to feel a deep attachment can differ, so science can't place a 'pin' on the moment it happens.

 

If we define love as requiring that attachment then we would have had to tell that mother, "No, you don't love your child, but you will if you give yourself time to feel that way."

When science ends social and ethical consideration should take its place.

Ethically, most people where unable to say that mother did not love her child, so the metaphorical 'pin' is placed at the start of her interaction with the child.

 

 

TLDR:

I'm not going to say that your claim, 'proof of attachment 'is 'proof of love', has no merit. It does in fact have merit, but after several discussions on similar topics I found holding strong to that stance ethically impossible. That combined with in inability to identify a point that attachment could be confirmed. I place love at the start of an iteration that assumes it(love) unless I have evidence otherwise.

 

A writer, in particular the writer of Hatsukoi Zombie, has full control of the story and can thus at their discretion place an exact moment that attachment occurs. For that reason, and many others, I agree with you that the writing of this manga depicting "love" is full of plot issues. Evidence of lust is not evidence against love, but a lack of evidence of attachment leaves the reader doubting any real evidence of love exists.

 

Updated:I decided to expand on my reasons I agree with you about the writing of the manga....

 

Why are the characters mothers not their first love zombies? Well it seemingly answers itself with the observation they are all women of the opposite sex the reader might identify as attractive. Forcing a sexual component to all first love zombies. 

Why don't we see any male first love zombies?

Edited by bbqx, 03 April 2017 - 04:05 AM.

[truepurple]

You aren't agreeing with me, if you are calling it "love".

 

It is fair to say that mothers do not truly love their children at first. Just like sexual desire can initiate romantic love growth. Maternal desire can initiates caregiver love growth. But fertilizer is not a flower.

 

Many parents impose their desire to have their offspring play the roles they want onto said offspring. Like a mother who runs their toddlers around ragged to little miss pageants.  Mothers who make their own children sick so they can take care of them and for the attention.Parents who want their children to take over for them as a legacy for whatever they do and are passionate about to the point of disowning them if they try to go another direction. Many of these are mothers who have had chemical bounding with their children with giving birth and nursing them. But instead of the seed sprouting into love, it turned a uglier direction.

 

For that matter, there are people who are very bonded to their sexual partner, they may claim love, yet abuse them every day. A mother may labor for hours, give birth vaginally, hold her infant in her arms and breast feed it, and still abuse it every day latter on. The bond may still exist even with the abuse, but not love.

 

Also, you talked about chemicals causing more trust. Well you didn't provide any proof of this study you casually vaguely mention, but even if so. If a stranger, many people will trust a good looking person over a ugly person. If these chemicals produce a sexual reaction, it may fall under the same type of concept.

 

And as I pointed out, you can love without sexual or maternal desires. There are people who love their adopted children more than the childs biological parents love their child, by far. Or people who love their friends more than their family. So I again resist your attempt to put all sorts of largely unrelated things under the vague header of "love" and try to say it's all chemicals.

Edited by truepurple, 03 April 2017 - 10:24 AM.

[bbqx]

I place love at the start of an iteration that assumes it(love) unless I have evidence otherwise.

 

 

Your providing case by case evidence that a particular interaction is not love. In the absence of that information society assumes love at the start. What I',m saying is that, an audience of a wedding assumes the bride and groom love each other. If you provide evidence later that her husband abuses her I would assume most would retract their assumption of love.

"If there is any reason these two should not be wed speak now or forever hold your peace," well perhaps not forever.

 

 

 

Evidence of lust is not evidence against love, but a lack of evidence of [xyz] leaves the reader doubting any real evidence of love exists.

 

I think your last statement sums it up, we will disagree on this topic.

[truepurple]

A aspect of my argument you have yet to reply to, so I will put just that aspect by itself so you won't miss it.

 

What about the love a friend might have for another friend? Those in the military might love others in their platoon or whatever, more than a woman or a offspring. Might be all non-homosexual men and some hairy and ugly as hell, none of this love started at first sight. They might do almost anything for this love. It has nothing to do with sex or maternal bounding. This is evidence there really is such a thing as love.

 

P.S. What is "TLDR:"?

Edited by truepurple, 03 April 2017 - 07:20 PM.

[bbqx]

Ah, I see.
The bonding have been attempting to describe does not require a maternal or sexual component. While you find bonding hormones in greater quantities in meternal and sexual situations they are still found in all forms of relationships.

The second born in a family are well documented as being seen as a threat to the first born. Bonding, however, still occurs by means of playing, eating and spending time together. Because of the nature of this type of bonding it tends to take much longer to form than the other types. Dopamine is a bonding hormone, yes it is released when having sex, but it's also released when two people laugh or play together.(I assume you know this, but I'm rounding out the point, this is not meant to sound informative) It's also released when gambling and other activities. An unhealthy bond that forms is called an addiction.

In the case of a family it's socially expected for families to be loving. So I would describe two siblings as 'loving siblings.'

In the case of them being unrelated I would describe them as being only good friends. If I was told two soldiers had become like brothers that assumes a family bond. I would say, 'they love each other like family.'

The brain is still being studied so I can say everything is known, but many observations have lead to a few assumptions.

When a bond is formed it is not coded in a particular way. Rather a different part of the brain decides the type of bond.

The example often given: A mother with a maternal bond with her child is found sexually abusing that child. She is taken into custody and during a health check they find she has a massive tumor in her brain. After removing the tumor she realizes all sexual desire associated with the child is gone.

A maternal bond, freindship, romantic or other all appear to be the same. How a person reacts to a bond is currently believed to change.

Edited by bbqx, 04 April 2017 - 04:44 AM.

[truepurple]

 

TLDR:

P.S. What is "TLDR:"?

[bbqx]

Too long and/or didn't read abbreviated TLDR;.

It can be used in many ways, but at its core its used to point when a writer/poster is summarizing statements made in their current and past posts. When many long posts have been made over several days I like to use it to refocus my own posts and make it clear how they connect. It does have a darker past as it can be used as a way to direct a reader not read in what a poster wrote. However, I assume you read everything I wrote, so it a was a summary of topics over multiple posts/days.

[truepurple]

What you say the abbreviation is short for, and how you used it, don't match. Why not just write "summarizing" or "to summarize"?

 

So a mother, bonded to her biological child by all the chemical bounds you speak of, who regularly abuses said child, micromanage controls said child and cares nothing for the wishes and dreams of said child,  who would figuratively or literally throw her child under the bus if it bettered her living condition or if she felt she might get enjoyment from it; would you personally call that love? It sure seems like that is exactly what you are saying

 

Yes, you said "addiction". But besides that word not fitting, you still are saying (as far as I can tell) that it's just another form of love.

Edited by truepurple, 07 April 2017 - 02:32 AM.

[bbqx]

Yes, you said "addiction". But besides that word not fitting, you still are saying (as far as I can tell) that it's just another form of love.

 

 

 

A maternal bond, friendship, romantic or other all appear to be the same. How a person reacts to a bond is currently believed to change.

 

 

Bonds>

• Romantic
• Maternal
• Friendships
• Addiction
• More...

Love is often described as an addition and that may not a be misnomer. 

 

'Romantic Love Is an Addiction,' Researchers Say. ... The researchers found that, for heartbroken men and women, looking at photographs of former partners activated regions in the brain associated with rewards, addiction cravings, control of emotions, feelings of attachment and physical pain and distress. -livescience.com

 

 

What I'm saying is... How the brain responds to the list above is very similar because they are all bonds. Society consider bonds people and animals as loving, bond with objects or activities as hobbies and bonds with drugs/other addictions. 

 

 

A mother, bonded to her biological child by all the chemical bounds you speak of, who regularly abuses said child, micromanage controls said child and cares nothing for the wishes and dreams of said child,  who would figuratively or literally throw her child under the bus if it bettered her living condition or if she felt she might get enjoyment from it; would you personally call that love?

 

 

 

Remember, bonds are not permanent. Given the rest of the story of this mother It would suggest of the bond is no longer there(or never was). I believe your intention here was to outline and example where a bond is present, but the bonded person as acting against that bond. There are examples of this... mothers who do have a bond and it is changed by mental illness or drug use(mental illness). These mothers often do things similar to what you describe. I can think of no other instance where you would find what you intended to describe in real life. 

 

 she might get enjoyment from it

 

Lack of/Impaired empathy is a sign of a sociopath, If I recall correctly. I also think if their behavior turns violent they become a psychopath.

It would be impossible to describe a person who forms a bond like maternal love and then undergoes a drastic behavior change without describing a mental illness.

You find that these people can no longer properly interpret or act on the bonds they have formed. Because their brain is no longer the same, bonds that caused feeling of happiness and nurturing instead can cause feeling of anger and contempt(example). 

[truepurple]

Seems to me you are dodging the question though.

 

How about this, please define love for us in your opinion. Not in vague terms of chemicals. Define which bonds you label as love, where does it begin? Where does it end?

Edited by truepurple, 07 April 2017 - 11:39 AM.

[bbqx]

Define which bonds you label as love

• He loves cars.
• She loves playing the violin.
• He loves his computer games.
• She loves sports.
• He love her.
• Mom loves me.

Love I tend you use as a noun or verb to describe any bond that is considered healthy.Healthy Bonds Include...

• Romantic
• Maternal
• Friendships
• Hobbies
• Probably more I'm not thinking of right now.

where does it begin? Where does it end?

I'm not going to say that your claim, 'proof of attachment 'is 'proof of love', has no merit. It does in fact have merit, but after several discussions on similar topics I found holding strong to that stance ethically impossible. That combined with in inability to identify a point that attachment could be confirmed. I place love at the start of an iteration that assumes it(love) unless I have evidence otherwise.

Right here I implied that you cannot prove someone is in love until you can prove they are attached to another person. When someone is "falling in love" the process of chemicals is being release starts. It can stop for many reasons, but assuming the continued release attachment is formed at differing points for different people.

Here is a book it may help expand the topic. Book.

This book expands on the social aspects of love and defines them against what it defines as amoral love. It defines a mutual love between two people as well. Most importantly it defines them all as love, but with different behaviors and social implication associated with each.

Edited by bbqx, 07 April 2017 - 07:55 PM.

[truepurple]

    Please note, I am not asking you to instruct me in love, I am asking you to tell me your personal definition of love. The former assumes that your position is the only one, the latter is just required to argue against, since as long as you keep vague, your position is unapproachable in discussion. That book reference does not fit with what vague stuff you have said so far anyway.

 

He loves his computer games.

 

     How is that any different than desire? She loves pornography, she loves sexual thoughts, she desires to have sex with hot boy. The abusive mom I mentioned before may desire to abuse her child, may have many desires regarding that child she would gladly throw under a bus, according to your vague definition, it would be love.

 

     I "love" video games, but I would without hesitation, I would lose all the video games I own for the right reward. Or not play them for a long time for the right reward. I care nothing for the well being of my video games, I would abuse them with hacking if I had the skill, or literally throw them under a bus if I wanted.

 

     Since your incredibly uselessly vague definition includes simple desire, you are essentially admitting to my position. This Is First LUST zombies, no different than lust from looking at pornography. So there is no reason for some of the First Lust Zombies in the comic to not be models from porno magazines, or even models from regular magazines, except for the authors arbitrary decisions.

 

     And to me, that is not love, such a broad word for love is useless. We might call it "love" in English, but not mean real love, that represents how tricky English can be and how useless language can be in general for such a complex subject. Think of the word "love" as a homophone, that is a word that is said the same, sometimes even spelled the same, but has different meanings.The word "love" I would use to describe video games is not the same love word I would use for friends and family.  Most people would disagree with you BTW, that love for games is the same as loving a person. If you believe that they are not the same too, then your reply would be intentionally just dodging the question and wasting our times.

 

How about this,

     A killer is stalking a victim, the victim is all the killer thinks about, desires the victim like nothing else, not even hunger,  thirst, or fatigue, can compete.The killer is carefully constructing the the day where the killer tortures and rapes the victim over the course of a year, until death. The killer knows just about everything there is to know about the victim and plans to use this information to customize the torture, but before then sends the victim gifts as a secret admirer, making sure every day before the day of kidnapping is a happy one. Killer recreates zir life the same as the victim, eating the same foods, doing the same hobbies, working the same kind of job.  No other person will suffice as a target for the killer.  Is it love according to you?

    Please answer with a yes or a no, along with why or why not. Please don't talk about psychosis, obviously it is. This is a extreme example to feel out the outermost layer of your broad and vague definition of love.

Edited by truepurple, 07 April 2017 - 09:29 PM.

[bbqx]

Most people would disagree with you BTW, that love for games is the same as loving a person. If you believe that they are not the same too, then your reply would be intentionally just dodging the question and wasting our times.

 

Ill try an analogy.

A car is a method of transportation, getting in your car to drive to a Date is a vastly different experience to getting in your car to go visit a friend.

The range of emotions you express leaving for a Date is vastly different. Yet the method to get to both places is the same.

The emotions you feel for a friend and Date are not the same, but you still need transportation to get to both places.

 

I'm not implying that love for hobbies and a love for people are the same. I'm saying that the vehicle you need to form the bond is the same. You might need to, figuratively, drive a lot further to get to your date(or to have a deeper bond) than you would to get to your friend. That in no way implies the experience is the same or that the depth of a bond is the same.

A maternal bond, friendship, romantic or other all appear to be the same. How a person reacts to a bond is currently believed to change.

 

 

 

 

Is it love according to you?

*Sigh..*

Are you implying that a bond exists? Yes?

Is that bond considered healthy? No?

An unhealthy bond that forms is called an addiction.

I would call it an addiction. Turns out if you google 'addictions and murders' you find a ton of studies on the topic.

 

Am I saying that Lovers and Murders are the same? Nope.

Am I saying that a chemical like dopamine is being release in the brain of a person who is in love, when they are with the person they love, making their love for that person deeper. Yep, sure am.

Am I saying that a chemical like dopamine is being release in the brain of a murderer who has a murder-crush, when they are with the person they are about to murder,making their love for murdering deeper. Yep, sure am.

Am I saying that Lovers and Murders are the same? Nope.

To continue the earlier analogy... The Lover and the Murder both drive a Honda, but they are going vastly different places.

Does that mean all people that drive Honda are Murders. Yes. ...I mean no.

Am I saying they experience a similar ..."drive." Yes...Why yes I am.

Am I saying that Lovers and Murders are the same? Nope.

Edited by bbqx, 08 April 2017 - 06:17 AM.

[truepurple]

I asked if that was love according to you. I did not ask if that was a bond according to you.

 

Please tell us what bonds you call love, what bonds you don't call love and why.

[truepurple]

Between the lines of what you say, and more expressly said with "When someone is "falling in love" the process of chemicals is being release starts." it sounds like you also agree that you can not love someone at first sight.

 

Aside from all other discussions and seemingly radically different viewpoints, that was my main original point that you seemingly disagreed with (well you went on randomly about mutual love and stuff that had nothing to do with the OP for some reason, but that you replied at all suggests disagreement) but now seem to agree with, between the lines. You refuse to give a solid position, bbqs.