DeltaAro

Yes, because he did also philosophy. Why is he your favorite philosopher? ?? My favorite one is Descartes. I think his system is endlessly fascinating and a great pop culture inspiration, though I regard it as wrong. Still he's far more subtle than he’s usually given credit for. I learned that after reading Demons, Dreamers, and Madmen by Harry G. Frankfurt. I also like his writing style very much. After reading him it feels like having a conversation with a good friend. That's an interesting contrast to his eminence.

Whos your favorite pokeyman philosopher?

I prefer hot temperatures. I indeed experienced 40 °C once. During one exceptionally hot summer (very unusual in central Europe). I didn't feel uncomfortable, but in many trains the air conditioners were defect, and that was too much. I don't know what temperature it was in the train, but it felt like death valley.

Still most US-based sites do display the annoying cookie disclaimers. Since not 10% but rather 90% of sites use cookies, it's not a real choice. You have to be a privacy fundamentalist to say “Okay, nytimes.com and washingtonpost.com say they use cookies! So I won't read them anymore!” but in that case… you're probably knowledgeable enough to get around it anyway, so it doesn't matter. If they really wanted do something about it for the average user, it would've been far better to more aggressively ban the most shady tactics or to regulate the browser level (like enforcing a short cookie expiry time).

Yes, but it was already conflated in the original question (title vs. text) and I did want to leave it at that. So to correct it: Might cause aromanticism or could be mistaken for aromanticism: avoidant personality disorder schizoid personality disorder Could be mistaken for aromanticism: social anxiety (severe) autism asperger syndrome

I use the term “fwb” because of that. I guess @Apathetic Echidna proposed “booty call acquaintances” . But seriously, that's too negative, there's a hint that there's some kind of subtle exploitation going on. In reality, pure sex relationships can be nice and respectful. And someone who doesn't do that, or at least is completely open about their feelings and doesn't create drama, is what I call “reliable fwb”. Sadly, they're very rare. That would be perfect. Oh well, in an ideal world… I simply love my friends too much to even try something like this.

I do cut straight to sex. But who told you this is easy? ? Not just that it's quite some work to find a “reliable” fwb, I also had to overcome some major internal barriers. I found it very, very, very, very difficult to admit to myself that I am “this kind of person”. I actually do not want to be regarded as a “sex machine” – overall I do not feel lacking in emotional depth compared to alloromantic people just because I'm not pining for Princess or Prince Charming. Also sex with people you don't have some emotional connection to has some serious drawbacks which you probably can imagine. You really need a thick skin. Okay, you maybe don't need an emotional connection but mutual respect, yet that's something you can only really know after some time. I just deal with all that because sex simply feels great, great enough to be intrinsically motivating. Even nervous fumbling sex. Though I had some long periods of living celibate and I didn't feel depressed or something.

In general I'd say some probable candidates would be: avoidant personality disorder schizoid personality disorder social anxiety (severe) autism asperger syndrome I don't think depression has a connection with aromanticism.

@TheThing ok, thanks. I know the error message from the beginning of the Steve Jobs movie.

To answer the original post, I don't identify with a religion and I didn't really grew up in a religion. Aside from a few formalities of a Protestant Christian denomination. Confirmation was boring and it seems the pastor himself was either an atheist or sublimated his faith to the point it became evanescent. It felt more like an odd cultural thing to me. I agree with Aleister Crowley's last words “I'm perplexed” … so I'm probably a hard agnostic. IMHO reality is beyond human comprehension and the idea that the universe is fundamentally a mechanistic-materialistic entity is probably just another dead end (but at least it's useful ). Here is the other religion thread. Yes, I agree. Still, at least in my view, it's very normal for humans to believe things without evidence (whatever ‘evidence’ means anyway…e.g. is there ‘evidence’ that there are only five platonic solids?… ‘evidence’ for other minds?). They do it all the time. So I don't suffer from “moralized rationality”. It was mainly just genuine curiosity what motivates people to accept beliefs for which there isn't even a living tradition, as in neopaganism.

@TheThing lol that error message, where did you get that?

Well, we already had a thread like this. Which turned nasty, because I said that I find it very weird that people genuinely worship Loki. That much should be allowed, right? ? Oh no… what did I say? Nothing, I said nothing, haha. I mean, in a way it's kind of cute: @Jot-Aro Kujo believes in many gods, @aro_elise in exactly one, @mythlady in none and we accept each other, very nice. The one thing that bugs me though is: the moment all those very different and hard-incompatible world views and religions do not boil down to (roughly) the same ethics… it's all over. So how does that work? Is it like “Yeah, maybe Loki listens to your prayers. Who can prove you wrong? But we damn sure know that Aquinas was wrong with his ethics!” …… Really? / hopefully that doesn't result in another flame-war. I tried to be very diplomatic!

I tried to produce a poem with real versification in English, but I simply cannot do it. So then “free verse”, lol.

… because MAYBE was aro. [this must have been one of the last ones – in the civilized world. But according to my research, still from this decade, 2012!]

I never met one in person. But according to the documentaries I've watched they seem like uptight, puritanical posers who are so arrogant that they don't even recognize the dark force when they literally sit above it!

I sometimes suspected that romantic love was, as you described it, some sort of acquired taste: You had to get used to it and I simply missed that opportunity. But not like normal chocolate… no, like 90% cacao chocolate brrrrh… Tbh, I have no idea why I ended up like this, there wasn't really anything that much out of the norm how I grew up.

Romance issues in The Expanse: James (trying to conjure up the invisible ‘Miller’): “Now I need you, Miller. If you're ever coming back, this would be a good time.” Camina (to Naomi): “I still don't understand what you see in him.” James: “Come on, Miller, talk to me.”

So 58% aromantic, 33% aromantic asexual, 8% not aromantic. Rest 0%.

From the movies I was actually allowed to watch as a child it would be Gremlins and Fantasia; I guess my parents didn't even look at the age rating because the covers were too cutesy. And then Dance of the Vampires (The Fearless Vampire Killers in the U.S.). Of course, it's not a remotely scary movie for an adult, but you don't get how silly it tries to be as a child. I once sneaked to the TV in the evening (I was 7 years old AFAICR) and of all movies, it was Natural Born Killers running. It just totally freaked me out, obviously.

There's one from David Mitchell's Cloud Atlas, which also occurs in the movie. One is very, very easy, from the Shawshank Redemption. One is from Carl Sagan. That quote is so unforgettable, Season 1, Episode 1 !

“Untitled”

It was certainly difficult to get into the first two or three episodes: few action Miller's dorky hat ? the Belter Creole, sasa ke? characters aren't that likeable at first lots of not-that-interesting world building I don't think that Star Trek: Discovery is stupid nor The Expanse boring, but when I watched them in parallel, I always got a slight feeling in this direction for both. ? Of course, no Star Trek series is remotely that “hard Sci-Fi” as The Expanse, but Discovery is considerably “softer” than the earlier Star Trek series. The mirror universe was reserved for more experimental and funny episodes in the past and didn't play such an important role. The softening of Sci-Fi seems to be a modern trend… which would explain the lack of appeal for The Expanse. Yeah, swearing Chrisjen!

Well, maybe exactly the right timing. ? When did you hear from it? Though it likely wouldn't have been cancelled if it was a SyFy original series. By the way… what Sci-Fi is actually still left on SyFy? Killjoys… and…? Yeah, the hoops you have to jump through to watch it outside the US without long delay approaches typical alloromantic behavior levels (okay …… that's some serious loosening of association). yeah!

@Holmbo Since SyFy has now announced to cancel The Expanse after the 3rd season what do you think the chances are for it to survive (like bought by Amazon etc.)? They announced it some 12 hours or so before I wrote the post above. Though I always expected the cancellation, I didn't at all expect it to be announced at this time, so I was out of the loop for some days! (embarrassing…)

Yeah, Dark Matter didn't achieve critical acclaim… to put it mildly. 58% critic rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Ouch! It would be an exaggeration to call Dark Matter a Sci-Fi-Sharknado … but it still sometimes managed reach its “brazenness”: S03E04 “All the Time in the World” ––––> like Groundhog Day in space?? COME ON!! S03E09 “Isn't That A Paradox?” ––––> oooh nooooo…… brazenly cheesy. Just a look at the trivia section of imbd says it all: What's bad for The Expanse is that AFAIK it isn't a SyFy original series, too, it's produced by Alcon. Yeah, I second this!! It's either the best episode or is only surpassed by S02E05 “Home”. Did you know the next but one episode is named after me: S03E07 “Delta-V”? PS: gonna push this thread up for advertising