answering weird questions

[pourmacouer]

would you rather be hated for who you are or loved for what you're not? this is the most ridiculous question i've ever heard. but answer it, because i don't have the energy, and you can pretend you're an intellect for the beef.

Comments

[phenomenologic]

It's highly possible to be loved for what you're not.

That's why they call it a "reputation." That's why they get ruined.

I'd rather be hated and loved for what I am. What you're not isn't important, because chances are if you're being loved for it, it's an attribute to yourself you don't want, or will never have. Why lie? It's exhausting.

[my_reflection__]

i hate to say read between the lines. which is okay now, i dont have to. instead, i would suggest reading the lines.

in the book im reading, he says, "When are you going to learn that all words have concise meanings?" its like that. but dont get me wrong, i like the way you think.

[phenomenologic]

However, the phenomena that is being loved for what you aren't exists. Unless you're getting into semantics and could argue what love is and what hate is and what it means to love a person or hate a person and where that love or hate comes from in relation to how a person really is, blah, blah, blah--

--it exists. It takes one experiment that shows a different result to prove a theory wrong.

[my_reflection__]

but what im saying is, you cant love someone for what theyre not because youre loving something that doesnt exist and so youre loving nothing and by that reason youre not loving the person, youre loving something you see in them which isnt there, which really isnt loving something about them its just having an idea or ideal that you have already fallen in love with which that person embodies.

thats all im trying to say.

[phenomenologic]

Yes, I understood that from your first comment. We're taking two different literal forms of the same situation. I'm taking the fact that the love exists, no matter if what is on the other end is real or not; you're taking the fact that the thing doesn't exist, so the love can't

[my_reflection__]

so, i suppose what youre saying is that, in a sense, i could be desperately in love with you.

and if youre right, i am.

[phenomenologic]

I'm not sure if I am meant to take that to mean you're angry with me, or just sarcastic. It is undecipherable... I do hope I did not offend you.

[my_reflection__]

if youre right, then you would replace i could be desperately with i am desperately. not romantically, ideally. thats all, no sarcasm, no anger.

[phenomenologic]

If such is the case, then, you should know I am among the world's biggest liars.