"I still love you"

[cho]

Tweet

What does the statement "I still love you" imply to you? Does it express an indirectly negative notion?

[DocEdd]

Tweet

You know, I remember once that was asked to me way back before when I was young. It was asked by my ex-girlfriend and there’s only one answer that I told her, “If you say you love me or not, it does not matter. What matters to me is that you show that love to me through your actions. If you can’t then what you said means nothing to me”.

Anyone can say “I still love you” or “I can give you the moon and the stars”, but what matter is you give life to what you said through your actions. Like what I’ve said, love is an action. Show it. Don’t tell it. If you’re going to tell it, do it, otherwise its just hot air.
 

[zaskieh ann]

Tweet

It takes a minute to have a crush on someone,
an hour to like someone, and an day to love someone...
but it takes a lifetime to forget someone. .." right??

[pastor paradox]

Tweet

From my experience it mean that the psycho beyatch is still going to stalk you some more.
Make sure you stay in public areas, also make sure witnesses around at all times.
She might look small, but they can pack a pretty hard punch.
Then afterwards she probably will report you to the police for violence against women.

[cho]

Tweet

You know, I remember once that was asked to me way back before when I was young. It was asked by my ex-girlfriend and there’s only one answer that I told her, “If you say you love me or not, it does not matter. What matters to me is that you show that love to me through your actions. If you can’t then what you said means nothing to me”.

Anyone can say “I still love you” or “I can give you the moon and the stars”, but what matter is you give life to what you said through your actions. Like what I’ve said, love is an action. Show it. Don’t tell it. If you’re going to tell it, do it, otherwise its just hot air.
 

yea, i know..thanx doc. so the negative thing about this statement could be perceived based from the outcome, which is the action. however, let's switch to a different perspective..i know that love is an action and it has to be manifested through actions. but in terms of communication, (coz you don't want your partner getting clueless) is there any difference between saying "I still love you" and "I love you"? would it be better to say the former than the latter or the other way around? any negative implications? like indirect?

you know, people have their own subjective perception of things around them. just wonderin haha

[cho]

Tweet

It takes a minute to have a crush on someone,
an hour to like someone, and an day to love someone...
but it takes a lifetime to forget someone. .." right??

i'd go left...love doesn't have a timeframe

[cho]

Tweet

From my experience it mean that the psycho beyatch is still going to stalk you some more.
Make sure you stay in public areas, also make sure witnesses around at all times.
She might look small, but they can pack a pretty hard punch.
Then afterwards she probably will report you to the police for violence against women.

she just wouldn't stop eh?

[pastor paradox]

Tweet

Yah ....
Probably best not to get GFs who are mentally unstable and have violent tendencies

It takes a minute to have a crush on someone,
an hour to like someone, and an day to love someone...
but it takes a lifetime to forget someone. .." right??

What was the name of the woman I had sex with
Hmmm I know that at 2am in the bar I loved her

[DocEdd]

Tweet

Ok first of all, both statements have synonymous meanings and both also can have negative implication. How so? If one individual says “I still love you” or “I love you” but his actions say otherwise, his words will mean an indirect statement of deceit or deception.

For example, when I say “I still love you” to a person but I’m cheating to you with another woman, that’s an indirect negative implication because what I did contradicts what I say. Meaning I don’t love you anymore. I only said “I still love you” for the purpose of easing your pain or to confuse you.

Another example would be a politician giving promises to the people. His speech will still be a speech if he does not put what he said into action. This can probably be an indirect negative implication simply because the politician might mean, “You do all the work, I get all the money”. He only said what he said to calm the public down or to say something good to the public for the sake of making his image spotless.  

So when does saying “I still love you” mean in a positive indirect implication? If you show it through your actions. For example, a husband giving his wife flowers, that’s an indirect positive implication because your flowers only mean one thing to your wife, even though you do not say it directly, she knows that you still love her. But if you combine it with saying “I still love you” then you’re doing both direct and indirect positive implication because your action agrees with your said statement.

In summary, when an individual says, “I still love you” or “I love you” it means nothing yet. Meaning its both negative or positive implication to the one you’re saying it to. Those words will have meaning only based on his given actions. If his action contradicts what he said, then that is a form of deception and it can be a negative indirect implication. If his action agrees with what he said, then that is a positive indirect implication.

So which is better to say, “I still love you” or “I love you”, the answer is neither. Why? Because both have synonymous meanings. Either way you say it, it still means the same way. It is only through your action that gives it a deeper meaning.
 
As the FBI counterintelligence agent Joe Navarro said, "Action speaks louder than words".

[pastor paradox]

Tweet

"Action speaks louder than words".

No it doesn't doc
Today's sermon will come from the book of James
Jame 3:3-7

Behold, we put bits in the horses' mouths, that they may obey us; and we turn about their whole body.
Behold also the ships, which though they be so great, and are driven of fierce winds, yet are they turned about with a very small helm, whithersoever the governor listeth.
Even so the tongue is a little member, and boasteth great things. Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth!
And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell.
For every kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed of mankind:


Here James is comparing the tongue to a bridle/bit on a horse or a rudder on a boat.
Both are very small, and yet with a small amount of force you can change the direction of a horse, or the direction of a boat.

You have 100 women. 50 of the women their BF give them a watch that is worth 500 PHP. These women will complain that their BF is a "cheap skate".
The other 50 women, their BF promises that when he gets money he will give them a watch that is worth 5000 PHP. He is working very hard to save up the money. But he never gives them the watch. These women will boast how their BF thinks they are so generous, about how they value them so highly. But the BF never gives them the watch.

So see words are more powerful then actions for majority of people

When I meet a person, I try not to be judge by the initial impression.
I watch the small things. How does he treat other people.
If we go out for business lunch, I observe not how he treats me, but how does he treat the waiter/waitress.
Is his "image" consistent with his actions.

[pastor paradox]

Tweet

For the above post.
Notice how I used a quotation from the bible.
This right away gives me "authority". In the "christian" world, even with non-believers the bible still holds "authority".

If I lived in a buddist or muslim world, I would use quotations from buddist writings or the koran.
Quoting the bible there would not help you.

[cho]

Tweet

For the above post.
Notice how I used a quotation from the bible.
This right away gives me "authority". In the "christian" world, even with non-believers the bible still holds "authority".

If I lived in a buddist or muslim world, I would use quotations from buddist writings or the koran.
Quoting the bible there would not help you.

well..yeah, biblically speaking..it was actually quoted in the gospel of Matthew 12:34 that For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

I was gonna tell doc to look at it in a different angle putting the "love is an action" principle aside..switching to a different perspective, which I would say speech or communication. if we stress out on the word "still", then would it be any different from saying just plain "I love you"? in saying "I still love you", why say it with still rather than saying just "I love you"?

doc is correct on his proposition telling us that if we will apply the principle of "love is an action", then we can weigh the direct and indirect implications of both statements. however, if we will try to think outside the box, there is something else in the statement "I still love you" that makes its meaning different from "I love you".

[DocEdd]

Tweet

Yes it would. Like what I’ve stated, saying “I love you” and “I still love you” are synonymous in meaning when it comes to communication. It will only mean different if you try to look at it in a detailed perspective like what you’re doing right now. But common sense dictates it’s the same.

So let’s go deeper for the sake of answering your question. The word “still” means “to continue”. So if I say “I still love you” it means I continue to love you and if I say “I love you” it means I love you. So what does that imply? Either way you look at it, the message is still the same in any person you say it: “I love you”.

Now the other question you said which is why put the word “still” on it even though the meaning is the same, you could just say “I love you” directly? Two reasons. One is to put emotion to the phrase “I love you”. Why? So the messenger can say his/her emotion to the receiver of the message. This is often used on literature or novels to express the emotions of the characters. Second reason is to answer the questions How? And What? How did the messenger transmit the message? What kind of emotion did he transmit? This is used to detail the kind of expression the messenger said.

I really do not know why you’re so curious about this. What’s the purpose why to ask this question? This is more of English.

[cho]

Tweet

Yes it would. Like what I’ve stated, saying “I love you” and “I still love you” are synonymous in meaning when it comes to communication. It will only mean different if you try to look at it in a detailed perspective like what you’re doing right now. But common sense dictates it’s the same.

So let’s go deeper for the sake of answering your question. The word “still” means “to continue”. So if I say “I still love you” it means I continue to love you and if I say “I love you” it means I love you. So what does that imply? Either way you look at it, the message is still the same in any person you say it: “I love you”.

Now the other question you said which is why put the word “still” on it even though the meaning is the same, you could just say “I love you” directly? Two reasons. One is to put emotion to the phrase “I love you”. Why? So the messenger can say his/her emotion to the receiver of the message. This is often used on literature or novels to express the emotions of the characters. Second reason is to answer the questions How? And What? How did the messenger transmit the message? What kind of emotion did he transmit? This is used to detail the kind of expression the messenger said.

I really do not know why you’re so curious about this. What’s the purpose why to ask this question? This is more of English.

i knew someone..his gf got upset because he's been telling her "I still love you" instead of "I love you". according to his gf, the statement "I still love you" puts her self-esteem down for some reason. he couldn't get it and neither did i...there must be something else beyond this line..

though somehow, i got a clue..i just wanna hear other people's insight on this

[pastor paradox]

Tweet

according to his gf

It is all clear. This is the "key".
I thought it was a man making the statement .

Women have all sorts of hormones floating around. It affects their brains.
Then the simplest most trivial things men say will set them off and they go ballistic.
"You look beautiful" woman will reply "So before you thought I looked ugly"

At those points of time, do not try and reason with them.
Just leave them alone etc.
After they are all ballistic they will feel all sorry and want to make it up to you.

So like with my wife, the big issue of me having a GF was she thought I would dump her.
But once she learned I will not dump her the idea of a GF did not bother her.
And now well both me and wife have a GF.