Your most hated love triangle?

Source is Nanashi no Asterism, by the way.

File: ss (2017-03-01 at 11.00.46).jpg (301KB, 625x882px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 625x882px

ones like this

>>155006378
Update when

File: triangle.png (13KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 800x600px

What about?

>>155006470
The Third Wheel is basically NTR.

File: these cookies taste like rejection.jpg (138KB, 1271x717px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 1271x717px

>>155006365
>the interloper

>>155006415
I think it got canceled.

Detective Conan.

Conan/Shinishi loves Ran and vice versa.
But then Ayomi also loves Conan
(the interloper)
And Haibara might have a thing for Conan too (still the Interloper), but Conan loves Ran, and Mitsuhiku loves Haibara.
The show is really fucked and i wish Conan and Haibara would just get together while Ran dies

>>155006365
>Is My Hobby Weird?
Made me chuckle.

File: the real monogatari.jpg (80KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 800x600px

>>155006470
Now this is monogatari

>>155006664
So just an orgy?
Also almost a get anon.
Have a (you)

>>155006552
The manga or the translation?

>>155006692
get out of /a/

>>155006664
There should be a few smaller dot.

>>155006549
Whats it called when its the the opposite?

Mylene and Gamlin love eachother
Mylene loves Basara
Basara doesnt love her

Still Mylene doesnt commit to Gamlin even though she has no chance with Basara

File: mistakes.jpg (110KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 800x450px

>>155006549
>School days
>WA2
This.

any MMF is cancer

>>155008132
So basically, both men love the wife's sister.
And the wife is the dumb bitch that's just being used for sex.

>>155006695
The manga.

>>155006365
The "Is my Hobby Weird" from a doujin right ? but the other girl is just a third wheel.

File: 3playa.jpg (110KB, 850x478px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 850x478px

>>155006365
Stop that

File: an_elopement_and_a_wedding.jpg (15KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 480x360px

>>155006365
>The Interloper
Strawberry Panic
>Stop that.
Matsuri and her Oneechans
>Death.
Nanashi no Asterism

File: bXZHi0u.jpg (105KB, 574x447px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 574x447px

>>155008488
>but the other girl is just a third wheel.
A friend with benefits

>>155008409
It's advanced NTR. The one that stole away the life ultimately ends up getting double NTR'd, he has a superficial relationship with the wife while she thinks of the husband and the sister has sex with the husband, making him the loser.

>>155008480
Ah fuck. Well, it was fun while it lasted.

>>155006365
The interloper always ruins fucking everything

File: corelationship dodecahedron.jpg (45KB, 900x574px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 900x574px

>>155006664
>the real monogatari

>>155006365
all of them

File: MR-358931-837384-10.jpg (58KB, 392x385px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 392x385px

>>155008776
It wasn't fun when the BL couple had more development than the GL love triangle.

>>155006875
The Kidou Senshi Gundam ZZ.

File: date a live - kurumi.png (60KB, 384x576px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 384x576px

>>155006365
The interloper is the worst one that's for sure

>guy wants to bang girl
>girl wants to bang guy
>girl's female friend who is also a lesbian XD butts in and has to go all PMS on the guy


It's done to death and so fucking boring, no the guy and girl never reacts realistically to the third-wheel who constantly fucks up their intimate moments and the story will always use her butting in to stall any relationship development that could occur.

File: l7xy6U6.png (17KB, 268x193px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 268x193px

>>155009139

>>155006664
Which dot is who?

>>155008714
My best kind of story

File: 1397541384692.jpg (111KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1280x720px

>>155006365
Death is the most hated and the most common.
Shit's got me really bummed on romance now because it's in literally everything now.

Everyone is simultaneously dense as fuck and emotional as fuck without ever, for even one second, stopping to think about anything.

Every love triangle is irredeemable garbage.

File: autism speaks.png (50KB, 2726x700px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 2726x700px

>>155006365
OP has inspired my inner math nerd to build a catalogue of all love triangles.
Ignoring gender, the number of possible distinct nontrivial triangles is 13, as represented by the columns of pic related. When gender is considered the number rises to 84, as represented by the 42 circles in the table (each gender combination is represented as a row, and you get the remaining 42 by flipping the gender of each of the three participants).
A cross indicates that the particular combination is a duplicate of some combination above it.
The interpretation and naming of each of these triangles is left to /a/ as an exercise (in shitposting).

>>155009657
The name for all of them is stated in the post directly above yours.

>>155009657
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TriangRelations

>>155009657
>When gender is considered the number rises to 84
except none of those involve 2 dudes & 1 chick

>>155009708
I had the same thought but
>you get the remaining 42 by flipping the gender of each of the three participants

>>155009718
yeah, oops, my bad
that said, i like 7C best, particularly when the bottom-right meets with a tragic end of self-sacrifice, good stuff

>>155009657
>up to 3 girls
>up to 1 guy
>hmm...

>>155009773
See
>>155009718

>>155006407
whats this shit from? that guys a trap isnt he?

>>155009657
I'm number 11 in real life.
My oneitis is a girl, but she loves a different guy, but he doesn't love her. kek.
but to make the image complete you'd have to add my current girlfriend (that i dont love), and the girl that the guy actually loves, and the guy my oneitis will probably start banging as a backup boyfriend

>>155010362
Move to a monastery immediately.

File: fixed.png (8KB, 410x384px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 410x384px

>>155009657
I fixed your love triangles for you

>>155008811
http://en.genzu.net/sokan/

reminds me of this

>>155009139
I just wish for once the guy will punch the yuri in the stomach and tell her to fuck off.

>>155009657
Option one doesn't make sense.

File: triangle.png (3KB, 550x377px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 550x377px

pic related is probably the best

File: 1469343647971.png (89KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 400x400px

>>155010720
Stop making waves

>Death

That would be "Hell", anon.

File: me.png (30KB, 787x794px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 787x794px

>>155010720

>>155010440
2 girls who love each other and the guy who also love both of them. Sound like harmony.

>>155006664
jej

>>155006365
Death and DHPS are the worst, with The Interloper coming up close second. These three configurations offer nothing but endless shitty drama with no resolution in sight.

File: scrap001_a.png (108KB, 1152x1260px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 1152x1260px

>>155006365

>>155011031
That's 3 girls dummy

>>155011031
>>155012027
That's actually just called being a shallow degenerate. No matter genders involved.

>>155012080
Not really, it's just a relationship where they all love each other, not too different from polygamy.

>>155010884
meta

File: ZOe6ays-1.png (633KB, 855x482px) Image search: [Google]

633KB, 855x482px

>>155008488
Coincidentally gundam had that triangle recently.

>>155012100
No, that is polygamy you moron.
And polygamy is what's shallow and degenerate.
I hate retards so much. Can you just go read the dictionary until you have a basic vocabulary and are able to hold normal conversations.

>>155012163
Polygamy isn't shallow or degenerate. Not when it's between cute anime girls anyway.

>>155012212
You're wrong. But it's not like any argument, valid or otherwise, will make you accept that. Because you're just shallow and self serving yourself.

>>155012242
Not that guy, but what are you, some sort of Bible basher or something?

>>155012163
Polygamy has two women married to one man, they don't love each other while polyamory DO have them love one another.

Whether it's degenerate or not is your opinion, it can work well enough and I'd be glad to read a manga/watch an animu about this subject.

>>155012262
Wouldn't a Bible basher be for polygamy, since they bash the Bible? Fucking English and its lack of complex word endings.

Wait, the Bible has polygamy too, doesn't it?

>>155012262
>Not that guy
Confirmed for that guy. Also confirmed for being new and stupid.
>Bible basher
That would be someone who is against the Bible.

File: 58779050_p0.png (2MB, 1412x1000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1412x1000px

>>155012242
Not like you even have any arguments.

>>155012317
>That would be someone who is against the Bible.

Educate yourself you ignorant fuck:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/bible-basher

>>155012316
>>155012317
A bible basher is a very religious person who uses the bible to "bash" others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_slurs

>>155012294
>opinion
I wish this was an autoban word. Not a single person who uses it is ever smart enough to use it correctly.

No, it is objectively degenerate. Because it involves relationship that are shallow and un-committed. And no, they're not committed just because you say they are. They aren't faithful to a partner, so they are shallow.

Polygamy is any relationship where multiple partners are involved. Polygamy has multiple sub-sects which you are thinking of. Not sure why you think polygamy must mean they don't love each other.

>>155012366
>>155012354
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Bible_basher
>(US) A person who finds fault with the Bible, Christianity, or Christian teaching

File: tegaki.png (182KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 400x400px

>>155011710
Looks like the Zangetsu.

>>155006549
I love Sheryl

>>155012464
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Bible_basher
>(pejorative) A fundamentalist Christian preacher, who is seen to take every opportunity to talk about Christianity and attempt to convert those around them.

It's time to stop posting.

>>155012497
Now not liking Sheryl actually is objectively degenerate.

>>155012412
Under a strict definition polygamy does mean marriage, but whatever.

It is not objectively degenerate, those things you are saying about it are in fact just your opinion.

>And no, they're not committed just because you say they are.
Correct, but the opposite isn't true either.

>>155012412
>No, it is objectively degenerate. Because it involves relationship that are shallow and un-committed. And no, they're not committed just because you say they are. They aren't faithful to a partner, so they are shallow.

There is absolutely no basis for this at all, if a man is married to two women who both live under his roof and he doesn't go to anyone else he is faithful. If those three individuals promised to be true to each other and want to live the rest of their lives together, then it's a successful case of polygamy if the women communicated enough to work out their jealousy issues. If the girls actually have romantic feelings and sexual attraction to each other as well, then it's a polyamorous relationship.

Our culture is actively working against such harmonious households so it's a given that it's very, very rare or non-existent.

>Not sure why you think polygamy must mean they don't love each other

Who gave you the authority to decide how relationships works? All people need to do is communicate. some will be compatible with a group-type of love, others aren't and that's perfectly fine.

>>155012344
You're shallow and degenerate. Which means you're not smart, meaning even rational arguments will not make sense to you. You'll just dismiss everything said to you.

Love is just like anything else, a limited resource. You can't just claim you love someone a lot and have it be true just because you say so. You need to put devotion, time, effort, faithfulness and meaning into your relationship with the other person. Obviously a relationship where you are with the other person 100% of the time is impossible, due to at the very least, needing to work so you can support yourself and your partner.

So, break it down like this, hypothetically.
10% work, 5% hobby, 85% partner.
That is in a monogamous relationship.

Even in the most "ideal" situation with two people it becomes like this.
10% work, 5% hobby, 42.5% partner one, 42.5% partner two.

This mean that by definition your relationship with them is shallow. Thus degenerate.

File: 1469158963224.png (229KB, 320x490px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 320x490px

>>155012412
From a biological perspective, wouldn't it be more beneficial for the species to have alpha males impregnate a larger amount of women to increase the spread of their superior genes rather than a random mating system?

>>155012549
>opinion
Again, needs to be an auto ban word. Anyone with a brain never uses this term.

You can't just call something an opinion and have it be one. Guess what? You can explain why something is an opinion and support that by making it match the definition of opinion. But instead, you just use it as your cover all excuse for anything you disagree with.

>Correct, but the opposite isn't true either.
It actually is. Because you can't be committed and sleeping with multiple people. It goes against the definition of the word.

>>155012599
Except that a three partner household will have the man pay attention to both women at the same time so your math is wrong.

Just because you cannot comprehend how a type of relationship work doesn't mean it cannot logically happen and be beneficial for everyone.

No point in arguing with fruit loop religious nut, guys. There's only room in his head for one idea and I'm afraid that spot is already taken with whatever his "pastor" told him to think this week.

>>155012698
I want an animu where two girls agree to share the guy, as long as he isn't a boring, dull fuckwit.

>>155010884
I think I can see a merchant in here somewhere

>>155012593
>he is faithful
Wrong, you don't even know the defintion of the word.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/faithful
>(of a spouse or partner) never having a sexual relationship with anyone else.
By very definition you can not be faithful to multiple contradicting things.

>Who gave you the authority to decide how relationships works?
A brain. Common sense. The definition of words.
You're degenerate scum, and you just want to have your cake and eat it, too. Literally anything you do is all for the sake of being self serving.

>>155012654
>opinion (plural opinions)
>A belief that a person has formed about a topic >or issue.

Would you look at that, just about everything you said is an opinion.

>>155012728
You never know, maybe R3 will scratch that itch. I hope so.

>>155012080
>>155012163
>>155012242
>>155012412
>>155012599
Please go back to /pol/, tumblr, twitter, etc. if you can't divorce your political beliefs from fictional relationships.

>>155012698
>religious
Hang yourself. Really, do it. The fact you think making baseless assumptions is logical proves you're not smart.

>>155012780
Epic downvote, redditor. You sure showed me.
And it has nothing to do with politics. Try reading what you're replying to. Instead of just going "person thinks what I like is bad".

>>155012660
>pay attention to both women at the same time
Literally impossible. Pay attention means to give focus to one thing. You are saying to give focus to two things. That goes against the definition of the word.

>>155012822
>Reddit calling
Go back to your /v/ and /pol/ hole.

>>155012755
>By very definition you can not be faithful to multiple contradicting things.

When both women are his spouse, then the man is faithful.

>You're degenerate scum, and you just want to have your cake and eat it, too. Literally anything you do is all for the sake of being self-serving.

Nah, I've studied history and realized there is a wide range to interpret human relationship. a harmonious group household -is- possible as long as they have a supportive community and family, not too different from a monogamous relationship my good sir.

You're just having an emotional, knee-jerk reaction to this subject.

>>155012759
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/opinion
>A view or judgement formed about something
>not based on fact or knowledge.
Try using actual definitions. Also, you still don't get it. Because the problem is that you try to "win" arguments by calling something an opinion and that's that. You don't actually address what's said. You do anything you can to dismiss people.

>>155012848
>acts like he's on reddit
>is mad he gets told as such
Don't try to "downvote" posts like you're on reddit, then.

>>155012822
>Literally impossible. Pay attention means to give focus to one thing. You are saying to give focus to two things. That goes against the definition of the word.

No, because the women themselves will work together to help the man with any issues they have, thereby guiding the man to give them proper attention. In day to day, they'll share memories as a group and that's how their family will build.

>>155012822
"Political" was a bad word choice (it's almost 5 in the morning, my brain's not at peak performance), but the fact of the matter is that you're barging into an otherwise calm and respectful conversation, calling others names for no reason and lowering the quality of discussion. If you want to argue, at least do so in a polite manner.
Also >>155012848 isn't me, just some ass who should go back to the places he mentioned.

>>155012883
He didn't act like he was on reddit, it was some dumb shit sure, but nothing like a downvote.

>>155012868
You just expect people to accept everything you say as fact? It's opinions mate. You can back them up as much as you want but "x is bad" will always be an opinion, because the idea of "bad" differs from person to person.

>>155012852
>When both women are his spouse, then the man is faithful.
Okay, I want you to realize just how fucking stupid you are.
First, you say "When both women are his spouse, then the man is faithful.", then I link the definition of terms that prove you wrong. Then you reply to think is literally repeating the same exact thing you just said. Why are degenerates always so fucking stupid?

>-word-
What the fuck? Go back to whatever shithole forum you came from.

Again, just read >>155012599
It straight up proves you wrong. Just because something "works" doesn't mean it's good. It also doesn't mean they are faithful and have real relationships.

>>155012617
>random
The primary social unit of humanity is a mixed group of individuals. Until human evolution farted us abortions out of its gene pool, the human race got along fine with a bunch of guys getting a bunch of girls to let them bone them. The over all social structure allows for both men and women to have peers that assist them in group oriented tasks to the greater benefit of all, from hunting to gathering to raising kids. The human race has never been about singular individuals, its been about the group effort. This doesn't mean everything was some kind of commie utopia, there's typically always been some kind of person who got to the top of the pile and inequality of resources. But what people do best requires a coordinated group that all have a personal interest in success and who can all have some sort of individual satisfaction from it. These dynamics allowed for multiple paired mates, approaching near statistical evenness between male and female populations which is reflected in their birth and death rates.

Humans are not only monogamous, but they are overwhelmingly so and have always been so. Structurally polygamous societies have consistently faced the problem of older, established males having a personal stake in booting younger boys out before they become competition, resulting in a cascade of disenfranchised young men in their prime. It's simply a system that doesn't allow for long term survival as an social structure in anything but niches, despite the seemingly attractive notion of "but one dude can impregnate a whole bunch of women on his own!" A small amount of dudes with two wives isn't going to cause any problems, women typically do very slightly out number men for a variety of reasons, but it being the end goal of a society ain't happening unless you reduce the amount of men being born. Biologically, we are social animals that require peers.

File: 1326257605530.jpg (186KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 700x700px

No seriously, why are you replying to fuckwit?

>>155012926
>He
You.

>nothing like a downvote.
It was literally nothing but him (you) trying to express that you disprove of something. That's a downvote.

>It's opinions mate
No matter how many times you say this, it will still be wrong. The fact you don't understand how to even address an argument and answer points made in it is really sad.

>>155012617
Depends on how many alpha males there are. If there's too few, genetic diversity could be a problem.

>>155012957
Nice broken English, retard. Stop trying to act like you're smart.

>>155012925
>calling others names for no reason
You're a degenerate, you got called a degenerate. I fail to see the problem. What, can you only function when you have a hug box?

>lowering the quality of discussion
Circle jerking about how you love being a degenerate isn't quality discussion.

>>155006365
It's not a love triangle unless it has three sides, so the first two aren't real triangles.

>>155012932
>Okay, I want you to realize just how fucking stupid you are.

Likewise, you seem to be unable to grasp the concept that different cultures bring another interpretation to being faithful, in this case being true to his wives.

>What the fuck? Go back to whatever shithole forum you came from.

It's called grammar, you wouldn't understand.

>It straight up proves you wrong. Just because something "works" doesn't mean it's good. It also doesn't mean they are faithful and have real relationships.

And you are again unable to grasp the fact that human relationship aren't so easily quantified mathematically and that it -is- possible to satisfy two partners emotionally as long as you aren't an asshole on a power trip treating his women like slaves.

>>155012617
That's the great part about technology. You don't need to worry about the biological perspective as things will work out correctly anyway.

>>155012997
I don't think that's necessary. Most things we call love triangles don't have all three sides.

>>155012990
>>155012822 and >>155012925 are my only two posts in the thread (if you have 4chan X, notice the new IP indicator). And for the record I agree with you beliefs, but acting rude and resorting to ad hominem atacks isn't the way to communicate them.

>>155013027
Meant >>155012780 and >>155012925, again, tired.

>>155012925
>just some ass who should go back to the places he mentioned.
You just went with a "No YOU!" in proxy for someone you're disagreeing with, with the exact "ad hominem" you're apparently against.
You should go back to sleep sir.

>>155012964
>I have the magical ability to know who made which posts. Also it is impossible for more than one person to disagree with me.

File: 82.jpg (469KB, 850x825px) Image search: [Google]

469KB, 850x825px

This is Nero. She is in a love triangle with a fox for her Praetor affection.

>>155013054
I can't argue if there's nothing to argue about. If he had at least said "you should go back because x and y", then I'd have something to rebuke. But there's nothing to say when they're basically saying "fuck you".

>>155013021
>interpretation
This is another word that needs to be auto banned. Because no one with a brain tries to use it in an argument.
Your interpretation does not change whether something is correct or not. The actual definition of the word is absolute and the metric you apply. Just because you want your own personal definition of being "faithful" doesn't mean you actually get it. The term faithful it's means to be true to one thing, not multiple.

>aren't so easily quantified mathematically
I just did it, so you're wrong. You aren't faithful and having "strong love" just because you say you are. Your actions have to match your words. And in this case, they don't.

>-is-
This is never correct "grammar". And you mean syntax either way.
But, lets see you link any source were where that is stated to be correct format.

I'm out. Hopefully that one half-witted cunt will fuck off and decent people can still salvage this thread.

>>155013027
>my only two posts in the thread
This is an anonymous site. Your word means nothing. You actually have to back up what you say with valid forms of proof. And yes, it is very easy to change your IP.

>ad hominem
You don't know what this means. ad hominem is not just personal insults. ad hominem means to dismiss someone's argument and instead focus on attacking personal traits. I've addressed every "argument" made. Can't say the same about you.

>>155013098
>waaah I can't have a circle jerk about how i love being a degenerate
What makes you think this site is your hug box?

>>155013090
>Your interpretation does not change whether something is correct or not. The actual definition of the word is absolute and the metric you apply. Just because you want your own personal definition of being "faithful" doesn't mean you actually get it. The term faithful it's means to be true to one thing, not multiple.

Your facts are not absolute when it come to ever changing human relationships, you can be faithful to concepts and oaths; it's not as absolute as you make it to be.

>I just did it, so you're wrong. You aren't faithful and having "strong love" just because you say you are. Your actions have to match your words. And in this case, they don't.

Actions and words do match when you bring happiness to two women at once. It's possible, your refusal to accept this is denial so you take refuge in your loud opinion, you did nothing but stroke your ego.

>>155013078
>because x and y
Save for, that's exactly what was done. You just ignored it.

all of them

fuck your geometry doesn't belong in my romansu

>>155012154
and it was the most boring pairing pairing in that shitshow, next to that slut and Akihiro.

>>155013150
>This is an anonymous site. Your word means nothing.
Do you listen to yourself?

>>155013150
>I've addressed every "argument" made.
>>155012599
>You're shallow and degenerate. Which means you're not smart, meaning even rational arguments will not make sense to you. You'll just dismiss everything said to you.
How is that not an ad hominem attack? Your argument is just "you're a stupid degenerate who is too dumb to understand my argument". Even if you back up your argument with other claims, attacking someone for no reason is poor discourse.

>>155013174
>I'm happy eating shit so eating shit is good
That's literally your argument. I know you're near tree stump levels of stupid, so I'll explain it for you.

Based on the math I presented before you can at best half the amount love you give to both partners because you have to spread it around. In this case "half love" is "eating shit"'. Just because people are happy with something, doesn't mean it's actually good.

>you can be faithful to concepts and oath
Correct, you can. But this doesn't change anything about what I said. Because you sure as fuck can't be faithful to two contractions things. If you made two oaths, one to always sit, and one to always stand, it's impossible to be faithful to them both. Just like you can't be totally faithful to two people.

>>155013200
>durrr anything you say is your word
I hate retards so, so much. "Your word" refers to when you try to make a claim such as "this post is mine and this post is not". "Your word" is not anything you say with in your posts.

>>155013251
>How is that not an ad hominem attack?
Did you even read the post you're replying to? Because it explains exactly how it's not ad hominem.

For something to be ad hominem you MUST dismiss an argument someone has made. That didn't happen, so it's not ad hominem. You are just upset with people stating negative facts about you.

>>155010884
Underrated.

>>155013254
>Based on the math I presented before you can at best half the amount love you give to both partners because you have to spread it around. In this case "half love" is "eating shit"'. Just because people are happy with something, doesn't mean it's actually good.

Except they are sharing every available moment as a group, so you're math is wrong because there is no separation in the household. You are too thick and stupid to realize that they will sleep in the same bed, eat breakfast together, welcome him back together when he come back from work, discuss family issues together, raise kids together.

>Correct, you can. But this doesn't change anything about what I said. Because you sure as fuck can't be faithful to two contractions things. If you made two oaths, one to always sit, and one to always stand, it's impossible to be faithful to them both. Just like you can't be totally faithful to two people.

If a man promises his two wives t obe true to them and goes and fuck a negress in a bar, he's broken his vow. You are the only one imposing a contradiction in a polygamous/polyamorous relationship. You're a sad deluded fool anon.

>>155013384
You have no idea how much I hate degenerates. There is not a single intelligent one of them.

>Except they are sharing every available moment as a group
Different jobs. Different hobbies. Bathing at different times. Sleeping at different times. Having different friends. Going to different schools. Going to bath room at different times. Having different conversations. etc etc.

The only way your argument actually works if they are robots programmed to be exactly in sync. It's funny, because the more you talk, the more you show that what you really want are just two females pets that are just there to serve your every whim and fetish.

>promises
>s
Again, very definition of the word, can't be faithful to two things. He can be faithful the promise, but he can be faithful to two people. These mean different things.

>>155013494
>Different jobs. Different hobbies. Bathing at different times. Sleeping at different times. Having different friends. Going to different schools. Going to bath room at different times. Having different conversations. etc etc.

Communicating together. Sleeping together. Living together. Planning evenings and weekends to be together as a group. Learning to manage the household together. It's not that different from a monogamous couple you thick headed bastard.

>The only way your argument actually works if they are robots programmed to be exactly in sync. It's funny, because the more you talk, the more you show that what you really want are just two females pets that are just there to serve your every whim and fetish.

No, it means understanding they are intelligent human beings who can help resolve problems, like how one person could be isolated from the others and achieve an overall happiness for their group family.

We can go in circle all day, you're obviously too stubborn to get that stick out of your ass.

>Again, very definition of the word, can't be faithful to two things. He can be faithful the promise, but he can be faithful to two people. These mean different things.

No, it means being true with his oaths to those women.

>>155013719
Learn to use sage, newfriend. Also learn how to quote. There is zero reason to copy every single line like that.

>Communicating together.
You're literally just listing words and adding "together" after it to try and validate your argument. You can only communicate "together", you fucking half wit. And all the things I listed are things that keep people on different schedules. And they are all things that happen in your everyday life as a human being. Meaning, they will all never be a situation where they are together with all party members in exactly the same way at exactly the same times. And again, you can't give total focus to two things. That's not how it works. It goes against the very definition. If you are giving 100% focus to one partner, it is impossible to give 100% focus to another. This all comes downs to the fact you think people should be happen eating shit, because it means pandering to your fetish.

>you're obviously too stubborn
As opposed to you, who is arguing using is own definitions of words?

>true with his oaths
Okay, dumb fuck, I can't believe how stupid you are.
There are multiple concepts here.
1. Being faithful, as in the definition of the word, which means to be faithful to a single thing.
2. Being faithful to an promise, oath, etc
You can do these two things independently of each other. You are saying that only 2 exists. But that's wrong. You are ignoring the actual definition of the word faithful and focusing instead on being true to a promise. But, that's not the one that actually matters. Because being true to promise does not mean anything, as a promise can be to do something bad.

>No, it means understanding they are intelligent human beings who can help resolve problems
What the fuck are you even talking about? That has nothing to do with what was said.

>family
Are you that retard who goes into harem threads all the time and say "durr the best harem is where they all act like a "family"?

File: babygotback.png (797KB, 1381x2000px) Image search: [Google]

797KB, 1381x2000px

>>155008488
Afaik the manga isn't doujin

>>155011453
>Death and DHPS are the worst
Also the most common.

>>155013165
>whining about degeneracy on /a/
Hello /pol/.

>>155015790
You don't even know why people say to go back to /pol/, you're just parroting things you've seen other people say to try and fit in.

>>155006365
Dense Harem Protag, simply for being too common.
Does the "Is my hobby weird?" one even as a love triangle? It's a threesome relationship.

>>155016016
They're the only retards who unironically whine about "degeneracy".

File: thousand tips.jpg (60KB, 990x557px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 990x557px

>This one beta cuck is whining about polyamory because he thinks it's not fair some alpha males can take multiple mates when he cant even get one
>m-muh degeneracy! muh pedantic and incorrect word interpretations!

>>155006365
Nanashi no Asterism really grinded gears for the endless melodrama with the 'Death'-type triangle. Even worse is how the drama stems from ignorance, or lack of, of each other's feelings. Most notable is how one of the girl knows that she doesn't know about her crush, but gasp, the other girl actually knows about how she thought that she didn't know about her feelings.

Also may I add its a YURI triangle?

>>155016453
>>155016560
>you fit the definition of the word
>get mad when you are called it
Wow, so strange.

I also find it funny how you think it's actually acceptable behavior or post fedora shit.
I also find it funny how you are crying because you were made fun of for not even having a basic vocabulary.

>>155016772
Stop acting like a fat forever alone anal devastated fedora if you don't want people posting fedora shit and laughing at you, kek. You're the only one I see crying here, all this projection in your post is really sad.

>>155016819
>kek
Are you intentionally trying to make yourself look bad or something?

Also
>durrr projection bcuz i say so
When you're smart enough to actually explain your assertions and detail your posts. Then you might not make a total fool out of yourself.

>>155016933
Hahaha holy shit you REEK of fedora. Keep going I want to see what else you've got.

>>155017009
What defines being a "fedora" in your book?
Being smarter than you and understanding how to make a valid argument?

You of course are too stupid to even answer a simple post like this and you are just going to reply to with more shitpost non-answers.

File: A sucessful bait thread.jpg (79KB, 337x242px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 337x242px

The fuck is going on here?

File: fedora.jpg (119KB, 474x632px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 474x632px

>>155017043
Being a pretentious pseudo-intellectual who posts like you're so intelligent while completely lacking self-awareness or the irony in how much of what you say applies much more appropriately to your own shallow and defensive posts.

Pretty much sums it up!

>>155012523
It's actually "bible thumper" in burgerland

>>155017232
>unironic use of exclamation points
Just how new are you?

>pretentious
Just stating facts and validating my arguments with sources and reasoning.

>pseudo-intellectual
>pseudo
Good thing nothing I said is wrong, and everything I said is sourced. As opposed to all your baseless claims and personal insults.
You for some reason think making a list of baseless claims amounts to making an actual argument.

What you really mean to say is that you're scared and threatened by anyone who's able to conduct normal and rational discussion because you are too autistic to.

>applies much more appropriately to your own shallow and defensive posts.
Please do tell why it applies more. Don't just say it does. Explain your assertion.
Here's a hint, though. You're wrong.

>>155017174
You can't ever reason with anyone who posts a fedora image. They are psychotic past sanity.

>>155017381
Hahahahaha. Thank you for proving my point.

Oh my god you are the worst kind of stupid.

>>155017468
>more baseless claims
>literally refuses to explain or detail anything he says
Do you not see the irony in you calling other people stupid?

>>155017540
Mate I don't need to do anything, you're fucking destroying yourself. Are you so dense you don't see how every line you post applies to your own shit? The only two possibilities here are either that your entire strategy is to be aggressively dishonest and attempt to gaslight your opponent as to what has actually transpired so far in the exchange while accusing them of using all the pathetic behaviour you yourself are demonstrating, or you're actually convinced the things you're saying are true and you don't even comprehend what it actually even means to formulate a valid argument and source it, you're just regurgitating shit you've seen other people say when they destroyed you in the past. I'm not sure which is worse, but either way it's pretty amusing. It would be legendary if it wasn't the same tired cookie-cutter behaviour pattern you see every conceited, socially stunted asperger's syndrome loser on this website display.

>>155017540
just stop man

File: harems.jpg (638KB, 712x3293px) Image search: [Google]

638KB, 712x3293px

You all need more points to smooth your relationships out.

File: ok.jpg (60KB, 607x610px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 607x610px

>>155010464
>http://en.genzu.net/sokan/

File: dream.png (5KB, 249x219px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 249x219px

The dream

>>155017851
>>155017891
http://desuarchive.org/a/thread/155006365/#155018110_1

>>155006365
Death, even if we don't see it a lot.

>>155006365
Die, Makoto

>>155018145
There's nothing better than this love triangle.

>>155019466
>no pointless drama
>both parties are in love
It's perfect harmony.

>>155006365
>Is my hobby weird?
best

>The interloper
worst

>death
funniest when executed right.

>>155009657
>4D
Best

>>155021577
Quality bump from page 10. Not at all like you're just despreate to keep your thread alive.

>>155021577
How is 4D good?

>>155010180
Adam something, yes he is.

File: Shishunki_na_Adam-26-11.jpg (272KB, 782x1104px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 782x1104px

>>155006407
why did you screenshot that?
just save the image from senmanga..

>No one posted the Sunohara one yet

Dissapointing.

>>155008811
kek
so that's actually what shinichi mochizuki was working on all along, monogatari