Jesus christ this thread is terrible. For the first half page it's Catslack covering/defending his mistake and nitpicking about Shepperds choice of words (that's pretty embarrassing man), Shepperd arguing with an guy who writes his posts in life-sophical emo-poetry (monoloque) (((have you adapted apathy to protect your ego or what man)))...
agaFSA()(() I AM NOT CONTENT WITH THE LEVEL OF THIS TOPIC.
FYI, i can tell you that i have just recently noticed that i feel much safer when under stress and threat rather than... well, you know, when in peace. In a state when it seems everything goes right for once.
I'm just like any little animal, always on my toes! 
*drinks beer with sheperd and frank zapa
What is my mistake?
EDIT: There were really only two points I was making, which are relevant to his post. The first is that I see problems with saying that it is preferable that life have ups and downs--especially when you are going to argue that you aren't suggesting it is ever preferable to desire unhappiness over happiness. Secondly, he argued that bland and boring aren't the same, and said he checked dictionary.com. I did as well since he brought that site up, and found boring under the synonyms for bland, and then he argued that synonymous doesn't mean have the same or very similar meaning, which it does. But he seemed to think that he had proven otherwise? I have no idea how.
also Godot, you depict a very boring life.
A life of continuous happiness is a bland one.
But anyways, not arguing semantics and using his definitions. He seems to suggest a life of only happiness would be uninspiring or lacking substance but doesn't realize these are pretty irrelevant if you accept that you are already happy. The fact is that if you do feel your life is uninspiring or lacking any substance or that it is of little quality you aren't going to be happy, and if you are happy then you aren't going to hold that view.
He argues that it would 'drive him crazy' if he didn't have ups and downs, but the fact is that if it does 'drive him crazy' which I assume to mean some sort of emotionally distraught state then he is no longer happy and probably hasn't been genuinely happy the whole time which violates the idea of a life of pure happiness. No? But even ignoring that if it did 'drive him crazy' this would actually be a good thing in his view because it would create a low which, according to him, is necessary for his sanity. However, this doesn't make sense either! He needs to be insane to be sane? I mean....????
Also there is some argument in there that things come in cycles and therefore we shouldn't try to fight it because a) "it is natural" (not an argument) and b) it would be stressful or something not to. This doesn't make sense either because if you are stressed out always trying to be happy you are not happy and this, again, violates the first premise of being happy all the time.
So please enlighten me to my mistake, because I wasn't trying to cover it. I didn't know one existed.
FYI, i can tell you that i have just recently noticed that i feel much safer when under stress and threat rather than... well, you know, when in peace. In a state when it seems everything goes right for once.
I'll also throw this in here because it's along the same idea: If you don't feel safe in peace it is not peace! You are pretty much create a scale with peace on one end and stress on the other and saying stress is preferable because it is more peaceful--or in your words you feel, "much safer" which I wouldn't have much of a problem equating a feeling of safety with a feeling of peace on some level. Don't you see the problem there?
And this can all pretty much be summed up by this:
Someone who is truly happy is someone who would be content with himself. I don't think anyone here (or anyone period) is truly happy.
Happiness is like, this elusive, mysterious goal that no one can ever really reach. Its some sort of idealistic value that people occasionally touch without ever really reaching. I think that people who say they are happy here, either they really mean, "I'm not feeling depressed", which is hardly being "happy" at all. Either that, or they're deluded.
However lacking detail the explanation is I think it still holds up pretty well. It is very easy to equate happiness with contentment yet you people seem to be violating this constantly by explaining situations in which you are not content.
That's the cool thing about happiness, it comes from time to time, not always as you try to promote. Like climaxes, like an orgasm. What's the cool thing about an orgasm if we were to be feeling it all the time? We gain tolerance, and then it becomes shitty.
Although I wouldn't call an orgasm happiness, and you don't SEEM to be doing it either, let's try the same example with happiness. If you become tolerant to happiness through some strange means, then you are no longer happy. It's not as though happiness is ruined because happiness is an emotion--one that you are no longer feeling. So happiness cannot become shitty. At most we can not be experiencing happiness. But happiness will always remain desirable.
A life of continuous peace is also a bland one, but I'd try to hold on to innerstate peace. To deal conflict with a peaceful state of mind, that's a good way to find yourself at ease, but we definitively want conflicts, or at least challenges.
A life of conflicts, now that's quite an interesting life!
And even you basically admit that happiness is always preferable when you say you'd rather hold on to peace and to deal with a conflict in a peaceful state of mind. This is in opposition to your suggestions that one don't try to hold on to happiness and that it should 'come and go.' Isn't it? The life of conflicts is irrelevant if you actually are completely satisfied and happy. Can this actually be achieved? I don't know. Supposedly the Buddhas have achieved it in the past. However, we had already accepted the premise that the life in question is of happiness.
Think Da Vinci or John Lennon or a table done by your carpinter friend given to you as a gift.
Trying to hold onto anything is pretty dangerous according to Buddhist doctrine. Even the work of Da Vinci, or Lennon, or your carpenter friend are going to fade and decay eventually. Thus any sort of attachment can lead to unhappiness. Which is interesting, then, because the only way to achieve happiness is to not be attached to happiness! Haha.
Gaming World Forums
The Pursuit of Happiness.