Originally posted by Klepto
you are assuming that all conclusions that MEN have are based around experiences that are the same which is not true.
At the core or center of their human experience, I do believe they are the same. therefor, whatever experiences they accumilate are still attached
neurologically and congitivley to the same pre-existing acepted truths.
MEN and WOMEN alike can come to a realisation that something can be perceived to be true without exeriencing it through trust of a known source.
Exactly. They can only form these opinions, however, because of pre-existing accepted truths that permit them to accept consciously these new tidbits
I have never been to Australia but believe it exists as I trust the information I have been provided with. In the same token, I trust that the law of
association is correct because the source of the information I regard to be trustworthy.
Because the experiences you have not chosen to deny yourself. You can only accept that Australia exists because of the pre-existing truths you have
already chosen to accept.
To arrive at a conclusion about a subject regardless of what it is you would need to follow a process that would allow you to come to a true
This I accept as this is a simple and logical thought process and is what is generally referred to as learning through experience.
But, you have accepted truths that were not incorporated through experience, at least not your experiences. Hence: Instincts.
But to state that this is a concept that is perceived differently between men and women is naive.
It's not naive if you are paying attention to the differences in the way women and men think. There must be a source at the core of our minds, the
center of the law of association that has made us somehow interpret and intigrate knowledge and experiences differently, whether out of neccesity or
You cannot base your experience with men being bad purely being because men have fear.
logic dictates that the cellular command encoded into DNA would not exist if it were not for fear, or visa-versa.
By the same token Women have fear and men have courage but do not base all there actions and thought processes on this emotion.
Women have fear, and men have courage? Courage cannot exist without fear. For then it would just be an outwardly measurable action performed by
someone who was ignorant of the danger they were facing.
Certainly you are not implying men don't have fear, and women don't have courage. (I didn't take your statement that way, just curious of the
choice of words in the order you presented them)
Humans are emotion driven beings but we are beings of individual nature and therefore cannot be catagorised in the manner which you state.
The similarities far out weigh the differences. I respect your view on this, I just dissagree with individuals nature not being able to be
catagorised with the other 11 billion+ people on the planet.
If everyone chose to hold themselves in seperate regard from others they would in effect be living a life in which it was them against the other 11
billion+ other people on the planet.
The odds would not be in their favor to support individuality over the whole of humanity and the end result would be the emotional accumilation of
just more people becoming the manifestation of their fears and hates.
The first emotion most people experience is usually fear.
by denoting usually
you imply that there are cases where this may not
oocur which shows weakness in your statment. At the age of infancy, people are more reactive and learn the concept of emotion as we develope. To
state that fear is something that all men soley experience at birth and therefore has a knock on effect for the development of the male individual is
I am not trying to offend you but I do believe that you have taken a perfectly good theory and misinterpreted it.