Printable View
when and how did having a gender become something to be ashamed about?
why do we have insults like "your such a man" or "that's a woman for you"?
how is it we have decided to be at war with half of our own species? wont that kill us off eventually?
where has all this deep seeded hate come from?
It's not really hatred. It's just stereotyping. Don't get me wrong, stereotyping is bad. It's just something that will NEVER be put down and never used again.
I quite agree with Mister Revolution on this issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by imnothere
And those insults are born from the ignorant and stupidity of he who slings them about. Lacking no other vestiges upon which to reside, they resort to useing gender as a weapon. This proves not their intent to harm, for it is quite humerous in my view, so much so that they lack creativity and any other retorts available to them.
Hate appears whenever there is love. To love is to risk the wrath of hate. One cannot love without hate. One cannot hate without love.
~John
It could have started from older brothers. He tells his younger brother that he throws like a girl to get him mad. Thats what I think.
these are surface symptoms of the same malady, yes, but they are not the root cause. societal norms have be come so skewed from what is healthy. co-dependency and enmeshment are what we are taught to want from movies and tv these days. we are also taught to blame the other person for not understanding us despite never having explained our selves.
i dont know any co-dependent mind flayers who would be willing to date me, so i know i will never achieve that societal norm. not that i regret that one bit actually.
I would refute the claim, but also embrace it. This is, of course, in reguards to the sentence discussing movies and television.Quote:
Originally Posted by imnothere
I would refute that we are taught that from movies and television these days. Though I would most willingly admit I endulge myself not so hugely in either. So perhaps that is why I have never experienced that message from either.
I would embrace that people are taught to blame another person for their faults. However, it is also dove-taled they are taught to blame themselves. The latter, for this case as explained above, much less likely and much less encouraged then the former. Though this will divert the conversation for a spell of time, I will non the less state it; I would hold that the message that we need not explain ourselves to another is quite predominent in society as a whole. Though not as the response of films, or television shows. More so by choice. Instead, by virtue of them being alive -- let alone of being the other gender or not-- they must understand what is uttered -- or not uttered-, by that virtue alone. And, in the case of marriage, should this not be present. Well then? The only clear recourse is not to work, but to divorce the marriage and move on to one who would understand. For in the end, explination is not needed. Bonds such as marriage; the form of riddcule, and of laughter. For, why should such bonds not be removed as quickly as they were placed upon the individual? Atleast, to the modern view.
~John
ah we begin to spiral in on the root i am seeking.
if we are taught to blame our selves are we in that same moment taught to hate our selves? if that is the case would we be more likely to hate the teacher of these thoughts or our selves for accepting them? or even both??
could these be the roots we are searching for? and if so, would pulling them out (ie extracting these thoughts and forgiving self and teacher) heal the pain they caused us in the first place?
I would say that the first depends on the teacher and student.Quote:
Originally Posted by imnothere
One might easily disfigure a message of blame as to the source of actions to be one of hateful blame. The cause, or root of this could stem from the student, or teacher, or both.
As to the second. I would say it depends on the thinker. One might easily be inclined to the first. While that same person be equally inclined to the second.
As to the last. I would ask the roots of what?
If one is to take it as tendrils of thought: they may as easily be extracted as they were implanted. By acceptence or rejection of the facts.
~John
in gardening i leared two important life lessons.
1) if you dont get the root, ripping out the greens only gets your hands dirty and stained in vain.
2) its easier to grow roots around things then to remove them from things. for example; a plant reaches down and finds a rock in its way, this same plant will simply grow around the rock. it might eventually break the rock up given enough time and lake of space to grow away from it, but time and space are key to the breaking of the rock.
now what does this have to do with what we are speaking? thoughts are like plants in that they need time and space to grow and mature into something relatable. by the time one can express a thought as ones own its origins may be lost. making the "rooting out" of thought one finds no longer relevant difficult at best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by imnothere
In reguards to the last. Perhaps, but I suppose it would depend upon the thought. And for how long one held it to be true. But what is more, how willing one was to rid themselves of it.
~John
how does one rid themselves of a thought??? this is a question i have struggled to answer for the last year and a half.
I would say that one simply refuses to think it. Or rather, to accept that it holds nary any bareing anymore on the personages' actions. That it is in everyway shape and form, untrue, and not worth any further thoughts of merit.Quote:
Originally Posted by imnothere
Let us say, for example, that without rhyme or reason I hold the color black to be superior to all others. That, despite all the logic and the reason in the world I refuse to be anything but enraptured, completely enanamoured with said color. Supose let us decide further that eventually I grow tired of this enrapture, of this encapturement by the thought. Then, by weight of the decision alone, I can chose to allow myself to refute that thought, and thereby rid myself of it.
~John
first you have to enter the first the dream level, then go deeper into the second while leaving someone to set your kicks, then enter the third level plant the counter inception then have all your kicks synchronized so you can leave the dreamQuote:
Originally Posted by imnothere
^^i will have to try that again.
^no one would come into my dreams with me. not even to kick me out.
thanks for the suggestions
I assume your mother doesn't hate you. I certainly don't hate my wife or my daughter. I don't think this statement carries any water.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Adams
I cannot dissuade you from your beliefs, Mister Boleslav. However, I would refute them just the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boleslav
Because you love one object does not dissolve you from the ability to hate another. Indeed, you may indeed hate the same object -- at times-- that you profess to love at all others.
You may even be lead into hating what you once loved through adverse cirumstances. Surely most once married, now divorced personages did not marry with the intent, or even idea, they would eventually grow to hate another.
I would urge you sir, that you assertain what I seek to imply, or what views I wish to further, before selecting exerpts from my writing to remark upon.
~John
i was under the assumption that he meant "opening your self to the possibility of love opens you to the possibility of grate pain which if misdirected or unresolved could lead to hate"Quote:
Originally Posted by Boleslav
but i can see where one would easily read what he said and take it at face value.
but then we all know what happens when we assume things. hehe only way i remember how to spell that word is from the vary apt saying that goes with remembering how to spell it
Your assumption is, on the whole, correct, miss.Quote:
Originally Posted by imnothere
I submited more of what I meant by that statement above.
One must love to hate. One must hate to love.
~John
i still disagree with the absoluteness of your statement, but i accept it as your opinion.
That is fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by imnothere
I do not ask, nor request, compliance with my decision. I can hopefor correct assumptions as to what I said.
~John
Neither does it suggest there need be any connection at all. You stated in your post "Hate appears whenever there is love", so are you suggesting a direct causality or not? If I fall in love with someone, does that mean that I now hate something more? That's what you state.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Adams
Or perhaps you aren't connecting love and hate like that at all? Your first post has you explicitly coupling the two together "one cannot love without hate" but now you suggest that hate and love are more general things, do you perhaps mean that I can love my mother but hate broccoli?
As a style point, use 'one' instead of 'you'. Using 'you' makes your post read as an attack.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Adams
So the correlation isn't direct then, it depends on 'circumstances'. So if you love something, are you opening yourself up to hate, or does it depend on 'circumstances'?Quote:
Originally Posted by John Adams
I was inviting you to expand on your ideas. Don't complain if you post an idea in a discussion thread and someone invites you to expand upon it... doesn't look good.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Adams
No, that is not what I state Mister Boleslav. Not by corrolation, not by causation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boleslav
You have mis-construed my intent, and for that clearly I am to be blamed.
You have indeed sir, quoted what I said. But then by means I know not what, so avoided my intended meaning, and then went off on that tangent with an apparently false meaning as to what I meant.
I never suggested in the first that they were not general things. Nor did I in the second constrain them to being less so.Quote:
Or perhaps you aren't connecting love and hate like that at all? Your first post has you explicitly coupling the two together "one cannot love without hate" but now you suggest that hate and love are more general things, do you perhaps mean that I can love my mother but hate broccoli?
As one part, yes, that is exactly what I mean. However, as to the other, I mean also that you may well hate your mother as well. By turns, mind you. Not absolute.
As a style point I will refrain. Instead, I will chose what I hold to be more of a natural convayence for the thought upon which I hold. Should you find this intollerable, I would suggest you manually, or mentally, replace the words.Quote:
As a style point, use 'one' instead of 'you'. Using 'you' makes your post read as an attack.
By the virtue of love, you allow yourself to hate. That hate, similar to the love, is not necessarily constrained to but one object.Quote:
So the correlation isn't direct then, it depends on 'circumstances'. So if you love something, are you opening yourself up to hate, or does it depend on 'circumstances'?
I would again suggest most highly that you do not make incorrect assumptions as to what I mean. And then further progress along that mis-alligned tangent, to the point where your ultimate conclusion -- while simultaniously valid and valuable in other situations -- is as utterly false as the premise upon which you base it. I did not complain then, nor did I do so now.Quote:
I was inviting you to expand on your ideas. Don't complain if you post an idea in a discussion thread and someone invites you to expand upon it... doesn't look good.
I appreciate the oppertunity to expand upon my ideas. For the mistaken assumptions of one most likely transcend to others. And I would be mistaken, if I did not take the oppertunity to make it clear what I intend.
~John
So what exactly is the connection between hate and love then? Merely that they are two emotions that most people seem to have? Could I equally state then "Happiness appears whenever there is sadness" or "Despair appears whenever there is hope"?
Could you? That is, for you sir, to decide.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boleslav
The absolute connection, according to myself, is that one does not exist without the other. However, love must first be present for hate to exist in a person.
I did not mean to imply then, nor do I seek to do now, that a corrolation between two extends to a corrolation between others. Nor, with respect, do I see what a discussion upon either would hold in merit with the main point of this thread. However, there may be those that disgress with this opinion.
~John
So hate can't exist first and lead to love?Quote:
Originally Posted by John Adams
I dispute that these two emotions have any connection, absolute or otherwise, with any other emotion that most people seem to have. One may as well say that without love there is no hope, or without hate there is no determination, or without loneliness there is no fear. It becomes so general as to lose all causality.
This we agree on, it isn't the main thrust of the thread. We can continue this on PMs if you'd like.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Adams
Style point: most people who use or say "with respect" mean the opposite (it's a debating trick).
Again, I cannot but alter your ideas. Nor, by turns, would I seek to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boleslav
However, yes, your first sentence is correct. I would hold, at the very least. Were one to remove the question mark, and replace it with a period.
Quote:
This we agree on, it isn't the main thrust of the thread. We can continue this on PMs if you'd like.
Style point: most people who use or say "with respect" mean the opposite (it's a debating trick).
Very well. Then this will be my final word on the matter, here.
I should then make it clear. To make it so that it is without the least bit doubt.
I cannot seek to, or change, the view or speaking patterns, or in addition the intent of the common man. I can say only that when I say, or said "with respect", I meant it as is. I did not mean it with any hidden meaning to it. I do appreciate the notification, however.
~John
I don't know if there is so much deep seeded hatred as all that. We usually make generalisations like those because we have no valid argument, so we fall back on attacking the obvious differences (from us) which in this case is gender.Quote:
Originally Posted by imnothere
Having said that, men and women do think differently from each other and that is both hereditary and genetic. So some of the generalisations are based on a degree of truth but that doesn't mean that they are true in all cases and it doesn't mean we have to fight about it either.
Men and women are different and I say hooray for that. It would be a boring world if we were all the same, or all one non-specific gender.
i agree with you on the celebration of difference. i love diversity, it makes life exciting and challenging.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodri
i would like to think that more then half the populous does not fall into my argument of people who blame the actions of others on their gender, but i need more convincing.
the problem with the most effective lies is that they do have truth in them. they wouldnt hold otherwise. the more truth mixed in with the lie the harder it is to separate them out.
what i dont understand is where "difference" becomes something to be shunned over. i have asked this in a previous thread, but still i dont understand. *resigned shrug* maybe i never will.
I don't think there is one point where "difference becomes something to be shunned over". I think there are too many variables that make every situation different and too many influences from many different sources to make a clear statement about where it all goes wrong.
Take an individual out of a particular group and question their behaviour and quite often they will not be able to explain that behaviour in any meaningful way, other than "that's how the group behaves and I was just trying to fit in". Men act differently around other men than they do around women and women are probably the same. We all have different experiences and that makes us all different in how we behave. Conforming to a social norm comes easier to some than others and they will tend to experience less stress and isolation than a true individual but they will also probably never have an original idea in their whole lives, so it's a trade-off.
I know that teenagers and young adults are among the most judgemental and socially conformist groups of all and this can make the individuals in these groups say and do things that they wouldn't even consider, if they were not part of a particular group. They are performing for the group and seeking group approval. (peer pressure)
I still can't answer your question because there are too many variables to make a single statement that holds true in all circumstances. Sorry.
please dont be. that answer in and of itself is quite an answer.
i realize that blanket statements can never truly apply to any part of humanity. there is always going to be some sub-group, that doesn't qualify and it will always be big enough to throw the blanket off.
mostly i wonder how we can gain pride in who and what we are if we do not have the social freedom to do so.
To me, to put it in its' simplist form. And thus, by placement, only discuss but a few of the variables Mister Rodri so ascribes to the situation -- quite correctly I might add. I would submit that the difference stems from the speakers convience.Quote:
Originally Posted by imnothere
That is, at such a point that convience takes hold -- with or without anger-- and so places upon the holder that it is but easier to insult, to degenerate, or to remove from being equal to oneself', that the difference then takes root. To flourish and blossom -- however miss aligned-- into wilfull neglect, hateful and rude commentary upon the subject from where-in stems the supposed differences.
I would submit also, though at the discression of Mister Rodri, as I hold from impression that it is only due to length that he avoided such a mention, that the desire to conform does not leave the human species at the termination of young adult hood. Rather, that it is equally, if not more so, present in later life as well.
Keep in mind, again, that for this example, I speak only of the majority of the human species. I can site quite satisfactorily that some have never felt the need to conform on any matter. And there are those that would seek to press themselves into being the purest wallflower of the group, throughout their lives.
~John
I've been tossing this over since I first opened this post, but my own conclusions have been thus far merely half-formed.
I'll present what I have, and you can determine its worth:
- Love and Hate each require knowledge of and caring about the target of the emotion. This is why the two are so often intertwined; Hate is not the opposite of Love but its constant and ofttimes necessary companion. The opposite of each is indifference.
- "difference" yields incomplete understanding, which leads to fear. In this case, I would posit that George Lucas got it wrong; Ignorance leads to Fear, which leads to Anger, which leads to Hate, which leads to... well, logically, sometimes it must lead to Love. And Love is NOT the Dark Side of the Force.
Yes, I'm speaking in Capital Letters. This is a sign that the speaker is a True Believer or (even scarier) a Fanatic. Be wary.
I think you are trying to say that love and hate are both forms of caring about another person, positively or negatively. Whereas indifference is not caring in any way about them or what happens to them.
I think the reason why love of a partner can turn to hate so quickly sometimes is because love is a form of emotional investment that is different from the love of family or such, because we open ourselves up emotionally to another person who is somewhat of a stranger and that requires a lot of trust, or faith. When that trust or faith is broken it can cause the strong emotional reaction that is hate, partly because we feel foolish for trusting them so much in the first place and partly because we feel betrayed.
Yes, Rodri; I'm saying that, only more so.
Love and hate are not merely similar; they are intertwined and inseparable if either has any depth. They are two sides to the same coin, two facets to a gem, roots and leaves, stem and twig, blossom and fruit. They are height and breadth, weight and mass, texture and composition. In a very real sense, they are exactly the same.
But that's too deep for a post like this. Consider instead that one must commit one's own self, one's very essence, to experience either. To accomplish this, you have to in some small part identify yourself with the object of devotion; you have to be (in some way) the same as what you care about.
Love and hate are not weak surface phenomena; they work a substantiative change on the one experiencing them. This must not be forgotten.
i completely agree with this statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodri
i think perhaps "care" should be "emotional investment" in my mind caring about someone/ some thing is linked to positive emotional investment in that person / thing and it is a lesser investment then "love"Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnerphk
i do see where you are going and on the whole agree that to love or to hate requires a large emotional investment, one that is hard to make with out intimate knowledge of the object of said investment. only the foolish invest in what they dont know.
i would like to disagree with any similarity after that though. while yes the emotional investment is similar, that is the end of the similarity. to hate is to invest in thoughts that are destructive to oneself as well as ones target. to love is to strengthen ones self as well as ones target. by loving one pours ones energies into positive thinking and positive doing, positive energy is then drawn to that person even from outside the sphere of their target.
for example, when i am thinking and feeling loving thoughts people like to be around me. they do not know what i am loving unless i tell them, but that flow of positive thought and love ebbs around me and attracts other people to me, they like to feel it, even if they dont know what it is.
i know this is the serious area but i think people look into this too much
GENDER WARS (according to soul)
female-- "put the toilet seat down when your done"
male-- "?? if i got to put it down shouldn't you put it up when your done?"
female-- *evil eye*
male-- *note to self - dont ask questions
For the human race to continue we dont really need men anymore we have enough sperm in the sperm banks to last for awhile. And when we need more we will let the baby boys grow and then let them die out again....
jk lol