gender wars

[Boleslav]

Because you love one object does not dissolve you from the ability to hate another.

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.

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?

Indeed, you may indeed hate the same object -- at times-- that you profess to love at all others

As a style point, use 'one' instead of 'you'. Using 'you' makes your post read as an attack.

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.

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 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.

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.

[John Adams]

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.

No, that is not what I state Mister Boleslav. Not by corrolation, not by causation.
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.

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?

I never suggested in the first that they were not general things. Nor did I in the second constrain them to being less so.

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, use 'one' instead of 'you'. Using 'you' makes your post read as an attack.

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.

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'?

By the virtue of love, you allow yourself to hate. That hate, similar to the love, is not necessarily constrained to but one object.

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 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.

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

[Boleslav]

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"?

[John Adams]

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.

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

[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.

So hate can't exist first and lead to love?

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.

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.

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).

[John Adams]

So hate can't exist first and lead to love?

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.

Again, I cannot but alter your ideas. Nor, by turns, would I seek to do so.

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.

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

[Rodri]

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?

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.

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.

[imnothere]

I don't know if there is so much deep seeded hatred as all that. We usually make generalizations 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.

Having said that, men and women do think differently from each other and that is both hereditary and genetic. So some of the generalizations 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.
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.

[Rodri]

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.

[imnothere]

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.