One of the greatest teachers is adversity.

How can a "logic" be proven to be "right" if it doesn't face adversity and win out in the end?
[/quote

I have missed a lot, so I guess I'll just jump in here somewhere. You guys are a lot of fun. As Sky so deftly pointed out... Logic in itself cannot be proof of truth. It can only be analyzed in terms of its flow--validity. But logic is a nice tool, that keeps us focused on premises and conclusions. As opposed to saying, well this part is wrong so therfore you are a real creep. No logic involved at all.

As for Wux's latest thinking. I see that he feels that the bridge between men and women can never trully be crossed. That to do so would in a sense fold in on its own purpose, in on itself, rendering this goal useless. Which is also to say you can never know anyone, neither man nor woman. The most we can do it to know our own way of thinking, and then to crack that big nut wide open, to allow the possibility of other perspectives. Now, if emotions just aren't your thing. You are missing out on a lot of life's inherent purposes. To love, to laugh, to cry, to care. To embue highly charged situations with the leveler of logic is sometimes effective, and sometimes counter-productive.

Red, I like the last part of your post:

Oddly, it is the nature of this absolute that makes it impossible for other absolutes to exist, because nothing is ever in exactly the same space at the same time more than once.

You are saying that the only absolute is change, and therefore there may be no real absolute, other than pure process?

One who uses only logic, will often come across as bullying, because they made no effort to anticipate how other people will feel. At the beginning of this post, someone said you always think you're right and I'm wrong. The response was, prove it. A better response would be to extend a warm hand of empathy at that moment. I'm sorry you are feeling bullied. I just get carried away. Rather than try to prove the person is wrong for having feelings. As for winning, Logic without an underlying knowlege of emotional effect will lose. Whereas a combination of the two will win, since one strategy works to temper the other.

Hey, I just figured out I am talking to myself. Where did everybody go?

Try this for an argument. Premise 1: If people don't like listening to you, they will walk away. Premise 2: People walked away. Conclusion: People don't like listening to you

Invalid: Unless it is true that the only reason they walk away is because they don't like listening to you. Women are soft like that. Goodnight everyone.

logic, nor anything else, can never be proven. each person possesses their own unique logic.



as is often the case, wux is right on. homerun. you got good wood on that fasball wux. if by bridge you're referring the genetic, emotional and instinctive differnces between men and women then he's right, that bridge cannot be crossed. all that is possible is that both sexes realize that the bridge is there and then deal with the differences as best we can. doing this will end the proverbial war of the sexes. you see, especially when it comes to the sexes, the golden rule rarely works. if i as a man treat you as a woman as i as a man would want to be treated, i'd have to treat you as a man. i rarely see such a concept working in our sex war.

but suppose i realize that a woman such as you are simply doesn't tick like i as a man tick. let's say that i accept that such different ticking is real and will always be real, and i learn as much about how you tick that i can? then instead of treating you as i would be treated, me being a man, i treat you like the woman you are?

in my experience women like being treated like women. now ladies, do you know how we men like to be treated? do you understand the bridge that exists that cannot be crossed but can be learned? will you do unto others, in this case men, as you would have done unto you? will you take him shopping? wine and craft fairs? home and garden expositions? do you want a man who knows his feminine side? someone sensitve? will you treat him like another girlfriend or will you treat him like a man? as with each man or woman that ever existed, we can only control our own actions. i don't know everything i'd like to know about women nor do i know everything how to act around them. but i do know that i want a girlfriend and not another buddy. so is their a lady out there that want's a boyfriend or will you be happy with yet another girlfriend to shop with? i'm of a mind that there are many fine ladies looking for a fine man. a fine man is not easy to find, but he's easy to keep. but only if you know what a fine man actually is.

I don't know exactly what you mean by that because there are different opinions on how to treat a woman "like a woman."

All I have ever required is that a man treat me with respect as a person and an individual -- and then if he wants to treat me like a woman he can.



Probably not. From my experience most men want you to worship them and respect their authority. If you are married, most men think of you as their property. This can go both ways in marriage, because it (this idea) is set in stone in the subconscious mind and in society.

It's MY husband and MY wife. We own each other.





I would want a man, not a 'girlfriend.' I don't care about his feminine side. I would never take him shopping with me or to craft fairs and home and garden expositions unless he was keenly interested in that because he wanted to fix up the house.



If I wanted a man, (which I don't) I would want a man, not a girlfriend. But I am too independent to have a man in my life. There is always too many control issues going on in both directions and it becomes such a silly game. I don't want to waste my time on that.

I have thought and thought about under what circumstances would I want a man for a permanent relationship, but there just is none. The disadvantages of marriage and having a "significant other" just outweigh the advantages. Perhaps I just don't have a good enough imagination. I can't imagine "happily ever after" after two not so happy marriages.

I have always been happier single and independent. I am not lonely. I enjoy my own company and my creative pursuits.

I have known and listened to single men who have tried to get sympathy by telling people how "lonely" they are and how terrible it is to be alone. I tell them that being alone is a choice. You can make friends and you can socialize with people, you can find something to do that gives you joy. You can find something or someone to love. But instead they sit around feeling sorry for themselves because they are so lonely and "nobody loves them."

So what? Is that all they want? Somebody who loves them? Have they tried loving somebody else with no strings attached? Just love them?

Rarely. Most men think Love is a trade off. I will love you if you love me. Or: I love you, why don't you love me?

That is not love. That is a bargain. You do this for me and I will do that for you. You make me feel good about myself and I will make you feel good about yourself. You hurt me and I will hurt you. It is not love.

Baby. I'd like to argue with you, but I don't know what part of your posts is your own thought, and what parts thereof are quotes from other people.

This is disconcerting to say the least. You are not demarcating the sides. This makes like two or more cells being togehter with their cell walls and cell membranes removed. None will survive.

Please do make the effort to show us "this is what I say" and "this is what I'm responding to". You don't need the quote /quote functions; you can demarcate your text many other ways, like using double quotes or using italicised words or bold mixed with regular text.

That is why I don't respond to your posts. I don't know what I'm responding to, I don't see what you contrast against what else. I don't see shapes and idoms, I don't see formulated opinions or clearly stated points of argument when I look at your posts, because the whole thing is amorph. A big soup of ideas, where the components are no longer identifiable as to their origins.

I think I overexplained this a bit. I hope you get the point.

I wrote once an essay on why men and women are so vastly different. It's in my third book, the second unpublishable one. (The very first got published. It was the worst of the three.)

Anyway, I hope you won't find it pretentious that I included it here.

"On The Origin Of The Human Race

The human race is the mammalian species where the division of survival functionality is most specialized between the sexes. Their extent of gender-specific specialization places humans top not only among mammals, but among all vertebrates. Every other species in the animal kingdom with spines has less division of labour by gender than us. (I’m a human.) The mammalian species with the closest approximation to our conspicuous sexism are the lions. Lionesses do the job of hunting down a kill. The males’ job is to chase away hyenas and other scavengers, and to reign over the animal kingdom.

Everyone’s heard of the praying mantises who eat their mates after they’ve finished going through the motion of propagating their DNA. And everyone also has heard of the black widow spiders who do the same. Or of the merry divorcee octopi, who take off with their mate’s entire manhood right from the act of consummation on their wedding night. Other forms of sexism exist among these animals. But they’re invertebrates. They’re less like mammals and more like wind-up toys. They fly because they’ve got determination, not because natural laws are on their side. They go through weird metamorphoses in their development. These insects have eight eyes and six legs, and some voted for George W. Bush.

Humans are mammals, not insects, yet very much a two-species species within their own species. Men are stronger and taller; women are softer and kinder. Men hunt and find a bar easily; women are naturally-born healers and naturally-born educators. Guys care about sports and getting laid; women get true enjoyment from children, and they are more demonstrative emotionally. Some other differences developed through cultural and societal indoctrination, and they make the gap seem wider than it actually is, though the actual gap is already wide. Sometimes it’s the men whom societal pressures force to respect the differentness of women; some other times it’s the other way around.

But the differences are there, unmistakably, and the contrasts are sharp and very much in-your-face. It has been speculated by some theorists that most probably men and women did not evolve from the same race, but were amalgamated into one species from two distinct groups.

More recent archeological evidence unearthed some revealing support for the two-species theory of the origin of homo sapiens.

Evidence suggests that a coursing band of the species that gave rise to apes and man, and a herd of beautiful white fawns collided on the African savannah. The pre-apes eyed the fawns, their soft, white skin, their clearer-than-sky turquoise eyes, the graceful movements of the bodies and the regal stature of these noble and kind animals. So the apes went at the fawns and f....d them all. They f....d them mercilessly, vigorously, and with gusto. The mayhem went on with great enthusiasm by the apes, and with very little, almost none, by the fawns. It were not just the male apes that were ravishing the fawns; their females were f.....g them, too, and even the ape children were doing it. They f....d the fawns to rags, and then they f....d them again and again, and then again.

Slowly but surely, the intermixing of the DNA structures allowed the two species to meld, and you guessed it, my gentle reader: The two created the human species, in which the men eerily resemble hairy-chested and bow-legged apes with immense strength and egos, whereas the females are reminiscent of the white fawns in their personality, in their lack of ability to turn to the right direction when stepping out of an apartment elevator, and in their soft physical beauty."

i think i understand completely how you feel and think on this issue bean. the vast majority of women would respond much like you have i'd guess. and the vast majority of men think much along the lines that we've thought for mellinia. as such, the battle of the sexes continues for that vast majority. i'm doing my best to find another tact. tired of repeating old mistakes. see that often here. but there is a woman out there that's likewise fed up with the war. of that i'm certain.

That would be me.

I am fed up with the battle between the sexes. But I have not figured out how to avoid it except to not engage at all.

How could a man and a woman get together as a man and a woman in this society and not get sucked into the rolls that have been assigned to a man and woman?

Today men and women both work in order to survive if they are working class. But things cannot be equal if they want children, the man normally goes to work and the woman stays home with the children. Raising children is a full time job. Supporting a family is a full time job. These are the rolls for young people.

But what about older people? I am 60. (I don't feel 60.) I can't have children at this age and don't want any. I am on equal footing with a man. But so many men still expect me to play the roll of "woman." That is to be a homemaker, cook, clean house, etc. while he sits there on the couch watching football. Most men would expect that they will be the one who decides how we will spend our day or spend our money.

But if I had a roommate who was just sharing a house or apartment of either sex the relationship is on a more equal footing. Both pay rent, both clean house, both cook or they each decide who will do what in an equal manner.

What I discovered with marriage is that spouses take each other for granted and they don't respect each other's mind or individuality. Hard as I tried it was not until I divorced my husbands that I regained their respect as a person.

So I don't know if it is possible to have a relationship without the game (battle) creeping into it. I don't know if it is even possible.

I think the idea of "equality" between the sexes is a great idea as long as it doesn't ignore the inherent inequalities.

In other words, I think the battle of the sexes is a result of inherent inequalities. Those inherent inequalities are what make men different from women. And it is those differences that give rise to the perception of a battle. But the battle itself is not really a matter of “opposing” desires/purposes, it is a matter of different desires/purposes.

For example, if I were to make a generalization, I'd say that women tend to like things to be "tidier" than men do. (e.g. the "sloppy bachelor pad" cliche.) So in this "generalized" relationship, the man leaves his socks on the floor and the woman complains about it. But the man is perfectly ok with socks being on the floor. It doesn't bother him. The man’s purpose/desire is “to watch football.” But the woman’s purpose/desire is “to clean the house.” The purposes/desires are not really in opposition. They’re just different.

The “battle” comes into play when one side thinks their desires are more important than the other side and tries to impose their will on the other side.

That is, the woman tries to get the man to pick up his socks and the man tries to get the woman to watch football.

But if they both did what they wanted, and didn’t try to force the other to abide by their own “personal sense of ought”, then there would be no problem.

So in this generalized relationship, “the desire to watch football” and “the desire to clean house” are inherent differences – a fact which one ignores at their own peril.

Now that’s not to say that an agreement cannot be reached through negotiation. (e.g. man helps woman clean house and woman helps man watch football.) But unless it is recognized that “equality” must include the idea that the differences themselves are equal (i.e. neither side’s desire/purpose is any more or less valid than the other’s). Then there will be a battle. And the batle is simply: "My desires/purpose are more valid than yours."

Sky,

Yes I agree with all of that but the fact is to work out all of these little differences does take almost a lifetime of getting used to each other and learning to live with each other.

After 10, 20 30 or 40 years they might get it all worked out to the satisfaction of both of them, but this takes time.

Later in life, older people just don't have that much time left.
So the ideal thing would be a more extensive "interview" about habits and how a person expects to live and discussions as to whether they thought they could live with each other.

I am not a neat nick and I have known of men who were almost obsessive compulsive about neatness, (like Monk) so those kinds of things are not gender related.

Later in life finding a compatible partner gets harder because you don't have 20 or 30 years to work things out.

Well, that's where passion comes into play.

You may have a painful existence, an uncomfortable and unsettling life, but if you have love then you grit your teeth and savagely ignore the hardships, for the heat of your passion will burn out all the zits in the fabric of the relationship.

I know I used more than my share of metaphors. I sometimes sail on the wind of poetic miasma to gain higher heights in depth and gravity.

Well yes, that is true when talking specifics. I was only using a generalization that appeared to me to be similar to other generalizations being use here.

Not even “differences in libido” is a universal, although it might be the closest thing there is outside of the actual physiological differences and their accompanying different needs and perspectives.

One example that is based on an inherently universal physiological difference is the toilet seat cliché.

Men stand. Women sit.

And so they work out some sort of arrangement they can both live with. Or they don’t and a “battle” ensues.

Of course, your right -- that would be a better response... However, I got blinded with the furor over being labeled "a bully" (me, who doesn't ever hurt a fly)!!
But, rather than inviting any further conversation with the "accuser", I intended to cut the discussion short -- asking for a proof (i.e. put your money where your mouth is, so to speak). And of course, the "accuser" came back empty-handed (or empty-mouthed)..

Nevertheless, IF I were really guilty, or interested in prolonging the conversation with that particular "accuser", I'd certainly employ a more sophysticated response...

However, thanx for an educational logic!!!

I am right until I am wrong. I post because I can. I argue because I am confrontational, and If I can answer someone's question or contribute to a meaningful discussion...then great. But, if I can point out a hypocrite or someone speaking out of their arse then even better.

I certainly hope they cover their mouth while speaking -- I can't imagine the stinch!!!

As Sky mentioned:

Exactly! There's even a saying to that regard:


Actually, it all boils down to the issue of Respect:
if woman is capable of offering a "supportive shoulder" to her partner/husband at the time of need -- instead of being just another dependant in the family, i.e a house-wife raising the kids until they're ready to leave the "nest" -- then the issue of the equality is dissolve even before being raised!
My aunt's taken a leave of abscence for a planned child-bearing -- three years (2 kids, one after the other) -- in complete agreement with her husband, who's taken up a part-time job on top of his regular employment... (though without the assistance of the extended family members, they won't be able to manage!) Nevertheless, as soon as the kids got old enough for kidergarden, she's returned to her previous employment!

The issue of the inequality (and chauvenism) arises when some women find a comfortable niche at the neck of their husbands/partners (most of whom might even be O'K with the arrangement -- at the beginning). But as soon as the kids outgrow the nursery period, the wives should cease taking advantage of their husbands (getting back to being equal partners in the "earning game"!}
Some women carry their motherhood duties indefinitely, leaving the husband a sole earner (i.e. hunter). Unfortunately, such tactics often result in the husband's seking an excitement on a side -- finding himself some "jungle fairy"... who can console his dispare -- because he often finds himself deprived of the "attention", and his Respect (and the sense of Moral obligation) faulters!!!

because logic rules out the illogical...you can have a belief that 2+2=5 and that this equation is truth...and everyone has a right to have any belief they choose....but once they utter this belief to others they then invite others to challenge that belief

it would be delusional for someone to come in to a forum and not expect to have their beliefs challenge to the fullest

everyone has beliefs...and they range from being logical to being dangerous that is why all must be challenged ...because it only takes one belief to destroy the world

Ahhh...

Welcome back funches!

To believe is to doubt.



Wisest words spoken here.

hey creative soul..it's been a long time

I went to another site and got caught up in a holy war