How many here see men and women as individuals?

[Ptah]

I meant: male or female, neither or both, regardless: a person is an individual -- a distinct human being worthy of being treated as such. Moreover, we shouldn't judge people for what they are (in the sense of the nature-given), but for what they do (as supervenes upon their choices).

 

[BigApplePi]

I meant: male or female, neither or both, regardless: a person is an individual -- a distinct human being worthy of being treated as such. Moreover, we shouldn't judge people for what they are (in the sense of the nature-given), but for what they do (as supervenes upon their choices).

There is an argument for being treated without individuality as when one is a member of a group to be proud of. It's when the group is treated with disfavor we object especially if we are in it.

 

[Ptah]

There is an argument for being treated without individuality as when one is a member of a group to be proud of. It's when the group is treated with disfavor we object especially if we are in it.

Perhaps, insofar as the group is about something chosen/done, not something nature-given (as in non-/pre-choice). For instance, the group "astronaut" -- an occupation, fine. "Male" or "female" -- (typically) nature-given? Not fine. Evaluate people for who they are (through what they do/choose), not what they are. So it goes for gender, race, or whatever other such morphological difference.

Now, of course there are certain stereotypical male or female behaviors, as informed by and adopted from culture, on the part of particular individuals. So while it is improper to evaluate them on their born, physical gender/sex, it may be proper to evaluate them on their behaviors under the purview of their choices beyond that, as informed by and adopted from whatever cultural gender (or whatever) role. In this sense, yes, they are individuals, but to some extent or another they may be defaulting on their individuality, as such, hence tentative evaluations may be made about them from certain levels of and along certain lines of a generalization.

 

[BigApplePi]

Evaluate people for who they are (through what they do/choose), not what they are. So it goes for gender, race, or whatever other such morphological difference.

Now, of course there are certain stereotypical male or female behaviors, as informed by and adopted from culture, on the part of particular individuals. So while it is improper to evaluate them on their born, physical gender/sex, it may be proper to evaluate them on their behaviors under the purview of their choices beyond that, as informed by and adopted from whatever cultural gender (or whatever) role. In this sense, yes, they are individuals, but to some extent or another they may be defaulting on their individuality, as such, hence tentative evaluations may be made about them from certain levels of and along certain lines of a generalization.

If you were to toss in the air an equal number of blue and red marbles they would come down in a random pattern. Now ever notice a crowd of persons of color, Caucasians, and Orientals? Many of these in the crowd will NOT show a random distribution. Like races will tend to cluster with like races. This is NOT random. Are these people choosing each other disregarding their individuality? It would seem so. If this is true, how is someone in an outside group to regard such a cluster? Seems this is more than built in bias.

Same with many crowds of females/ males, such as classrooms or rock concerts.

 

[Ptah]

Are these people choosing each other disregarding their individuality? It would seem so. If this is true, how is someone in an outside group to regard such a cluster? Seems this is more than built in bias.

Same with many crowds of females/ males, such as classrooms or rock concerts.

Exactly. Such circumstances cause me to wonder "why?"

 

[MichiganJFrog]

At first I cling to the stereotype out of habit or convenience, then I go deeper (if the other person hangs around long enough) and try to see the individual. As I get older, I try to skip step one as much as possible.

 

[Master M]

Humans are all more alike then different.

 

[Master M]

I'm new here. It's nice to talk to people who think as I think.

 

[Lot]

I tend to treat people of different gender equally in regards to intellect. I've been philosophically beat down by plenty of women to know what they can accomplish. For the most part I am extra polite to women. Even if they're not physically attractive to me, just how I was raised (and I don't see a reason to change it).

I don't pretend to be the expert on the female gender, but from what I've gleaned from my few female friends, I have noticed common patterns. Once I learned that different isn't always stupid, it was much easier for me to look at similarities and differences. I was sexist long enough to see myself proven wrong by the "lesser gender".

I'll consent that there are a lot of negative stereotypes of male and female that aren't true, or are actually just a stupid human thing, but I still think that it is important to make distinctions. As humans we can transcend many aspects of our biology, but sometimes I think it can be to the detriment of our species. Not to say that most things we do are for our benefit.

I try to judge a person by what they do. So I became a misanthrope.

 

[crippli]

I'll consent that there are a lot of negative stereotypes of male and female that aren't true, or are actually just a stupid human thing, but I still think that it is important to make distinctions.

The error seems to me to apply the generalization to an individual. If you have 10 specimen in a group. 6 likes fish, the other 4 likes cheese. Then you can say that this group likes fish. It's not accurate, but for statistical purposes it will do. The problem is when someone reads the conclusion and thinks all in the group likes fish, because the group likes fish. And will serve fish to all in the group.

 

[GYX_Kid]

There are vast numbers of individual pieces, that all become built together in different unique combinations to create every individual.

 

[Lot]

The error seems to me to apply the generalization to an individual. If you have 10 specimen in a group. 6 likes fish, the other 4 likes cheese. Then you can say that this group likes fish. It's not accurate, but for statistical purposes it will do. The problem is when someone reads the conclusion and thinks all in the group likes fish, because the group likes fish. And will serve fish to all in the group.

This is very true. So we should dive as deep as we can to the more basic essence. Essences have different ways of shinning through, but they are all still there. Similar when people say that all INTP's like math. That's not true, but it is quite common. There is something about math that makes it more likely to be appealing to an INTP. Like in the fish/cheese example, it's the need for sustenance that unites them at the root. I'm sure you could go deeper and elaborate more on it.

Stereotypes often look at fruit, and forget that there is a tree that the fruit grows off of. And even for those that see the tree, can often miss that the tree gets it's nourishment through its roots. Positive stereotypes can be fun, though. Like INTP's are smart, black people are good at music, or Jews are good at business.

 

[Minuend]

You want logic? I'll give you logic. How many people have you known in your life? Accidental, incidental, family, school, relatives, buddies, strangers on a train? They are all different ... at least most of them are ... to you are they not? Would you expect equal from all? Do you respect one and not the other? Do you expect something from one and not the other? Would you want something from one and not the other? These are all individuals if you see them that way. See them all the same and react to them all the same and you do yourself an injustice. And since when do you get off telling my fellow honored poster she's a bitch?

Not sure if arguing for

or against..

How many people have you known in your life?

Not sure why relevant.

They are all different ... at least most of them are ... to you are they not?

Nobody is perfectly similar to another in genetic makeup and personality (brain configuration).

Would you expect equal from all?

Of course not. I don't expect a baby to walk on two feet, the same way I don't expect some people to help shape this world positively. And this is why I'm not an misanthrope.

Do you respect one and not the other?

I don't respect all people, no. Though, I'm not outright disrespectful. I might sometimes come across that way on the forum, though, but in RL I just don't interact with people I don't get along with. I don't carry around ill feelings, I just avoid them.

There is an argument for being treated without individuality as when one is a member of a group to be proud of. It's when the group is treated with disfavor we object especially if we are in it.

Or maybe the difference is accuracy of statement.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are there really any reasons except deceit to want to be seen as a group, not an individual? I would think that a person who wants to be seen as a group, would have a really bad personality. Or self-esteem, but it's still throwing lies at other people. Though, I can't really say this is a situation I've ever encountered.

 

[Katie]

I try, it can be difficult at times though concidering how cliquey and alike the majority of females can be..

 

[BigApplePi]

Group Think

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are there really any reasons except deceit to want to be seen as a group, not an individual? I would think that a person who wants to be seen as a group, would have a really bad personality. Or self-esteem, but it's still throwing lies at other people. Though, I can't really say this is a situation I've ever encountered.

Here's a try for a generalization:

I think of relations or relationships. That is, there is not just you and me or this group and that one. It matters what our intention is in relating any of those four combinations.

1. Individual to individual - we want to be recognized as such because we are individuals. It matters if we like cheese not fish or fish not cheese.

2a. Outside individual to individual in a group - depends on how close we are. If first meeting, then recognize my group. As you get to know me, make me an individual.
2b. Inside individual within a group. How close I feel about my group determines how I want to initially be seen. Thereafter my individuality counts.

3. Group to individual - are you eligible to join with me? If yes, my group will recruit you; if not, my group will snub you.

4. Group to group - we will compete or if lucky, cooperate. We are group-think and our minds are not individuals. Only our leaders are individuals and even they report back to us, the group.

Like a turtle, our group is our shell. The shell matters and so does what's inside.

 

[Minuend]

I don't expect a baby to walk on two feet, the same way I don't expect all people to help shape this world positively.

I've been thinking about it: Seeing my increasing impatience with people I think I need to make this into a poster I can hang over my computer, door, in car, badge on backpack, print on shoes, wear as a t-shirt and tattoo on both arms.

(This has nothing to do with applepie, just to make that clear).

 

[snafupants]

I've been thinking about it: Seeing my increasing impatience with people I think I need to make this into a poster I can hang over my computer, door, in car, badge on backpack, print on shoes, wear as a t-shirt and tattoo on both arms.

(This has nothing to do with applepie, just to make that clear).

Quoting yourself? That's taking narcissism to a new level. Marry me.

 

[Minuend]

Sorry, I'm already engaged to my higher self

 

[Deleted member 1424]

You always did look good in a gas mask Minu.

Anyway.
There's a rather nasty herd mentality that dominates groups. People imitating eachother, restraining themselves, putting up pretenses; the individual is utterly repressed. Most people, I find, are immensely more interesting and sympathetic one on one. I've come to view the 'group' as a rather grotesque and monstrous entity. I generally try to avoid making assumptions about people until I've interacted with them singularly for a significant period of time; ie once I'm sure they've dropped the act.

Not that I don't have my prejudices; people who mindlessly imbibe popular culture for example (Don't fucking talk to me about Bieber, Twilight, or reality TV), I by and large dismiss as idiots. My biggest prejudice is against members of the Military. I can pick them out within minutes of meeting them if not on sight, and I very much despise them on a social, intellectual, and moral level. Religious cultists are much easier and more pleasant to deal with than the military ones. Might I point out that I was raised a military brat.


There's part of me that thinks; if you're going to have prejudices, at least have interesting, novel ones.

Fuck men! *rolls eyes*
Fuck women! Oh please
The aliens are stealing our jobs and I was hit by one without insurance! *yawn*
Clowns are terrifying! While true, still cliche.
Gingers don't have souls! okay.....
Poor people are lazy parasites! Boring.
Jews are greedy! We're getting dangerously close to breaching Godwin's law here, let's just stop.

I guess I'd be a hippy if it wasn't for all this misanthropy and technophillia.

 

[xbox]

I hear a lot of crap about steretypes in regards to women and men. This sucks, because I've met people who seem intelligent and interesting, but then, out of nowhere they start this crap. So I avoid any further contact with them. It's something I absolutely can't tolreate because that attitude is what held be back when growing up.

I suppose there just comes a point when I wonder how many people are actually capable of seeing humans as individuals. A great amount of people here is the same

Great point. It impresses me to see when people regard other people as individuals with their own unique contributions and in no way lumped into one big blurry mess of ignorance.

Much of the reason why I've hung around some other places w/intp people is because I THOUGHT intellectuals could have good deep conversations like that.

It depresses me to see the same old racist comments/stereotypes (from some, not all) and such have driven me away from the groupie cliquey thingies.

I like MBTI because of the categorical breakdown of "thought processes". I think its human nature to label and categorize things, its the way some people go about doing it that I don't agree with.

When it comes to racist/stereotypical comments, this gives me the realization that there are 2 types of people:

1.) ones who have individual thought and remain unphased even after external sources, bad experiences, biased media influences force themselves on them.

2.) ones who base their thoughts on external sources, bad experiences, and biased media influences, and try to rationalize conclusions and stereotypes based on that data. i think these people also like "labeling" based on current stereotypical trends, but remain in denial of doing so. also these people are somewhat/more likely to be impacted by social norms and stuff.

^Its funny because these kinds of people also hate MBTI.

Yeah thats what I've been thinking of lately. Thank you and have a nice day.

 

[MissionPossible]

I have basic ideas of men and women and my habits in relation to them. For example, most of my friends are men, usually because I find men far easier to relate to and understand. However, we are all a mixture of male and female because the reality of forming a person physiologically, psychologically, and sociologically is nowhere near a black and white matter. Man or woman or whatever else, what is most important to me is trying to understand the reality of the individual.

 

[ayn]

Re: How many here see men and women as induviduals?

I occasionally joke about sexism or racism, because I find the very concept of them ridiculous and, consequently, amusing. I consider the true butt of my jokes about such subjects to be primarily targeted toward the associated bigots themselves, not the race or sex they refer to.

If I am guilty of any form of true bigotry, it's bigotry based on intelligence, for I have very little respect for people I consider intellectually worthless. I also look at people and the world like pieces in a grand chess game, and only the most intelligent and insightful people are worthy of true respect. I don't go out of my way to offend people, and I'm generally courteous, but I do enjoy playing with peoples' emotions.

This.




O shiiii-- maybe I'm fooling myself.

I don't like to think I'm a bigot, but I realize I tend to avoid females. Other than one girl I have met in university, I can't think of a single female who hasn't insulted me. I know I have insecurities and I don't care to have people around who point them out all the time. I was teased a lot as a kid and now that I am an adult, I don't care to put up with more insults.

I find males are generally nicer to me. More relate-able. Its a lot easier to have a conversation about physics or computers with a guy than a girl.. Perhaps I only feel this way because I have been mostly surrounding myself with males since I started university, and everyone I knew was extremely shallow in high school.

 

[Nibbler]

Re: How many here see men and women as induviduals?

This post is full of irony.

Define 'individual' from your perspective. As for stereotypes, I usually make them just for jokes.

Ok. But then...

But many feminists like to think they are the same as a man.

You seem to not notice that many feminists are indeed men. Or do you mean women and men are such completely different species, no two people of opposite sex can think alike? Or do you mean literally, many women seem to think they can bench press 200lbs just because of equality?

I cannot cope with this process.

Yuh-huh.

Each gender is different in its respect and the psychological wiring is also different.

In general. You're speaking in absolutes, though.

There are going to be common strengths and weaknesses among genders.

By golly, you're right.

I am completely under the impression that women can be intellectuals and in fact, I have come to expect it out of women and ignore those who are not. But the simple fact of the matter is, with your monthly visit from mother nature, you have a slight emotional disadvantage men do not have to worry about.

I'm not sure the opening to your comment there is true since you want women (and men here) to ignore fallacious labeling of emotions as disadvantageous. You also want everyone here to pretend every male is a cool cucumber and not all those other MBTI types that say otherwise. You also want us to not notice that many women indeed do not have "monthly emotions".

And you lapsed into a very common problem with dealing with the sexes: "My sex is simply superior; let me enlighten you..." style speech.

It is not a matter of inequality, but simply a matter of objectively pointing out what is, being mature in the conversation, and figuring out how dynamics will be established based on those strengths and weaknesses.

I invite you to be objective.

It is much like saying introverts and extroverts are equal. They are different. They both can accomplish many different things, but they are not the same person.

False comparison. We establish above that feminists can be men.

An introvert attempting to act like an extrovert will fail socially (I have tried).

I forget which fallacy this falls under, but it is one.

 

[Nibbler]

Re: How many here see men and women as induviduals?

Other than one girl I have met in university, I can't think of a single female who hasn't insulted me.

That's quite a claim to fame. Or would you like to bring that comment back down to earth a little?

 

[Yet]

There's a rather nasty herd mentality that dominates groups. People imitating eachother, restraining themselves, putting up pretenses; the individual is utterly repressed. Most people, I find, are immensely more interesting and sympathetic one on one. I've come to view the 'group' as a rather grotesque and monstrous entity. I generally try to avoid making assumptions about people until I've interacted with them singularly for a significant period of time; ie once I'm sure they've dropped the act.

I am with you Adaire, most people are more sympathetic one on one... some of them are worse though. They play nice in a groupsituation to make an impression or out of scare or some other motive. One on one they shut of or behave like cunts cause there is no power-win in it.

 

[Nibbler]

Not that I don't have my prejudices; people who mindlessly imbibe popular culture for example (Don't fucking talk to me about Bieber, Twilight, or reality TV), I by and large dismiss as idiots. My biggest prejudice is against members of the Military. I can pick them out within minutes of meeting them if not on sight, and I very much despise them on a social, intellectual, and moral level. Religious cultists are much easier and more pleasant to deal with than the military ones. Might I point out that I was raised a military brat.


There's part of me that thinks; if you're going to have prejudices, at least have interesting, novel ones.

Well I've got news for ya. What you have going on there is a good old fashioned, run-of-the-mill, not-the-first-not-the-last, emotionally-unresolved rebellion. And I give you that benefit of the doubt because many people (and there are lots, hence the "not so interesting after all" reaction) who despise the military that much are those who've never been near it.

If you're an introvert, I'd hope you are in the process of self-introspection to get past it. Otherwise I'd pretty much agree this falls in under what the OP and others are talking about.

And I can guarantee you have not picked out everyone on sight.

Such hyperbole in this thread. Mostly in regards to women (by more than a few) and now the military.

Please, let there be a trifecta. What can we say about the Fraggles?

 

[ayn]

Re: How many here see men and women as induviduals?

That's quite a claim to fame. Or would you like to bring that comment back down to earth a little?

Why do you think it is so unlikely that girls haven't been nice to me?

I apologize that I cannot HONESTLY think of a female that I have socialized with on a base greater than a simple "hello" haven't been rude to me/insulted me.

You're correct, those who I have passed on the street, those who I have simply only said "Hi, what can I get you. What kind of Cheese. What can I get you on that? That's going to be $5.65. Have a nice day.", those who I have only met in passing, have been polite to me.

I would have assumed you would realize I meant people who I have actually socialized with. In situations where more than just simple "hello"'s are involved.

Also, bite me.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

Well I've got news for ya. What you have going on there is a good old fashioned, run-of-the-mill, not-the-first-not-the-last, emotionally-unresolved rebellion. And I give you that benefit of the doubt because many people (and there are lots, hence the "not so interesting after all" reaction) who despise the military that much are those who've never been near it.

If you're an introvert, I'd hope you are in the process of self-introspection to get past it. Otherwise I'd pretty much agree this falls in under what the OP and others are talking about.

And I can guarantee you have not picked out everyone on sight.

Such hyperbole in this thread. Mostly in regards to women (by more than a few) and now the military.

Please, let there be a trifecta. What can we say about the Fraggles?

Wow, you're very trite.
The deep nibbler voice I read you in before is now gone forever. Pity.

I classified it as a prejudice, and I never said it was interesting, just true about me. I picked it out as an example, as an attempt to avoid self righteous hypocrisy. Judging from your posts, you might try doing so as well. Everyone has some prejudicial foible. Naturally, I think my assertions are justified on a large statistical level, but I don't apply them individually. It's an unexpressed expectation, and for me, it's a similar one that most people would have about cultists.

You clearly haven't been around military bases much, have you?
The way they groom themselves, the way they walk, it's all extremely obvious (it's intentional too, alienates them from civilians). The whole mentality; the sublimation into large groups, tendency to appeal to authority, and irrational pride and love for big brother or other systematic entities. It's all extremely obvious. You may not be able to do something, but it doesn't mean other people cannot. Your abilities are not representative of humanity's collective or individual potential, you are no Übermensch. Nor are you a reliable unit of measurement.

Though I may also note, this is for the American Military.
I have not been exposed to others ones, and I suspect similarities and difference would exist.

and fraggles are radish stealing bastards

 

[snafupants]

The two characteristics I look for in folks are integrity and intelligence. One without the other is insufficient. Now that package could be presented as either male or female: it makes no difference to me. I do, however, notice distinct differences between the sexes, and often these differences bode poorly for women. This is just a matter of opinion and the traits I admire though. Men certainly have their share of shared problems.

 

[Nibbler]

Re: How many here see men and women as induviduals?

Why do you think it is so unlikely that girls haven't been nice to me?

I apologize that I cannot HONESTLY think of a female that I have socialized with on a base greater than a simple "hello" haven't been rude to me/insulted me.

You're correct, those who I have passed on the street, those who I have simply only said "Hi, what can I get you. What kind of Cheese. What can I get you on that? That's going to be $5.65. Have a nice day.", those who I have only met in passing, have been polite to me.

I would have assumed you would realize I meant people who I have actually socialized with. In situations where more than just simple "hello"'s are involved.

Also, bite me.

I don't have to know you personally to know with fair intellectual certainty that every single person of the female sex--except for one--has not been nice to you to be a false statement.

Again, I wonder if you'd like to bring your original claim back down to reality. And you did. Sweeping statements such as the one you originally made serve two purposes:

To keep yourself convinced.
To prevent further honest analysis.

And I can't bite you. This is the internet. ps. This might be why people of the Feeling type have difficulties with you. Just sayin'.

 

[Nibbler]

Wow, you're very trite.
The deep nibbler voice I read you in before is now gone forever. Pity.

I classified it as a prejudice, and I never said it was interesting, just true about me. I picked it out as an example, as an attempt to avoid self righteous hypocrisy. Judging from your posts, you might try doing so as well. Everyone has some prejudicial foible. Naturally, I think my assertions are justified on a large statistical level, but I don't apply them individually. It's an unexpressed expectation, and for me, it's a similar one that most people would have about cultists.

You clearly haven't been around military bases much, have you?
The way they groom themselves, the way they walk, it's all extremely obvious (it's intentional too, alienates them from civilians). The whole mentality; the sublimation into large groups, tendency to appeal to authority, and irrational pride and love for big brother or other systematic entities. It's all extremely obvious. You may not be able to do something, but it doesn't mean other people cannot. Your abilities are not representative of humanity's collective or individual potential, you are no Übermensch. Nor are you a reliable unit of measurement.

Though I may also note, this is for the American Military.
I have not been exposed to others ones, and I suspect similarities and difference would exist.

and fraggles are radish stealing bastards

My world is shattered.

Let me enlighten you:

You clearly haven't been around military bases much, have you?

Air Force brat from 3yrs to 17yrs
Active duty Army for 7 yrs, combat vet.

I'll let you chew on that.

 

[SpaceYeti]

I hear a lot of crap about steretypes in regards to women and men. This sucks, because I've met people who seem intelligent and interesting, but then, out of nowhere they start this crap. So I avoid any further contact with them. It's something I absolutely can't tolreate because that attitude is what held be back when growing up.

I suppose there just comes a point when I wonder how many people are actually capable of seeing humans as induviduals. A great amount of people here is the same

Noticing commonalities is not a problem. Assuming the commonalities are a rule is the problem.

 

[snafupants]

Noticing commonalities is not a problem. Assuming the commonalities are a rule is the problem.

That's well-reasoned. This reminds me of the difference between stereotypes and racism wherein the former can actually be correct but the latter is usually overstepping.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

Air Force brat from 3yrs to 17yrs
Active duty Army for 7 yrs, combat vet.

I'll let you chew on that.

ah, the other possibility then.

How unfortunate, though unsurprising.

 

[Nibbler]

ah, the other possibility then.

How unfortunate, though unsurprising.

Let me introduce you to confirmation bias.

I was actually holding out a little optimism your reply would consist of a bit more intellectual integrity. Alas...

 

[Deleted member 1424]

introduce....?
I've long been aware of the concept, and if you think that's what's at play here......

I just wanted to avoid calling you an idiot outright.

and now I'm done.

 

[Lydia]

Yes I do.

Apparently people are mostly alike, they are gender oriented. I witness it everywhere, even in a place that would state it's pro's and con's. Objectively I could say many females do not represent 'femninity' as the way it is shown. It rather overshadows what the minority are like and projects females being almost a display for desire.

Then ofcourse you got the males who are biologically connective to this aspect, therefore see women as such, giving sugar-coated compliments, over-giving and will gradually make the woman feel superior in such a decieted and controlled way.

Personally, I do not approve of majority females and males. They are merely tools for buying and dumping. As an individual I can get rather uncomfortable knowing I am female and sometimes feel the need to resist my own femninity, which in a sense is both right and wrong. But I guess this is what the world crawls to survive on. I cannot be like it, being already inside it.

Spoiler

MEHhh.

 

[SpaceYeti]

You could just be yourself, and if it happens to be feminine or not, oh well.

 

[ayn]

Re: How many here see men and women as induviduals?

I don't have to know you personally to know with fair intellectual certainty that every single person of the female sex--except for one--has not been nice to you to be a false statement.

Again, I wonder if you'd like to bring your original claim back down to reality. And you did. Sweeping statements such as the one you originally made serve two purposes:

To keep yourself convinced.
To prevent further honest analysis.

And I can't bite you. This is the internet. ps. This might be why people of the Feeling type have difficulties with you. Just sayin'.

Sorry, I assumed you would have been able to read between the lines. I'm an INTP, I say things strongly to prove a point. It doesn't mean I haven't looked at it from all angles. I'm happy to look at things from outside perspectives. I enjoy when people fight back when I state how I feel, because it gives me a new perspective.

You, on the other hand, were just trying to prove something and be rude. That is clear with the type of language you used. There was no constructive intentions.

 

[snafupants]

The crowning achievement in men is brains and paradoxical brawn while the apex of development in women is heart and beauty. Therein lies the dissimulations by which each tricks the other that kids are a good idea. This is a play that receives cheers of encore generation after generation.

 

[Nibbler]

introduce....?
I've long been aware of the concept, and if you think that's what's at play here......

I just wanted to avoid calling you an idiot outright.

and now I'm done.

Alright. I'll just refer you to the recent threads about "manipulation" and leave it at that. I have a feeling I'm talking to someone who hasn't emotionally grown up yet, since they actively participate in a forum with loads of people they claim to intellectually disdain. Adios.

 

[Nibbler]

Re: How many here see men and women as induviduals?

Sorry, I assumed you would have been able to read between the lines. I'm an INTP, I say things strongly to prove a point. It doesn't mean I haven't looked at it from all angles. I'm happy to look at things from outside perspectives. I enjoy when people fight back when I state how I feel, because it gives me a new perspective.

You, on the other hand, were just trying to prove something and be rude. That is clear with the type of language you used. There was no constructive intentions.

I'm an INTP. I want communications to be clear and not over emotional. I stated something obvious and apropos to the thread we are in. It was neither here nor there. Not "overstating for emphasis" or even rude. It just "was".

There seems to be an odd air in this end of the thread that stating obvious mistruths, hateful comments and emotional exaggerations is fine, but to want to address them is somehow a malicious hostility. To infer as such is an attempt at manipulation.

See you around.

edit: I just saw your other thread. I really enjoyed reading it. I am wrong in my original suspicion that you weren't interested in introspection.

 

[~~~]

It is not uncommon for me to find some of the more interesting people not to fit the stereotype.

 

[Mello]

Re: How many here see men and women as induviduals?

I'm an INTP. I want communications to be clear and not over emotional. I stated something obvious and apropos to the thread we are in. It was neither here nor there. Not "overstating for emphasis" or even rude. It just "was".

There seems to be an odd air in this end of the thread that stating obvious mistruths, hateful comments and emotional exaggerations is fine, but to want to address them is somehow a malicious hostility. To infer as such is an attempt at manipulation.

See you around.

edit: I just saw your other thread. I really enjoyed reading it. I am wrong in my original suspicion that you weren't interested in introspection.

Emotions are logical.

Logic can be illogical.

 

[Reluctantly]

What's an individual exactly?