YES I AM. AND, IF, and WHEN, 'you', human beings, DELVE INTO the thoughts and thinking, WITHIN those bodies, THEN what I AM CLAIMING can be SEEN to be IRREFUTABLY True.Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2023 1:18 pmI'm not claiming to know what other humans know or don't know. You are.Age wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2023 2:15 amAre you here 'TRYING TO' CLAIM that 'you', and "other" human beings, know MORE than 'you' ACTUALLY DO?Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2023 1:42 am
It is you that is assuming that you know how much any/all humans know/don't know.
Okay. BUT you are NOT ANSWERING the ACTUAL QUESTION, which I posed, and ASKED you here.
OFF TOPIC, and OBVIOUS.
AND, what is MORE NONSENSICAL is to even BRING 'this' UP, especially considering the Fact that I NEVER even remotely said ANY 'thing' about ANY 'thing' like 'this'.Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2023 1:18 pm To assert that one knows more than what they do would imply that they know things they don't know which is nonsensical.
But a LOT of NONSENSICAL 'things' ARISE FROM make ASSUMPTIONS, especially like the Wrong ASSUMPTION you have made here.
Okay. But I do NOT recall even EVER making ANY such argument.Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2023 1:18 pm You argument regarding the nature of knowledge is off-topic and ridiculous. Save it for another thread.
I just RESPONDED to YOUR OWN ALLEGATION that you KNOW MORE ABOUT 'language' than I could EVER KNOW.Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2023 1:18 pm If you believe that there is something that I don't know regarding the difference between men and women and that you do, then please inform me rather than engaging in nonsensical claims about knowledge.
you were 'trying to' COME OFF as some sort of MASTER AT 'language', and which you did NOT have that much time to HELP 'me' to LEARN and UNDERSTAND.
So, ANY CLAIM ABOUT 'language' and/or 'knowledge' was brought INTO this discussion BY 'you', "trajik logik". I was just REPLYING to YOUR REMARKS and CLAIMS. If you find me ENGAGING in YOUR CLAIMS, which you are now calling NONSENSICAL, then I suggest you do NOT ENTER those CLAIMS INTO the DISCUSSION.
LOL I have NEVER even come CLOSE to being 'offended' by you ASKING QUESTIONS. In fact what can be CLEARLY SEEN throughout my writings I ENCOURAGE MORE and MORE QUESTIONING.Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2023 1:18 pm I am here to learn what others think about this topic and may ask questions to better understand what others are saying. My questioning is not an assumption of anything. It is an attempt to better understand what you have said, but it seems that you are getting offended by me asking questions. It seems to me that you are the one claiming to know more than what they actually know.
Also, I NEVER get 'offended' with absolutely ANY 'thing' here.
I was just QUESTIONING you ABOUT YOUR CLAIM that you do NOT have that much time to hold my hand and explain to me how language works.
Now, If you do NOT want to talk ABOUT 'this', then I will again suggest then do NOT bring 'this' INTO our DISCUSSION. SIMPLE REALLY.
GREAT. FURTHER PROVING what I have been SAYING and CLAIMING.Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2023 1:18 pmI have know idea what you're going on about here.Age wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2023 2:15 am Even 'you', "trajik logik", SAID and WROTE:
We each have an idea in our heads of the differences between men an women and the ideas are not made up of words, but are made up of images of various humans and their shapes and functions. Using what we learned in grade school, we can then associate certain scribbles with those images for the purpose of communicating those images to other minds. If we had the images, or pictures of men and wome themselves, we wouldn't need to use words. A picture tells a thousand words. We could see the differences by looking at a picture and not even need to use words at all.
Which FURTHER SHOWS and PROVES that 'you', human beings, THINK 'you' KNOW 'things', BUT when ACTUALLY QUESTIONED and CHALLENGED OVER what is SAID and CLAIMED, FROM the VIEWS, ASSUMPTIONS, and BELIEFS, WITHIN, what can be CLEARLY SHOWN is that 'you', human beings, do NOT ACTUALLY KNOW, FOR SURE, as MUCH as 'you' think NOR BELIEVE 'you' do.
MY QUESTIONING and CHALLENGING, throughout this forum, HAS and IS PROVING 'this' IRREFUTABLY True.
you have OBVIOUSLY completely and utterly MISSED what has been taking place here, which is ALL WELL and GOOD.Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2023 1:18 pm It is irrefutably true that we know things by using our senses and brains. All you have to do is look at enough humans and see that 99.9% of all humans fall into two categories, no words are needed. Words are only needed if you have never seen any humans before. I have no idea what it is that you think I don't know as you haven't been generous enough to say, rather you only assume that I do.
BUT I NEVER ASSUMED that you did NOT know. What MADE you ASSUME such a thing?Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2023 1:18 pmOf course we agreed. I knew that for awhile and you just now discovered it after assuming that I didn't know.Age wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2023 5:23 amSO, EXACTLY LIKE I WAS 'thinking', 'you' and 'I' ARE, and WERE, IN AGREEMENT. That is; IF 'you' AGREE that besides the sexual organs of the human body there is NOT ANY OTHER ACTUAL DIFFERENCE. Do 'you' AGREE?Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2023 1:42 am What I've said before is that the differences are narrow in scope, as you pointed out the sexual characteristics - that is pretty much it, as we are discussing sex in humans when discussing women and men. Other characteristics, like wearing dresses and pants are not differences between men and women as both men and women can wear both pants and dresses and still be men and women. It is a difference in the expectations of men and women in certain cultures, not a differences in sex which is independent of culture.
If yes, then do 'you' ALSO AGREE that although the sexual organs ARE the ONLY DIFFERENCE, WITHIN there has been some sort of OTHER PERCEIVED 'difference', PREVIOUSLY?
AND, if yes, then what IS 'expected', (FROM or ABOUT "others"), comes ONLY from SOME 'perception', WITHIN, which, when DELVED INTO, is NOT ACTUALLY based upon ANY ACTUAL REAL 'thing', but just ON SOME, ILL-GOTTEN, 'perception', or 'perceived expectation', which, when LOOKED INTO FULLY does NOT even ACTUALLY ALIGN WITH Reality, Itself?
This last CLARIFYING QUESTION is STILL A LONG WAY OFF for MOST of 'you', adult human beings, here, in the days when this is being written.
I do NOT 'have to' remember absolutely ANY such 'thing'.Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2023 1:18 pm You have to remember that those sexual parts have an impact on behavior.
Now, you want to CLAIM that the so-called 'sexual parts' of a human body have an IMPACT ON 'behavior'. So, what PROOF of 'this' do you have? And, what examples WILL you SHARE with 'us' here now?
Did you provide examples of those 'the behaviors', which accompany the DIFFERENT so-called 'sexual parts'?Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2023 1:18 pm It's not just a difference in body parts, but what those body parts do and the behaviors that accompany them.
If no, then WHY NOT?
AND what IS 'that topic', EXACTLY?Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2023 1:18 pm There is also the topic of sexual selection and the impact on the amount of energy and risks females and males have to expend and take in procreating and raising offspring.
Is 'this', allegation of yours here, FOR EVERY human male AND human female, from 'the beginning of humans' till 'the end of humans'?Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2023 1:18 pm For instance, human males are more promiscuous and while females are less so,
1. This so-called 'typically more picky' an IRREFUTABLE, ALREADY PROVED Fact, FOR human beings for ALL times, or more so an 'opinion' that you and some "others" may of obtained along the way in their OWN relatively VERY SHORT period of time?Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2023 1:18 pm and females are typically more picky when choosing mates where males are less so, because females are the ones that have to spend most of the energy in raising the offspring.
2. What do you MEAN by 'have to spend most of THE 'energy' in raising the offspring'?
(a) What 'energy' are you referring to here, EXACTLY?
(b) How does it correlate, EXACTLY, that because one 'thinks', 'feels', and/or 'knows' that they HAVE TO spend 'most of THE energy', that then WILL be, typically, MORE 'picky' when CHOOSING 'mates'?
(c) WHERE are 'you' getting 'your' INFORMATION FROM, EXACTLY?
WHERE are you GETTING this INFORMATION FROM, EXACTLY?Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2023 1:18 pm The roles are reversed when it comes to seahorses. Male seahorses are the ones that have to carry the offspring to term in a pouch, so the males are pickier and the females are the ones that have to impress the males.
AND, what has 'this' even got to do WITH, 'The difference, IF ANY, between 'man' and 'woman', EXACTLY?
A GREAT example of this CONFLATING what it means to be A 'woman' and A 'man' WITH the EXPECTATION one HAS, can be CLEARLY SEEN and RECOGNIZED in YOUR OWN EXPECTATION that 'woman' spend MOST of THE 'energy' in raising offspring, and that BECAUSE OF 'this' 'woman', therefore, ARE MORE 'picky' when CHOOSING 'mates'.Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2023 1:18 pm When it comes to the social constructions of humans, we have conflated what it means to be a woman or man with the expectations we have for each.
DO 'they'?Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2023 1:18 pm Parents tell their boy that if they play with dolls they are a girl.
1. WHAT IS the so-called 'transgender problem', EXACTLY?Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2023 1:18 pm This then makes the boy think they are a girl because they play with dolls. It is an improper, and sexists, use of language that has led us to this transgender problem.
2. AND, was it FROM just those very FEW parents who have, in the past, told their children, with what are called the 'male sexual organs (or parts), that if you play with dolls, then you ARE A 'girl', REALLY what has LED TO 'this' so-called 'transgender problem', (whatever 'that' is, exactly)?
3. It would be Truly AMAZING that the just saying the VERY FEW words, 'If you play with dolls you are a girl', would have caused the whole 'transgender problem', again whatever 'that' is, exactly. It seems like a very limited language to cause such a 'problem'.
I am trying to WORK OUT 'you', adult human beings, even class as what 'man' and 'woman' IS, EXACTLY. And, besides 'you', "trajik logic", getting an ANSWER FROM ANY one "else" seems to be a HARD 'thing' to OBTAIN.Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2023 1:18 pm Playing with dolls, wearing dresses and make-up does not mean that you are a woman. Again, the properties of male and female are much more narrow than what some society's use of language describes.