Your statement, “Ain't nothing wrong with showing some emotion, just means you've got the balls to express yourself some around others.” Let’s go through the logic and slightly clarify your statement. The part, “just means you've got the balls to express yourself some around others.”, is equivalent to, “just means [a person is courageous/brave] to express yourself some around others.” Let’s call the equivalent statement as statement A.
A = [a person is courageous/brave] to express yourself some around others
If A does not apply to a person, then its opposing statement B applies.
B= a person is a coward by not expressing yourself some around others
I do not agree with the simplistic binary (A, B) logic that you presented. Humans are complex emotional creatures. Such emotional complexity makes different people handle emotions in different ways. Other people with an opposing viewpoint from yours may say the following:
C= a person is strong if you do not express yourself some around others
Thus if C does not apply to a person, then its opposing statement D applies.
D= a person is weak to express yourself some around others
If a subject is defined as X (fill in the blank). Then the antithetical definition can be defined as the opposite of the original subject.
Why is your binary (A, B) logic more correct then someone else’s opposing binary (C, D) logic? In order to further cement your statement A. It needs to be an errorless definition of what it means to be emotionally courageous/brave around others. You will be hard pressed to define what it means to be emotionally courageous/brave i.e. have balls. It is difficult to define because emotionally courageous/brave is rather subjective. Emotionally courageous/brave can mean a many of things. The subjectivity of emotionally courageous/brave very likely comes from the complexity of emotions. The subjective nature of emotions means that there is no absolute right or absolute wrong way to deal with emotions. One person’s emotional knight can be someone else’s emotional coward.
Let’s take the hypothetical situation as an example. Let’s suppose that someone’s love one dies. How does that person feel emotionally stronger after losing someone? Some may say that you will feel better after you apply statement A. Others may say that you will feel better after you apply statement C. Will statement A or statement C make them feel stronger? It really depends on the person. To feel stronger, it could be A, C, neither, both or none of the above.
The following video highlights my previous example. It is from one of my favorite video game characters, Kratos.
“Do not mistake my lack of silence for lack of grief! Mourn how you wish. Leave me to my own”. (Kratos)
What is knowledge? As the saying goes, “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” Likewise, I say that knowledge is in the eye of the beholder. Not all knowledge is equal. What is important knowledge for one individual may be completely irrelevant to another individual. Some knowledge may be unanswerable. Some knowledge may be true. Some knowledge may lie on a range of probabilities. Some knowledge may be false. I reject the latter knowledge. To which I critique your following statement, “Best anyone can do is acknowledge such remarks and learn from them.” While I do acknowledge that false knowledge exists; I have very little to learn from false knowledge. Case in point; I have very little patience with people who argue with well stablished mathematical or scientific facts. For example, people that argue the following:
-the earth is flat
-climate change isn’t real
-dinosaurs don’t exist i.e. evolution isn’t real
-time isn’t real
- quantum woo
I have infinitesimally nothing left to learn from the latter ideas. If that makes me naive for rejecting idiotic ideas (false knowledge), then so be it. It is funny that the word naive means lack of knowledge. I am naive to false knowledge.
You might say that I may still learn something from people that cling to duncical ideas. A possible counterargument may be that if I tried to correct false knowledge, then I may learn something from people that possess false knowledge. But as I have stated before, “knowledge is in the eye of the beholder.” Whatever knowledge I learn from trying to correct duncical thought patterns is irrelevant to me. For such ideas do nothing to further the advancement of humanity. Maybe that knowledge is relevant to other people, but that is their prerogative.
I am naive to false knowledge. But that does not make me infallible.
Honesty is the best policy. Many people nowadays take things at heart way to fast. I often want to call out the bullshit of other members of this site, but their emotions will take hold and shit will hit the fan real quick. So i'll rather not deal with idiots hence Homo sapiens lol
Heyo. It’s a pleasure to meet you ^-^
Hello, thank you for the add ^^
Why did you delete me, I thought we were FRIEEEEEEEEENDS :( Lol jk I'm just playing xD I'm glad I was worthy enough to be spared from your cleanse qwq
Just cleaned my friend list for the first time since.........around 3 years ago?
If I deleted you, don't take it personally and feel free to add me back if you want.
for some reason, every time I read what you say, I do it in gowthers voice. LOL