dimreepr

"The victims are always the ones who trust" That's patently not true. "Trusting in a criminal isn't going to make him/her more trustworthy" Why not? "So, it is safer not to trust" It's safer to build a prison and never leave but what sort of life would that be? Edit/ For prison read fortress.

Lying to children isn't deception and isn't entirely about shielding the child emotionally but is a necessary part of it's education; each subsequent lie is an additional layer of knowledge that leads to understanding.

"That's BS" is rather strong, considering "If you do not update your personal belief system according to available evidence ( e.g. being cheated on in a relationship; being mugged in the street" is just another way of saying "without external influences, such as a known lie or deceit". Then vector in the abundance of negative sensational news, that merely inspire a sense that the outside world should be feared; when, for instance, were you newsworthy? Everybody I know haven't been, so why shouldn't I trust?

The capacity to trust, it seems to me, is intrinsically linked to one's own trustworthiness; without external influences, such as a known lie or deceit, one's own thinking tends toward personal references, as in 'it takes one to know one'.

The question you need to ask isn’t, have I wasted my love/understanding on this will-o’-the-wisp, but rather, what cruel circumstance created such a person?

Some people have medical issues and some have historical issues, both understandable and forgivable, although I'm not entirely sure of your point.

I think a more apt truism is “it takes one to know one” and reveals the difference between knowledge and understanding although, of course, acceptance is important; you don’t have to understand to forgive but it helps. At the heart of this discussion is a more fundamental truism; we are all told of our uniqueness, which is of course true, but however much this massages our ego we are human (as much as every dog is unique, it’s still a dog and behaves as such). Essentially we are all clones and it’s our culture that informs our thinking (meaning, if I had lead your life I’d mostly think/do just as you think/do) mostly, so, for me the truism should read ‘you’re me in a different skin’ and so through completely honest introspection, forgiveness is easy.

I think this question, in essence, comes down to understanding; the better you understand yourself the greater the chance you will understand/forgive your friend/partner’s limitations, without which few relationships survive. Also a frank understanding of yourself leads to peace/love of self and others.

Comprehension really isn't your strength, is it?

This is a very good point but I am firmly in the camp that it’s culture, not language that has the most fundamental impact on how we think. As touched upon in the first link, I think language would change the way we think only through the exposure to an alternative culture. Airbrush also makes a good point, in that, the only way to break down cultural conflicts is through education.

For cleaning your chain I’d recommend WD40 or similar, it also works for tree resin and many other things.

Denying the past won’t serve to change it, you need to mourn what you’ve lost and talking most definitely helps however counterintuitive that may seem. Accepting, is also part of the grieving process; the money invested is truly insignificant when compared to the emotional investment. Good luck finding your answers.

As much as you seem to not like the answer, you are clearly depressed; as such you need to seek, some form of, professional help, the alcohol abuse is a clear indicator and is extremely difficult to control. The following may seem frivolous but it has helped me, I hope it does the same for you.

The fact that you’ve fallaciously attempted to divert/subvert any meaningful discourse, throughout this thread, shows you to be little more than a town center preacher shouting his/her self deluded message to an un-listening, unwilling and, somewhat, fearful audience. As such this thread deserves nothing but the trash IMHO.

Assuming God doesn’t make him any more likely to exist; there probably won’t be any convergence, but why the time limit? Your clumsy attempts at explaining nature is worth nothing, BTW, nature is what it is and depends on no-one’s belief. P.S. No more red please...

The fear of snakes, in my peer group, range from no fear to a, full on, phobia and all points in-between. Some people seem predisposed to develop phobias about all sorts of things often stemming from one incident. If the fear of snakes is a result of evolutionary pressures then why do we not have equal, if not, more fearful reactions to animals that pose a greater threat, mosquito’s for instance. The ten most common phobias include: Trypanophobia (injections), Pteromerhanophobia (Flying), Cynophobia (dogs), and Astraphobia (thunder and lightning) etc... If the fear of snakes is innate then surely we would start with the fear and some would learn to control that fear much like a fear of heights, the fact that children and many adults are free of the fear would suggest a learnt rather than innate, response.

This quote from Clara Moskowitz, in her book ‘Why we fear snakes’, for me, is at the heart of this discussion. “‘While babies and very young children do not usually fear snakes, they are unusually skilled at detecting them and show a predisposition to learn to fear snakes if they have bad experiences or even if they are exposed to negative portrayals of them in the media, the scientists found.’”

I have absolutely no doubt of your intellectual understanding, zapatos, having read many of your posts, however, we all know the emotional response often supersedes the intellectual. My memory of the lesson, I received, is particularly clear because of an emotional detachment with my mother; consequently, every positive memory with her is exaggerated emotionally which enables a particularly strong memory of the times when we did have a connection. In less exaggerated circumstances maybe it’s easy to forget from where our lessons are learnt.

The intensity of response is surely dependant on the strength of the lesson and given the propensity (it would seem) in modern society to exaggerate such fears to ridiculous proportions, as a sort of one-upmanship and the amount of exposure through media to such images, could very well be responsible for such intense emotional reactions in the general populace.

I can still remember the day I was taught to fear them, I was 6/7 and walking home with Mum we encountered a full grown grass snake sunning itself on the path, Mum wasn’t hysterical but she was tense (I spotted it several seconds before she did and was surprised by her reaction), she grabbed my collar and lead me to the opposite path and relaxed as we passed. As a consequence of the mild lesson I received is my fear is mild and easily overcome; I can pick them up but not with confidence. The primate’s reaction to the fake snake is more than likely because they too were taught and it’s not easy to tell a fake instantly.

Hold on a bit, are you a hobbit, Phi? If so I may have an adventure you'd be interested in.

The problem here is that the emergent quality of the hive intelligence is often dependant on stigmergy.

You weren’t taught to be frightened of them; I personally don’t think fear of snakes is innate.