What is a Man? Points to ponder...

[Mudfart]

the referral to caveman days is not to be taken literally. In most things I say, they are kept as laymans as possible, as I always assume others have difficulty understanding what I am trying to express. Its one of my flaws. I am now realising that I am able to express myself correctly, and anyone who still doesnt get it, is the 'tard I was initially expecting to encounter.
The caveman days referrence is a simple highlight to mans natural most raw, basic instinct. The strongest survives is clearly proven in Darwins theorum.

[Edbear]

I think a lot of people here perhaps have not noticed the amount of influence it is possible to gain simply by respecting others. I believe this is the way in which any one man can gain a substantial amount of control.

Personally i don't know how this affects women, or if they too can manage to gain influence through respect rather than just through "mens emotions" as others seem to bleieve they totally control. But i certainly know its quite easy to convince people to do just about anything when they respect you, and gaining that respect is easy to do if you respect them...

Ok, i think ive succesfully confused myself

A thoughtful post.

Remember I said that Masterhood was granted to a man by his loved ones? They allow him "control" because they know his desire is in their interests, not in his own.

Some seek to gain control by feigning interest in others or by using their status, or mana, or popularity for selfish interests. No-one can dispute that some people, both men and women have gained control over others for selfish interests using such as flattery and deceipt, but my OP was about the way it is in Mankind inherently. All posts to the contrary have merely confirmed my point that there are and will be exceptions to the rule, but not being the rule.

Also, my OP about true manhood remains accurate. A true man does not and does not need to, control or dominate his woman or his children, he recognizes a partnership of interdependency, of mutual respect and love. A man needs a woman, she complements his abilities and responsibilities with her own - the two work together in harmony each playing a role that benefits the family and society. Note I did not imply intelligence, a woman may be more intelligent, ie: higher IQ, or more learned than her husband, but that does not excuse the husband from his responsibilities as outlined in my OP.

[Gone Burger]

A very interesting thread that provokes a lot of thought.

Saw this on the net and thought it said things pretty well, coming from a womens prospectice...

"A man is a person who is strong enough to let himself be vulnerable. Someone who defines himself rather than let other's dictate who he should be. Someone not afraid to champion those who cannot champion themselves. Someone who expresses fear and uncertainty knowing the definition of bravery is feeling scared and doing it anyway. "

I have met few "real" men in my life, but that might be mostly because of my age. But when you do meet one, they take you by suprise, and stand out from crowd. Honest, strong, courageous, gracious, loyal, a good leader, also willing to be lead, a strong heart that is still allowed to be filled with emotion. To me, that's a real man, and one that is quite hard to come by. As a women, I am soft, and not a leader (talking about myself personally) - and to meet a man that could have that strength to love and lead with, would win much respect from me.

[Gone Burger]

Must apologise if I have plenty of spelling mistakes above too - really can't spell to save myself! Sorry

[SS90]

A thoughtful post.

Remember I said that Masterhood was granted to a man by his loved ones? They allow him "control" because they know his desire is in their interests, not in his own.

Some seek to gain control by feigning interest in others or by using their status, or mana, or popularity for selfish interests. No-one can dispute that some people, both men and women have gained control over others for selfish interests using such as flattery and deceipt, but my OP was about the way it is in Mankind inherently. All posts to the contrary have merely confirmed my point that there are and will be exceptions to the rule, but not being the rule.

Also, my OP about true manhood remains accurate. A true man does not and does not need to, control or dominate his woman or his children, he recognizes a partnership of interdependency, of mutual respect and love. A man needs a woman, she complements his abilities and responsibilities with her own - the two work together in harmony each playing a role that benefits the family and society. Note I did not imply intelligence, a woman may be more intelligent, ie: higher IQ, or more learned than her husband, but that does not excuse the husband from his responsibilities as outlined in my OP.

Just so I can get a handle on your perspective, do you believe in creation or evolution?

[Edbear]

Actually humanity is most likely to fall victim to something as small and simple as a virus, or a catastrophic natural event, as have previous "dominant" species on this Earth.

What you have written is not fact, but opinion and you continuously use ad hominen arguments against people who disagree with your world view.

While you have not overtly stated that your view is religious, it is simply a restatement of the Judeo-christian view of man's domain over women and animals.

No, what I have stated is observable to anyone who cares to look. Nothing to do with any religious view at all.

In an ideal world your scenario may be true and it may well be that a virus will devastate mankind. What you fail to recognise is why that may occur and what kind of virus is likely. Look at fact, not fiction, fact not theory.

Granted, a catastrophic nautral disaster may occur, and many do affecting hundreds, thousands and even milions of people. The most likely catastrophe that could wipe mankind out would need to be such as an asteroid strike, or the death of the oceans.

Scientists already tell us the oceans are dying and many opine that it is already too late to save the Earth from this end as the food chain is being destroyed from the bottom up.

the referral to caveman days is not to be taken literally. In most things I say, they are kept as laymans as possible, as I always assume others have difficulty understanding what I am trying to express. Its one of my flaws. I am now realising that I am able to express myself correctly, and anyone who still doesnt get it, is the 'tard I was initially expecting to encounter.
The caveman days referrence is a simple highlight to mans natural most raw, basic instinct. The strongest survives is clearly proven in Darwins theorum.

Point taken. I ask you, what is man's most raw, basic instinct? Your reference indicates selfish desire and dominance by force, not love and altruism, not self-sacrifice and the desire to protect and preserve and flourish.

Your caveman analogy is one of animalistic tendency and you both reduce Man to the level of animal. Man is so far above the anilmal kingdom that he even refers, to it as "the animal kindom". Anyone who wishes to be an animal does so by choice, as does anyone who wishes to raise himself above that level to true humanity.

Therein lies the proof of what I am saying. Animals do not have that choice.

[Edbear]

Just so I can get a handle on your perspective, do you believe in creation or evolution?

What I believe is irrelevant and has no bearing upon my OP. See my post above.

There are many here with a variety of personal beliefs, some may have exactly the opposite of myself or you or any mix of opinion or belief.

Some may agree with my OP or disagree, but a thoughtful person will look at facts as they lay.

[Headbanger]

The fact is, as you also point out, Man is the dominant species, no question, deserved or not, and he will remain so for as long as he wishes or until he destroys himself and the planet.

Afraid not.

We became the dominant species as conditions allowed us to breed like rabbits. When those conditions change then the species best for the enviorment suited will become the dominant species, and that species maynot even exist yet.

[Winston001]

Point taken. I ask you, what is man's most raw, basic instinct? Your reference indicates selfish desire and dominance by force, not love and altruism, not self-sacrifice and the desire to protect and preserve and flourish.

Your caveman analogy is one of animalistic tendency and you both reduce Man to the level of animal. Man is so far above the anilmal kingdom that he even refers, to it as "the animal kindom".

Afraid I must disagree. The elements which distinguish us from the lower animals is our intense curiosity and our ability to develop abstract concepts such as love, politics, art, and religion. But we are still animals which just happen to have developed large brains. Our prime directives are food, clothing, shelter, and procreation - in that order. Actually procreation over-rides everything as the biggie, but in order to do that food etc is the moment to moment necessity.

Man is a social animal and the species is enhanced by living in groups. The group provides safety and shared skills. In modern society we have over-ridden our primitive reactions (an eye for an eye etc) in order to live as a large group, trusting that all members adhere to the same code. And it works despite a fringe who break down and wreck havoc - we call these people criminals. No big deal.

[Headbanger]

I am definitely an animal.

[mashman]

Man is a very simple creature who's base instinct is survival. Throw money into the mix and you end up with what we have today (a fuck up)... all of our emotions are driven by the chemical reactions that our bodies are stimulated into... Be it the sudden smell/sight/sound etc... of a predator, the checkin out of some booty (erectus unexpectus), the lack of money in our bank accounts etc... These base stimuli govern our reactions in just about every situation. Now we have the ability to communicate it's way too easy to "stimulate" any person you choose in order to ilicit a prescribed response... you just need to know the buttons to push... unfortunately there are those in society that do exactly that... and they realise that our "primeval" instincts are the most powerful... i.e. survival/fear etc... and they use it to it's full extent using the media to make you "feel" in a particular way... geanted we all feel things differently, but the actual emotions of the people won't vary that much only in intensity.

It's a simple as that IMHO... Man or Woman, doesn't matter, each can be as bad/good as the other and is capable of anything they can dream up...

[Edbear]

Afraid not.

We became the dominant species as conditions allowed us to breed like rabbits. When those conditions change then the species best for the enviorment suited will become the dominant species, and that species maynot even exist yet.

Afraid I must disagree. The elements which distinguish us from the lower animals is our intense curiosity and our ability to develop abstract concepts such as love, politics, art, and religion. But we are still animals which just happen to have developed large brains. Our prime directives are food, clothing, shelter, and procreation - in that order. Actually procreation over-rides everything as the biggie, but in order to do that food etc is the moment to moment necessity.

Man is a social animal and the species is enhanced by living in groups. The group provides safety and shared skills. In modern society we have over-ridden our primitive reactions (an eye for an eye etc) in order to live as a large group, trusting that all members adhere to the same code. And it works despite a fringe who break down and wreck havoc - we call these people criminals. No big deal.

You both clean missed the point. Your views are simplistic and unrelated to reality.

"Anyone who wishes to be an animal does so by choice, as does anyone who wishes to raise himself above that level to true humanity.

Therein lies the proof of what I am saying. Animals do not have that choice."

[Headbanger]

Your views are simplistic and unrelated to reality.

Mooooooo.

Ture humanity is a bit of a laugh, We are hairless apes with over sized brains due to evolution. I bet nature won't be wanting to repeat that trick again. Massive backfire.

And we have lost our ability to live on this planet without changing it to suit and putting in massive suport systems, which one day will fall over, and mankind will reap the benifits of its folly.

True humanity?, I'm thinking the animals have done it better.

[mashman]

Therein lies the proof of what I am saying. Animals do not have that choice.

Of course animals have a choice. Evidence: you can train animals! hence they can ignore their base instincts when they want to.

[Edbear]

Mooooooo.

Ture humanity is a bit of a laugh, We are hairless apes with over sized brains due to evolution. I bet nature won't be wanting to repeat that trick again. Massive backfire.

And we have lost our ability to live on this planet without changing it to suit and putting in massive suport systems, which one day will fall over, and mankind will reap the benifits of its folly.

True humanity?, I'm thinking the animals have done it better.

I rest my case...

Of course animals have a choice. Evidence: you can train animals! hence they can ignore their base instincts when they want to.

Do you think before you post? Animals have no choice, they cannot train themselves beyond very limited tasks, most of which are known as "animal instinct". Animals do not ignore their basic intsincts. Try your reasoning with a Zoologist and see how far you get.