In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> >> >> I realize that there are irrational fears and fear mongers, but there
> >> >> are
> >> >> still real threats and animals have an instinctive aversion to
> >> >> threats.
> >> >> The
> >> >> learned part is learning to identify and differentiate real threats in
> >> >> one's
> >> >> environment.
> >> >
> >> > Fear is acquired.
> >>
> >> By experiencing threats. Threats, when they are recognized as such, cause
> >> instinctive fear (flight/fight), which teaches the animal to react with
> >> avoidance in that situation in the future.
> >
> > This is old science.
>
> You don't understand any science.
>
> > There is a third option and that is "freezing". Its
> > pretty well documented.
>
> Freezing is just an alternate form of harm avoidance, the principle is the
> same as flight.

No. Your theory relies on the logical fallacy of the false dilemma.
Flight is not freezing and flight and freezing are not fighting.

> > The logic fallacy of the false dilemma is
> > presented. Generalizing that X is harmful and avoiding all X is a
> > measure of irrationality. The further irrationality is to assume the
> > same outcome.
>
> It sounds like you're smoking pot too.

I guess that is A response.

> >> > We learn to fear what we fear.
> >>
> >> Right, we learn what to fear, we don't learn fear itself, it already
> >> exists
> >> as one our basic emotions.
> >
> > From the perspective of adults and people who experience fear, we hope
> > that this is true. It's much easier to rationalize fear when we can
> > believe that it is innate versus learned and chosen.
>
> Since fear and/or aversion to harm, (aka survival instinct) is observable in
> every living organism from a two celled plenarium to a human, it is logical
> to conclude that it is part or our biology. The skewed bias in this analysis
> is your dogged attachment to this notion that everything is arbitrary and
> learned.

Confirmation bias.

> >> > Children are, by
> >> > comparison fearless.
> >>
> >> Children can't differentiate enough of their environment to recognize
> >> threats. One time with the hand on the stove burner and they will recoil
> >> from it instinctively forever.
> >
> > Which demonstrates my point that they don't avoid the "harm".
>
> They don't perceive it as harm until they experience it.
>
> > In fact,
> > most people (the rational ones) will soon realize that a stove element
> > is only a harm when it is turned on or as it is cooling. It is
> > completely safe to touch it at other times.
>
> Irrelevant.

You claimed that they would "recoil from it instinctively forever".
Clearly, by this example most sane humans don't respond this way.