"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

Nonsense, freezing is just an alternate strategy to avoid harm, there is no
fallacy.

>> > 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.

A logical one.
>
>> >> > 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.

You've got convenient labels for everything, and you can't support any of
them.

>> >> > 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.

Yes they do, then they learn to discriminate between hot and cold. A sane
person approaches a stove burner assuming it is hot until the ascertain
otherwise. Harm avoidance.

You belong to a small distinguished group of people, those who are attracted
to attempting to prove the absurd.