No, comprehension isn't a part of that. You touch something hot and you instinctively jump back. From then on you are instinctively wary of hot objects.
Like I said, its Classical conditioning. You associate something with something else and instinctively react to it from then on. A child is painfully shocked whenever a white bunny is present. From then on he is afraid of the bunny whenever he sees it and immediately starts to cry. I believe he even had physical reactions to it. Its purely an instinctive process that doesn't have any actual thought involved.
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Fair enough. -shrug- I'm not going to try to force you to discuss it if you don't want to, but I will always call out bullshit when I see it regarding matters like these, because it's a peeve of mine. Don't take it personally.
And if your conclusion was not fallible, I would respect your position. As it is, though, I can not. You sprout as much bullshit as the next person here, if not more. Though I can imagine you not following me when I say that, so I will elaborate:
1) It was not hypocrisy of me to use a fallacy after having pointed out a fallacy before. That would require me to have done more than simply point out that he used a fallacy. Next, pointing out a fallacy of analogy does not in any way invalidate any section of my post, simply because it included a fallacy. You can not compare the "crime of homosexuality" to murder, because they are things of two seperate values. Beholding a homosexual act in his perspective would cause an internal consequence, while a murder is a physical act with an external consequence. Comparing the two is not only a fallacy, but it is creating an unbalanced case, based on unbalanced values. If he had compared homosexuality to religion, that would be one thing. Or torture to murder. But not homosexuality to murder.
2) My fallacy is of no true significance in being a fallacy, and I am not just saying that to protect my pretty ass. That whole segment of my post is written under the premise that he is a hater of homosexuality, which is not that far fetched an interpretation. He literally wrote about how it should be admirable to protecting your culture, this in reference of homosexuality. The slippery slope fallacy would basically have required me to go from "I prefer heterosexuals" to where I went. But as he started with calling homosexual activities wrong and then went on saying his stride to protect his culture admirable, it is not as far as that.
So while I see the same fallacy that you see, it hardly makes me a hypocrit. The only thing that it has done so far, is made you sprout bullshit. Ironically, in comparing my fallacy to his, you preformed a fallacy of analogy as well, since the nature of the two are vastly different. Now, I understand that you genuinely thought that I was going at him for the use of fallacy, even though I was just pointing it out, but that does not change the fact that you compared mine to his (A required action in order to call me hypocrit)
Okay. Sorry if I offended you. I think your viewpoint on this is skewered, though.
Originally posted by Nephthys
No, comprehension isn't a part of that. You touch something hot and you instinctively jump back. From then on you are instinctively wary of hot objects.Like I said, its Classical conditioning. You associate something with something else and instinctively react to it from then on. A child is painfully shocked whenever a white bunny is present. From then on he is afraid of the bunny whenever he sees it and immediately starts to cry. I believe he even had physical reactions to it. Its purely an instinctive process that doesn't have any actual thought involved.
What you're describing is what we call critical thinking. Not all animals are capable of what you're describing. An ant will walk onto a surface that is hot, because it can not comprehend that "hot is bad, so I shouldn't go here".