All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 4, 2008 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
47:15
1165 Stef on the Badnarik Radio Show Part 2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Everywhere around the world they come to America Every time that flag's unfurled, they come into America.
Got a dream to take them there.
They come into America.
Got a dream they come to share.
They come into America.
They come into America today.
Today.
Today is Thursday, September 25th.
We are here on WTPRN and also KTAE 1330 AM radio.
You are listening to Michael Bednarik on Lighting the Fires of Liberty.
Wake up, America.
Your country needs you.
It is the duty of every patriot to protect his or her country.
From government corruption.
Why stand we here idle?
The second American Revolution has already begun.
Lay down your fear.
Pick up that torch of liberty.
Walk with me through the darkness of uncertainty towards our common goal of world peace.
Thank you so much for joining me today.
And my co-host is Stephan Molyneux who's coming to us from I'm in Canada, and our subject matter this morning is philosophy.
Who needs it? And we are discussing the whole subject of what is philosophy.
It is a system of thought.
Not what to think, but more how to think.
Whether or not we are successful, the goal, the objective, is to always make the correct decision.
To always come up with the right answer.
And naturally, people are always arguing about whether their answer is correct or not.
And that's because people have different philosophies.
They base their conclusions on a different set of facts.
Before we continue our debate and our discussion, I want to thank my sponsors who make it possible for me to broadcast on ktae.net.
They are ASAP, Plant Mineral Supplement.
You can purchase this system of vitamins for your garden by calling Pamela McKenzie, her phone number 877-877.
You can also purchase silver, gold, and platinum.
You can convert your worthless Federal Reserve notes into a real tangible wealth.
And you can do that by calling Tim Fry.
Tim's number is 800-874-9760.
800-874-9760. 8-7-4-9-7-6-0.
Our phone number here is 512-646-1984.
And you are strongly encouraged to exercise your freedom of expression.
And especially call in if you disagree.
The only thing we ask is that you remain polite and defend your conclusions.
Don't take it personally if we question your logic and question the evidence that you submit for your ideas.
If we argue and discuss the ideas, hopefully we can all come up with a quote-unquote correct answer.
We can work together to establish what is true And what is not true?
Frank, have you had experiences where you disagree with someone and the person that you are talking to gets emotionally upset because you disagree with their answer?
Absolutely, Michael.
In fact, I was just sitting here thinking of an example online with your topic this morning.
I was thinking the other day, Me and my wife are sitting here in our living room, and we were discussing the issue of licensing, driver's licenses.
I hold the philosophy as, you know, based upon the Constitution and our founding forefathers, where, you know, to have liberty is to not be restricted to go to and from one place or to another place with government intervention.
So when you take away that liberty and make a privilege, take a right into a privilege, convert it into a privilege, you then take away that person's ability to travel, which is the most basic fundamental right.
Now, she, on the other hand, feels that, well, and again, this is her philosophy, because she...
She looks at it from the standpoint of all the years that she's grown up, what she's been exposed to, what she's been taught.
Having a driver's license is actually not such a bad thing at all because she made the illustration that, well, what if somebody goes up our street 100 miles an hour and hits one of our kids or hits somebody or does something?
How is that person going to be apprehended if they don't have any record or if the person says he doesn't have a driver's license?
I'm like, well, it doesn't matter whether he's licensed or not.
You could still drive up the street 100 miles an hour with or without a license.
It's that good to common sense and exercising reasonable care.
When people do those types of things, like destroy people's property or harm people personally, That's a common law crime.
And then that's punishable. But we have laws against that.
We have courts that deal with that issue.
They've been doing it since man has been able to use intellect and reason and logic and understand that we don't want to be harmed any more than harm anyone else.
Now, there are some people who don't care because of their own selfish interests.
Or because they just are insane.
But the point of it is that there's two rationalities there.
Now, I'm rationing on the side of being, you know, free from government restraint.
She's, on the other hand, putting a rationale that, well, you know, I understand we need to be free, but I don't think, you know, Having a driver's license is all that bad, but it all depends on how you look at it, and that's two different philosophies.
That's true, and where you and your wife sit on the philosophical spectrum is in two places, obviously, and one of them is an argument from principles, and the other one is an argument from effect, right?
So you're saying, well, human beings don't have the right to initiate the use of force against other human beings in order to to give them permission to drive and so on so you're arguing from first principles upwards which I think is the right way to do it and your wife is saying well I'm not so concerned with the principles I'm concerned with the effects Of the exercise of this power,
and I want to surrender my liberty to drive if the result is that fewer people go down my street at 100 miles an hour and hit kids or whatever, right?
So these are two approaches to determining the right course of action.
They're not actually that incompatible, though I'm not a big fan of these pragmatic or utilitarian arguments from effect, like what is the result of it, because the results are so hard to predict.
But I think that what your wife, I'm sure, would understand is if she said, look, I would prefer, in a truly free society, the roads would be private and so on, and say, I would prefer to contract with a road company that kept fast drivers off the street, but I don't think that your wife would be right in saying, I want other people who don't agree with me on this licensing issue to go to jail, right?
So it would be a contract between her and the road company or you and the road company which would keep Her preference is front and center.
But if your wife's goal is to reduce harm, which of course is a good goal, then initiating force against other people to make them get a license would be a violation even of that principle.
So I think that working from first principles gives you a much more consistent, and as you say, there's no guarantee that government licensing actually reduces road injuries or fatalities.
I mean, the death toll on the highways is a nightmare.
So I say that it's not really good to say, well, there's this effect that comes from the use of violence or aggression against citizens, and that's an effect I want, so it's okay.
I think that we want to always work from first principles so that we come to something that is true, not something that just feels desirable, if that makes sense.
It's true. I agree with that.
And, you know, not to put women down or to say anything, and I'm sure I might catch the heat for this, but, you know, it's It's a fact that men and women do not look at things the same way.
There's been books written on how women are predominantly more, they think with the left-hand side of their brain, which pretty much your emotional sensory sectors are, and men think with the right-hand side of the brain, where the logic part of the brain is.
And, of course, because of that, Because of the differences, you know, those sexes are predominantly more prone to lean towards those notions of either logic or emotion, you know, reason or security.
And, you know, those types of things also play a part in how we rationalize our philosophies.
Well, and you're right, I think.
Sorry to keep leathering on, Mike.
I'll stop in a sec. But I mean, I think that you're right.
And again, this is all gross generalization.
There are many exceptions, I'm sure, if there are things that conform to the rule.
But in my experience, there's a difference in time frame, right?
Politics is all about trying to achieve something relatively quickly because you can pass the law and it can come into effect.
You don't have to worry about convincing people, slowly turning opinion towards the truth and so on.
You just pass the law and you get something done.
And it's been my experience that men are more willing to wait and sort of take the long I think this is somewhat true because of evolution, right? I mean, that women have to feed kids and get things done.
They have a shorter timeframe for things that they need to get done, and therefore they are more prone to supporting government action because that will achieve an intended effect very quickly, whereas libertarians We are very patient, so to speak, and sort of want to take a longer time view of the situation and solve the problem from first principle.
Again, that's a completely gross generalization, but I just thought that's sort of been my experience as well, and it seemed to dovetail with what you'd experienced, too.
Yeah, I agree with that.
That's interesting. I mean, in this country, it's interesting, too, because you have so many different people from so many different backgrounds, at least In the last, you know, 40 years, you know,
and then swells of different people coming from different lands, different belief systems, different philosophical backgrounds, and, you know, I think in this land it's so diversified, and there again creates the struggle and the problems that we face, you know, with one another.
And, for instance, if you or I were to go over, say, to a land like Thailand or to China, I mean, those countries are predominantly have their own philosophical belief systems already in place.
And, you know, it's not like they always call the United States as a melting pot of the world, which in some regards it is simply because You know, the nature of our laws and the nature that, you know, we're not trying to exclude ourselves from the rest of the world.
You know, the rest of the world is trying to exclude themselves from everyone else.
It seems. So, you know, in this country, it seems like it's more of an issue simply because we all have these different philosophical notions.
Do you agree with that?
Or... I certainly do and I would also just add a very brief point which is to say that the diversity of opinion in the United States and in other countries that are multicultural, the diversity of opinion It's really great in terms of actually stimulating the need for philosophy.
Like if you live in Soviet Russia and you get your plate of borscht and cauliflower every day, there's really not much point studying nutrition because you only ever get one thing, right?
But it's the moment that you begin to have a diversity of choice and perspective that the science of nutrition becomes important.
And in the same way, we have a kind of buffet of beliefs in the West, right?
Lots of things that you can believe, you're Buddhist or Zoroastrian or Christian or whatever.
So there's a buffet, and it's because of that choice and those different perspectives that we're all aware of that the study of truth from first principles becomes so important.
In other words, when we have a variety of dishes, we need the science of nutrition.
So it is the diversity of modern culture that I think has really re-stimulated a growing interest in philosophy.
Politics is really a subset of philosophy.
Every philosophy can be subdivided into five categories.
Metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and then aesthetics.
Ethics is basically what I believe is right and wrong, or what you believe is right and wrong.
And politics is a system of interaction where you and I, even though we have a different set of values, can live together without killing each other.
And I think politics is a very active emotional debate because people And again, I'm generalizing.
People are either Democrats or Republicans, and they strongly promote that.
For example, the Republicans will say, we need a smaller government, and it needs to be fiscally conservative.
And that is a true statement.
The place where Republicans, you know, get lost is the fact that the actual Republican Party doesn't do what they claim that they're supposed to do.
Wanting a smaller, financially conservative government is a good thing, and you can stand on that principle.
But if the party that you support is not actually doing what you claim to be doing, then there is a disconnect.
And I think that's where people who consider themselves Republicans fail.
We are here on WKTPRN.com and KTAE.
Give us a call. 512-646-1984.
If I have Stefan on the air with me, I'm Frank, can you hear me?
Yes, I can. Oh, okay.
Back in, too, I think. What's that?
I'm back in, too, I think.
Stephan? Okay. Stephan, I was going to ask, you know, several people that I've talked to over my lifetime have made, you know, we'll start a conversation.
We will discover a difference of opinion on some subject.
And the person that I am talking to will sometimes resort to saying, what is true for you is not true for me.
How do you respond to a statement like that?
Well, it is, again, it's all about the definition.
Philosophy is all about the definition.
And I strongly suggest to people that you start with definition.
So, for instance, You and I, Mike, would have had different dreams last night.
I may have dreamt about an elephant.
You might have dreamt about an orange balloon.
Now, it is true for me that I dreamt about an elephant, but it's not verifiable.
There's no way to test whether I actually dreamt about an elephant last night.
So we can have our own truths about our own personal experience.
We may listen to a song.
It makes you happy and it makes me sad.
I say, I'm sad.
You say you're happy. They're true statements about our personal experience.
But when we want to say something about truth in the real world, truth between us, truth that we share, like as you said, the world is round or San Francisco is on the West Coast, when I'm not talking about a subjective experience of mine, but struggling or striving to say something that is true, In the world, then we are no longer talking about subjective things.
We're talking about real-world objective facts.
And we can't say, in reality, well, San Francisco is on the West Coast for me, but clearly it's on the East Coast for you.
I mean, that would be a non-sensical statement.
Our opinions don't change the location of San Francisco, and they don't change that which is true in the real world.
So you can't...
It's important to differentiate what people mean by truth.
Do they mean it is true that I believe this?
It is true that this is my subjective experience?
Or do they mean it is true in the real world objectively and then we can't use opinion as a basis for a statement of fact about the world?
And that gets really emotional.
I mean, I've asked people, you know, are you upset that some people run Faster than you do.
And no, that doesn't really bother them.
They know that some people have more athletic ability.
And then I'll ask, are they upset that Arnold Schwarzenegger is probably stronger than you know?
Again, people have different physical builds.
In general, men are physically bigger and more powerful than women, although there are naturally exceptions to any rule.
However, Whenever we get to this trying to establish what is true in the real world, the world is round.
San Francisco is on the West Coast.
When we try to establish those laws of physics, for example, people get really personally insulted when you suggest or you give evidence contrary To what they believe.
People are really adamant and emotional about not wanting to be wrong.
It's like, oh gosh, you made me look like an idiot.
And my response to that whenever I'm being sarcastic is, no, I didn't make you look like an idiot.
You made yourself look like an idiot.
You were the one that said babies are delivered by the stork.
I simply pointed out that your statement wasn't true.
I'm going to Kay in Florida.
Kay, good morning. Thanks for joining us this morning.
Hi, good morning.
Thank you for taking my call.
Okay, so your guest has hit on a button with me.
His what? Oh, he hit a button?
Yeah, so I am calling it because he hit a button with me.
When I went to college, I got very tired of professors.
I had two different ones.
Telling the class that women couldn't think.
Your guest made a reference to, well, women think this way and men think another.
And he did qualify it with, you know, it's a very big generality, but I would beg to differ with his viewpoint on that.
And philosophy, because of my experience in oncology, has a bad taste.
In my mouth because, again, I got very tired of being told that simply because of my gender I was illogical.
And I just want to make a very, very firm statement that I have known many men in my life who are extremely illogical.
And if you want a couple of really good examples, I would hold up our current president and our current vice president.
And go from there.
We are being led into this by some men who cannot think, who are very illogical, and I, for one, don't think that gender has anything to do with it.
Well, I want to give Stephan an opportunity.
Stephan, did you... Oh, wait a minute.
I'm not done yet, though.
Wait, I'm making a list.
I'm checking it twice. No, no, no.
Please make a list because I'm not done yet.
Go for it. Okay, so...
There's also, if you're looking at truth, there is an exact time that something takes place.
There's an exact place that it takes place.
And there are exact events that take place.
Now, the events that take place are subject to our perception of the world.
Because each one of us has a different perception.
I might look at the building in front of me and go, you know, that's a tan building.
Someone next to me might look at it and their perception might be a little bit different and they go, no, that's a black building.
You know, now who's to say is it tan or it's black?
It's our perception of the world around us.
So whenever you're talking about truth, You have to also take into consideration that each one of us has different perception.
Whether or not that building is truly black or tan, well, a bunch of us might get in agreement and go, okay, you know what?
The roof here is black.
An actual building below is tan.
And then we haven't agreed upon what we think.
And as human beings, we seem to weed out those people who disagree with us.
Right. But I also want to bring forward the point Oh, gosh, I have more to say.
Well, I'm going to cut you off, Kay.
I'm going to let you finish.
We have to go to a commercial.
We'll be gone for three minutes.
And then I want to give Stephan an opportunity to respond to some of what you said before we continue.
This is exactly the kind of conversation I want to have here on We The People Radio Network and KTAE 1330 AM Radio.
Don't go away. Online and on demand.
This is We the People Radio Network.
Everywhere around the world, they come into America.
Every time that flag's on the world, they come into America.
Got a dream to take them there.
They come into America.
Got a dream they come to share.
They come into America.
They're coming to America.
Welcome back. You are listening to Michael Badnark.
I am the defender of everybody's individual rights.
And I have a deep constitutional philosophy.
I believe in individual rights.
I believe in private property.
And I believe that the Constitution is the best way to protect that philosophy.
And every morning I point out that we are in an ideological battle between tyranny And liberty.
There is a philosophy of tyranny.
There is a philosophy of liberty.
And the two are mutually exclusive.
You cannot be free and a slave at the same time.
And I am here trying to do a radio program every Monday through Friday from 7am to 9am Central Time that is hopefully educational, entertaining, And also, as professional as possible, I want to apologize for our technical difficulties, and I want to let you know that we are in the process.
I've purchased some equipment recently.
It has not yet been delivered, but I am doing what I can to give you studio-quality sound.
We want this to be, again, as professional a program as possible.
So we are aware of our technical difficulties, and we are working desperately to try to minimize and fix those.
We have my good friend Kay online.
And Stephan, Kay has, I believe, if I understood Kay correctly, accused you of saying that women are incapable of thinking Logically.
Now, well, he didn't say that exactly, but he did say something about, well, women think differently than men, and I am in disagreement with that.
Okay. But you had a third point that you wanted to bring up, Kay, is that right?
Yes, I do. Before we go to the third point, I want to finish at least the first point on this.
Sure, sure. We can either agree or we can at least identify the area where we disagree.
So, Stephan, could you explain in a little bit more detail what you said?
Do men and women think differently?
Well, as a philosopher, I can't really say that thinking differently is a good thing, because the point is to sort of arrive at the truth, which should be a consistent thing.
So I just wanted to point out, and with all due sensitivity to UK, which I totally understand, there is this nonsense floating around that women are illogical.
I don't know if you heard the beginning, but I owe my introduction to philosophy and my lifelong interest in it to a woman, to the Russian immigrant Ayn Rand.
So it would be hard for me to say that women are illogical when my whole introduction to logic came through a woman.
So what I do believe, though, is that, and again, this is all nonsense to some degree.
It's just my subjective experience and some research that's been done in psychology.
Women do have a little bit of a shorter time preference.
Now that, to me, does not mean that women are illogical.
In fact, there are times when it is hugely desirable to have a shorter time preference.
And men, as we all know, do seem to have a bit of a tendency to talk and windbag themselves into complete inaction, you know, like philosophizing Jabba the Hutt or something.
They sit around and talk. And don't actually do as much as they should, I think, at times, because they have a near infinite time preference.
But there are things that need to be done more immediately, and I think that a woman is focused on a slightly shorter time frame than a man.
I'm not sure how significant that is, but I don't consider that to be less rational.
In fact, in many ways, I would consider that to be much more rational.
The second point that you made about looking at a tan and black building It's true, and again, this comes down to definition.
If I look at a building, and you look at the same building, and I say, that building is tan, and you say it is black, the problem that we have is definition.
What I'm saying is, I subjectively experienced that building, and it's awkward to say, but that's the fact, right?
And you say, I subjectively experienced this building as black.
The objective term, the philosophical term for color is actually wavelength, which is objectively measurable, and if you and I, whether you're colorblind or I'm not, Whether when you and I take a spectrograph and measure the wavelength of the light coming off that building, we will come to an objective fact that is not dependent on our subjective experience.
So again, when we talk about color, are we talking about our subjective experience or the objective wavelength?
And those two, I think, are very important to differentiate.
So that's my sort of response, and I'm certainly happy to hear more.
The third button that we managed to hit.
Does that make you understand where Stephan is coming from?
I still think this.
I have to say that there's a particular philosopher, his name was Immanuel Kant, who I think was very difficult to understand with German verbs, etc.
He made a statement though that there were those things that you could experience and then there were those things that were of a different level and you would never be able to experience them.
And I think he did a very big disservice to philosophy because if you can't ever know them and yet they're affecting you, well that's ridiculous.
If it's affecting you then you can know about it.
And I think that he was one of those particular people who took philosophy in a direction that went into a canyon, and there's no getting out of this canyon once it's blocked in, because he said, well, you can't know about it.
Well, that's not true.
And I think that philosophy went off in a direction away from philosophy I don't think religion should be divorced from philosophy because there are those things that can have a master's hand.
And there are those things that a person can experience and can perceive that may not necessarily be part of a universe that's built on matter, energy, space, and time.
In other words, I wanted to make the point that you had a gentleman earlier who was talking about religion and different things and I think that there is a point in philosophy where it diverged from religion.
I think science went off.
Off the rails too, and now we have science that's completely devoted to matter, energy, space, and time, and doesn't take into effect the humanities, and the humanities have to rise with science if we're going to be safe in this world.
And I think that there were some philosophies that took it in a wrong direction, and I think Immanuel Kant was one of those.
That's my opinion. Now, as far as men and women, I'm not going to say whether you're right or wrong.
All I'm going to say is that I was given a big disservice in philosophy because no matter what I did or how logical I was, I couldn't be logical because I was a woman.
It's terrible. It's very bigoted on the part of the philosophy professor.
It's not a fact-based statement.
It is destructive. It is misogynistic.
And so I completely empathize with that.
I'm sorry, Matthew, I'm very sorry.
Yeah, I agree with you, Kay.
I think that it is irrational to say that women cannot be logical.
However, I don't know if we are going to end up disagreeing, but I do think that men and women come to their conclusions differently.
That's not to say that women are good or bad, or that men are better or worse.
It's just that they are different.
I don't think that I am being...
It's unkind when I say that in general, biologically, men tend to be physically bigger and stronger than women.
It's an observation on my point.
I'm not attempting to belittle women when I say that.
In fact, my personal philosophy It says that, you know, I do tend to be bigger and more powerful than women, and as I was growing up, my brothers and I were taught manners, and part of my responsibility is to use my superior size and strength to protect women, you know, in public, even if I don't know them.
I mean, if I'm walking down the sidewalk and I see a woman being accosted, you know, I will jump to her defense.
I mean, it's just part of being a Boy Scout.
It's part of being a gentleman.
and so again the the ultimate question is what is reality and and our perceptions and we should make sure that we don't We don't try to make our perceptions, whether the building is black or can, a statement of fact or not.
And there is this distinction.
We are here on WTPRN and KTAE 1330 AM radio.
Please give us a call, 512-646-1984.
Jump into the conversation.
We need you. Everywhere around the world They come into America Every time that flag's unfurled They come into America Got a dream to take them there They come into America Got a dream they come to share They come into America They're coming to America.
Welcome back. You are listening to Michael Badnark.
I am your navigator back to the land of the free and also your philosophical guide back to logic and rationality.
We are both looking for the correct answer and we are studying philosophy, the tool that we use, the thought process that we use.
To see if, to the best of our ability, we can determine what is actually true.
I'm going to Rebecca in Oklahoma.
Rebecca, sit us straight.
How are we off the mark here?
Well, I'm not sure I'm going to set you straight, but I will just share with you my you.
And it's based on the New Testament.
I'm glad Kay brought up religion and philosophy, and they're talking science.
And I've only listened to probably the last five minutes of your conversation, but it was so exciting I had to call and interject.
I think the movement that the New Testament talks about away from the carnal nature and into a spiritual nature, and it's not religious to me, because I was agnostic.
I was brought up biblically.
I walked away, was agnostic for 15, 17 years, and I'm now back into a faith walk.
A belief system based on the New Testament biblical principles.
And it interjects all the time into politics.
I don't separate those two either.
But anyway, when we walk in spirit and in truth, and that phrase happens several times in the New Testament, Then what I believe he talks about, in heaven there is no male or female.
He talks about, you know, it talks about in the New Testament, there's a body of Christ.
There are differences.
We all have talent, skills, and abilities that we've been given by our Creator.
It's up to us to discover what those are and then use them to...
You know, to the glory of creation.
Regardless of gender, religion, regardless of color, race, or anything, to me he wiped all of that out.
And what he interjected was spirit and truth.
And so if that's what motivates us, then I think all of us should wipe out Gender differences and stuff like that.
That way, we're thinking according to what I think we need to move towards, which is in spirit and in truth.
I think that it is a good thing.
It is a desirable goal to try to work together to discover the truth.
Do you and I agree on that?
Absolutely. And I think part of our problem, part of the reason that we have difficulty establishing, quote, the truth, end quote, is because in the process of looking for it, we come up with things.
You know, my friend Kay called in, and I think it's because she misinterpreted a statement that Stephan made about men and women thinking differently.
Do you think that men and women have a different, kind of a genetically, sexually derived difference in thought process?
I don't think in the thought process, no.
I think we're physically, genetically, physically we're different.
But I really don't think when I boil down, you know, from looking back on all my experiences between, you know, brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, friends, you know, more intimate relationships and everything like that, when I really take a hard look at all of those experiences I've had, I think the differences only lie in our talents, skills and abilities.
I mean there's a lot of You know, I've known men that are very effeminate.
I've known women that are more masculine than feminine.
But that doesn't detract.
I don't want that to detract from where their spirit and their heart is.
And so, you know, I don't know.
You know, I think the difference of a woman being able to bear a child, you know, and birth a child, yes, that is definitely a distinction, but it's a difference.
Not a polar opposite kind of thing.
I don't like polar opposites.
I like to move towards unity.
And whenever we talk about, you know, gender or race or color or creed, we're creating kind of, you know, the dualism that I want to get away from.
Anyway. So there is a book, Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus.
And so then you would disagree with that.
You don't believe that men and women are...
Mentally or emotionally different.
That each individual has various aspects of their thought process and their personal philosophy that identifies them individually, but that we should not make generalizations based on a person's gender.
I agree fully.
And I did read that book.
I wanted to read that book because I wanted to discover What makes us all tick, especially in the male-female paradigm.
And so I did read that book.
And once again, even adding that to my repertoire of studies and information and experience, I still believe that, yeah, we need to move away from any sort of dualistic thinking, you know, of polar opposites and just recognize we're all different.
We are all different.
We are all unique in our creation, you know?
So generalization, I move away from generalization many a time.
I don't like that. I'm going to go to Sal in New York.
Sal, we've got a political and emotional debate here.
Do men and women think differently, and what information would you use to support your conclusion?
I'm putting you on the spot here.
In other respects, they don't.
I think some of it comes from their training.
But inherently, women do have the tendency to have the nurturing aspect over men.
The one reason why I call was to bring up the physical difference between men and women that you discussed in terms of men having the strength.
And there is a physical difference between men and women.
Michael, Stefan, put your arms out and look at how your arms are straight.
If you take a look at a woman's arm, you'll notice that they generally point outwards.
And there's a reason for that.
As the previous woman mentioned, women give birth.
And the stress in childbirth needs to have the bones curved at the joints.
In order to handle the stress of childbirth, and that's why they're physically different and why they can't compete with men.
So there is a physical difference, and I believe also because of their childbearing, there is an emotional difference.
But men do cry.
I have. I'm not ashamed to admit it, and men do have emotional feelings.
I think they're taught differently Over the course of their lives as to how to act which adds to To why there's these differences between men and women?
Okay, I mean we all seem to agree that there are physical differences you know women give birth men do not and we can point to various physical aspects and And I think that we have...
One philosophy that says that these physical, biological differences creates a tendency in women to approach life from a particular point of view that is different from men.
So far this morning, I believe, if I understand correctly, Kay and Rebecca suggest that there is no fundamental difference in the way that...
You know men and women approach life that there is no difference among the philosophy and I suppose if I'm going to be brave I need to go on record as saying that I believe there is a difference in the way that men and women think I'm not saying that that is a bad difference.
I love women My mother is one of my favorite people.
She taught me to read. She taught me to have passion for life My mother is my best friend.
We talk on the phone Almost every single day, whenever I have time.
And it's not to say that, you know, women are bad.
I like women.
It's just that in many cases, I just have to admit that I don't get it.
I don't understand. And I frequently would say, you know, I'm sorry, ladies.
I'm only a guy. I don't understand how you come to that conclusion.
I'm not saying that your conclusion is wrong.
It's just that I don't understand it.
And... So, we're talking about philosophy, not necessarily men and women.
All that's where the conversation is gravitated.
We are here on We The People Radio Network.
Oh my goodness, the time is up!
Stephan, I want to thank you for joining me.
I didn't realize this was our final break.
Well, thank you very much.
Just if you could mention the website again, I'd appreciate it.
Thank you so much for the invitation, and I've always enjoyed chatting with your listeners, so I appreciate that as well.
The website is Free Domain Radio.
You can go to our archive, WTPRN.com.
We had so much fun.
The program disappeared.
I didn't know it. Join us again tomorrow.
I'll be here at 7 a.m.
▲
Export Selection