talse 0 Report post Posted February 26, 2005 i don't it was so much out of malovolence that they developed this distaste for one another, but a lack of definition of them selves.see, a long time ago people defined there cultures by not being the other person. sort of like everyone, and i mean everyone was one of those non-conformists cause they didn't want to be like the others, not because they felt like bing different.like they were defined by not being them. ambiguity intended. you know, so it can be applied to a wide variety of circumstances. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
agentmax 0 Report post Posted February 26, 2005 Maybe not even that long ago. A century or 2 ago, all those politcal parties which were just the majority party plus Anti-. Such as Federalists and Anti-Federalists, Democratic-Republican into Democratic and Whigs... there's more I can't remember, but I think it's fairly common to define yourself by what you're not. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
talse 0 Report post Posted March 1, 2005 that is an inherently dangerous and destructive method of definition though. i mean, if your definition is the antithesis of X, if you carry that ot its logical extent, your end goal is to destroy X. This leads to unnessesary conflict. i always find it so weird when people define themselves merely as the opposite of another person, it's so selling yourself short, to think you can only be a mirror or shadow of a person. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
