I'm pretty sure that I am hearing your arguments, but not sure they're counter to what I proposed.

I proposed that logic has to be learned. You're saying that adults can do logic. This seems consistent or at least not inconsistent with my proposition.

I propose that reasoning skills need to be practiced. You're saying, again, that people use reasons to do things, even if those reasons are illogical, though often-times people can reason through simple tasks. Again, this doesn't seem inconsistent with the proposition that reasoning skills need to be practiced.

I said that neither is true in order to possess emotions, and I don't see any counter argument from you suggesting such. You are going on about emotional control, and I'm not making any statements about emotional control, so I don't disagree on principle.

I concede that some level of reasoning is present or at least emergent in small children, but I suggest that it is a faulty system which forces false conclusions and over-generalizes and simplifies things... 'cause a 2-year old doesn't place a high value on reason. I'm suggesting that said 2-year old does many things without any active thought process or reasoning, and that all too many adults are much the same.

I'm saying that being impulsive and acting without reason doesn't need to be learned, but self-discipline and reason do need to be learned.


(Forgive me if I'm a bit dense today. I'm just under the weather.)