Are we as humans created with the innate need to be gregarious (-tending to associate with others of one's kind) creatures? On such issues, when finding yourself in an argument with another, it is best to avoid the most prevailing logical fallacy (-which is simply a common term in philosophy that denotes an illogical starting point for a belief) known as the ad-hominem logical fallacy. The ad-hominem (-appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect) logical fallacy is “speaking against the person,” or when you counterattack by focusing on the person alone instead of the meritoriousness of the argument itself. This is an easy trap for us all to fall into. Along with this highly seductive lure, there is yet another. When we defensively hold arguments that codify our own sensitiveness by excusing ourselves from legitimate criticisms in pointing out the other person is guilty of the same, it always seems to turn out somewhat differently than what one anticipates from a tacit exclusionary censure (-a judgment involving condemnation). What's really going on? There is always something we hide, even from ourselves. Any train of thought always loses its credentials in a particular state of affairs if even vaguely nonsocial imagery invades our thinking. We must always think of others. This is the discomforting humanistic truth on which the attribution to healthful reality rightfully exists, despite any other way of thinking that claims to be an insight. It seems to me that an unsymmetrical act of copulation with opposing abstract conceptual thought survives here only to suspend "reason" altogether. Never find yourself married to an unhealthy idea. Never avoid asking, and then answering the hard questions of yourself. And right behind every question lies yet another. This process is unending, and for good reason. It keeps us thinking. And this is not a peculiar state of affairs, it is the way we were created and thus must be.