The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
is it just me, or do other people do it too?
Page:
Iccy:
1. Im not defending it.
2. I am an ex-cutter
3. Im guessung you've never cut as you've shown little understanding of it, which would surely only strengthen my point. If you have cut, then Im very surprised at the lack of understanding, unless of course you're one of the people you refer to.
1. Im not defending it.
2. I am an ex-cutter
3. Im guessung you've never cut as you've shown little understanding of it, which would surely only strengthen my point. If you have cut, then Im very surprised at the lack of understanding, unless of course you're one of the people you refer to.
Haldisa wrote:
> I think self harming is one of those things that you dont understand
> until you've done it yourself. Ive come across very few people that
> havent done it that say they understand why someone would do it.
That's like saying, "I have a problem, but you can't understand because I'm black and you're white!!111"; a substantial number of these knife hobbyists have problems, know that there are solutions to their troubles but actually withdraw from taking upon these changes because right now they feel some exclusivity; part of a closed membership that they dare not venture out of because doing so would just makes them "normal" again. And who wants to be *just* normal in a world filled with 6 billion of the same species, eh?
More proof of this is the way those who constantly defend this stupid activity always fall back on the same, overarching reason: "you haven't cut yourself, so you wouldn't understand".
You're actually defending this action, defending why cutting yourself should be accepted. A genuine slicer who genuinely wants to stop doing harm to themselves are not likely to defend the act of cutting themselves, more looking at ways to finding a long term solution.
> I think self harming is one of those things that you dont understand
> until you've done it yourself. Ive come across very few people that
> havent done it that say they understand why someone would do it.
That's like saying, "I have a problem, but you can't understand because I'm black and you're white!!111"; a substantial number of these knife hobbyists have problems, know that there are solutions to their troubles but actually withdraw from taking upon these changes because right now they feel some exclusivity; part of a closed membership that they dare not venture out of because doing so would just makes them "normal" again. And who wants to be *just* normal in a world filled with 6 billion of the same species, eh?
More proof of this is the way those who constantly defend this stupid activity always fall back on the same, overarching reason: "you haven't cut yourself, so you wouldn't understand".
You're actually defending this action, defending why cutting yourself should be accepted. A genuine slicer who genuinely wants to stop doing harm to themselves are not likely to defend the act of cutting themselves, more looking at ways to finding a long term solution.
lcarus wrote:
> Ah right. Research is good, patronising those while getting paid is
> just wrong. Though there's some crossover involved, huh?
Kinda, but a psychologist isn't going to be dishing out medical advice relating to mental health.
> Ah right. Research is good, patronising those while getting paid is
> just wrong. Though there's some crossover involved, huh?
Kinda, but a psychologist isn't going to be dishing out medical advice relating to mental health.
Light wrote:
>
> Sorry, I should have made this clear; she's not a psychiatrist (the
> lie-down-on-the-couch, 'tell me about your mother' sort) but a
> psychologist (someone who happens to work in the field of mental
> health; covers everything from research, to working with autistic
> kids, to working on a mental health ward).
Ah right. Research is good, patronising those while getting paid is just wrong. Though there's some crossover involved, huh?
>
> Sorry, I should have made this clear; she's not a psychiatrist (the
> lie-down-on-the-couch, 'tell me about your mother' sort) but a
> psychologist (someone who happens to work in the field of mental
> health; covers everything from research, to working with autistic
> kids, to working on a mental health ward).
Ah right. Research is good, patronising those while getting paid is just wrong. Though there's some crossover involved, huh?
lcarus wrote:
> Light wrote:
>
> I know what you mean, but think of it this way; how much easier is
> it
> to help people sort out their lives than it is to sort out your own?
> How many times have you given advice to someone that you could have
> done with following yourself?
>
>
> I guess so, but in those cases they're usually with friends;
> informal, free, and probably rather amateur-ish advice. With a
> professional, a "client" would expect (along with the
> professional advice taken from books and delivered depending on the
> person) a sort of role model they could look up to; someone on the
> "other side" of sanity.
Sorry, I should have made this clear; she's not a psychiatrist (the lie-down-on-the-couch, 'tell me about your mother' sort) but a psychologist (someone who happens to work in the field of mental health; covers everything from research, to working with autistic kids, to working on a mental health ward).
And believe me, with some of the people she worked with, she must have seemed a paragon of sanity. Almost every psychologist i've ever met is quite clearly a mental. More so than most of their patients/test subjects. Although I do have a soft spot for the autistic kid who decided to pour a bottle of bubble bath into the cistern of the staff toilet for a laugh.
Anyway, like I say; good at her job, utterly rubbish at her life.
> Light wrote:
>
> I know what you mean, but think of it this way; how much easier is
> it
> to help people sort out their lives than it is to sort out your own?
> How many times have you given advice to someone that you could have
> done with following yourself?
>
>
> I guess so, but in those cases they're usually with friends;
> informal, free, and probably rather amateur-ish advice. With a
> professional, a "client" would expect (along with the
> professional advice taken from books and delivered depending on the
> person) a sort of role model they could look up to; someone on the
> "other side" of sanity.
Sorry, I should have made this clear; she's not a psychiatrist (the lie-down-on-the-couch, 'tell me about your mother' sort) but a psychologist (someone who happens to work in the field of mental health; covers everything from research, to working with autistic kids, to working on a mental health ward).
And believe me, with some of the people she worked with, she must have seemed a paragon of sanity. Almost every psychologist i've ever met is quite clearly a mental. More so than most of their patients/test subjects. Although I do have a soft spot for the autistic kid who decided to pour a bottle of bubble bath into the cistern of the staff toilet for a laugh.
Anyway, like I say; good at her job, utterly rubbish at her life.
Light wrote:
> I know what you mean, but think of it this way; how much easier is it
> to help people sort out their lives than it is to sort out your own?
> How many times have you given advice to someone that you could have
> done with following yourself?
>
I guess so, but in those cases they're usually with friends; informal, free, and probably rather amateur-ish advice. With a professional, a "client" would expect (along with the professional advice taken from books and delivered depending on the person) a sort of role model they could look up to; someone on the "other side" of sanity.
> I know what you mean, but think of it this way; how much easier is it
> to help people sort out their lives than it is to sort out your own?
> How many times have you given advice to someone that you could have
> done with following yourself?
>
I guess so, but in those cases they're usually with friends; informal, free, and probably rather amateur-ish advice. With a professional, a "client" would expect (along with the professional advice taken from books and delivered depending on the person) a sort of role model they could look up to; someone on the "other side" of sanity.
I like the idea of it if i was getting advice i would like them to be a little unstable. That way if they probe too far i can push them over the edge and not have to pay the outragous fees.
But it would also mean that they could understand where i am coming from.
But it would also mean that they could understand where i am coming from.
what had you done to them ?
Somebody burned me with their fag up at the bar once.
lcarus wrote:
> Does anyone else find this seriously wrong, as in a psychologist who
> is qualified in dishing out advice to unstable people is just as
> mentally whacko as they are?
I know what you mean, but think of it this way; how much easier is it to help people sort out their lives than it is to sort out your own? How many times have you given advice to someone that you could have done with following yourself?
To be uncharacteristically fair to her, she's very good at her job. She's just rubbish at her life.
> Does anyone else find this seriously wrong, as in a psychologist who
> is qualified in dishing out advice to unstable people is just as
> mentally whacko as they are?
I know what you mean, but think of it this way; how much easier is it to help people sort out their lives than it is to sort out your own? How many times have you given advice to someone that you could have done with following yourself?
To be uncharacteristically fair to her, she's very good at her job. She's just rubbish at her life.
Page: