This isn’t a stretch. I’ve been on the inside of inpatient, been to 12 step, have alcoholic relatives (every direct male relative), and this is typical.
I personally am fine. But if this isn’t exactly how an alcoholic acts, I will eat all the trilbys on Etsy.
They’re equally bullshit, so that’s probably why.
They managed to formalize this business model, but by far aren’t the ones who came with it.
The second in line is the self-help books industry:
You don’t need to be a psychic to see that one coming.
I think his personal responsibility comment tied into the idea of the $718,000 dollars. I’d say you’re talking past one another a bit.
I am not going to lecture you about addiction. $718k to an addict has as much in relation to personal responsibility as a banana does to the Hubble telescope.
Addiction is, by definition, the lack of control. And with an article so clearly indicating addiction as a cause, citing personal responsibility is akin to telling a depressed person to Just Cheer Up.
I think the issue is when you use words like “intuition” and “energy” (and not in the way that a physicist would use “energy”) you are indeed appealing to hocus pocus/magic.
Furthermore, [quote=“Sjeka_Groves, post:48, topic:74443”]
The reason no one has been able to prove psychic ability has nothing to do with it not existing and everything to do with trying to manipulate it. Doesn’t work that way…
[/quote]
Yeah, that’s the whole thing behind well designed double blinded studies… If designed well enough (and that’s another debate entirely), there’s no “trying to manipulate”, simply recording results to show whether or not there’s any quantifiable difference between it and a null state.
Until you can prove that something exists, sane people will question and challenge all your vague claims. This goes for woo counseling, woo healing, perpetual energy machines, etc…
Did you see the following 4 sentences, because they’re a lecture. Lie to yourself all day, but please don’t contradict yourself towards me and tell me you’re not being a bit fighty.
Next you’ll tell me you’re not talking down to me, or on any sort of high horse at all? Then you’ll be doing someone a favor with the whole thing? Been there.
A lecture is longer >:) (why yes, as you know, I am a bit of an ass).
You and I, we aren’t fighting. I don’t even think we are disagreeing that much. Topics such as these will bring out passionate japhroaig and not funny japhroaig, as I am too close to the source material.
Speaking as a cancer survivor who made active choices and participated fully, and am now officially in remission – and know many others who were just as vigilant but did not make it – I’d say your distinction is nonexistent.
There are genetic markers that make one more susceptible to addiction. How is that any different than having genetic markers for cancer?
And what about people who “choose” to work in environments that later turn out to be cancer-causing? Are they responsible for their affliction, too?
That is true. Absolutely. That is how psychics ply their trade.
I see, I should check my privilege; e.g. I don’t have a gambling problem but I believe that more than a few individuals have lost millions.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
