611–620 of 640 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would love to hear more about the mind of brands/foods you ate with no sugar. I’ve attempted this before and it’s extremely hard to find products with 0 sugar! Guessing you avoided the local Tesco?
Rice, meat, potatoes, eggs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not all conversion therapy is forced on people. I suspect the vast majority is voluntary. I also would not be surprised if it increases, rather than diminishes, homosexuality. Interventions can have counter-intuitive effects.
I suspect the vast majority is voluntary. I find that a questionable assertion. A lot of therapy is pursued because someone is being given the message by a great many people around them "You are broken and you need to go get yourself fixed" in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. It's really rather hard to achieve a mental state of "I am going to therapy because I choose it for my benefit because I want this." A lot of peo…
As opposed to the patient being physically forced to be there and having no desire to be converted.
I think the contextual factors, like what is causing the patient to want to be converted, are not relevant to how effective the therapy would be. This is not to say that those factors are not generally important, for other reasons.
I think it's important not to just assume everything that is being done for the wrong reasons, is ineffective. It can be mentally comforting to believe that consequences of malevolent actions are always negative, and that argument can also be used to create public support against those malevolent forces, but I think the fallacies that get built up over time from this kind of wishful thinking undermine the objective and scientific foundations of perception that society needs to collectively reason about and tackle its major challenges, which tend to be extremely complex and necessitate more than just compassion/good-intentions to solve.
I went to glass containers for food storage and transfer food out of plastic packaging as soon as possible. Precocious puberty: I had a mental health hit (near collapse) from something that happened in my mid 20's. I started dating the stepdaughter of a neighbor (upper-middle class area) who said she was 19, and she definitely seemed it by being smart, chill, age-mature, sensible, and fully-developed (Tanner V). Lo a…
If they look under 30 ask for ID. ID could be fake so get to know family friends and story too. I think a few good questions about life could spot a 12 year old from a 19 too.
It would take a really good liar to be able to pass for a 19 year old at 12 years old. You'd have to weave a really complex web of lies around being almost out of high school (I'm not American so not sure if this is true), drinking, driving. At 19 your life is so different, I find it very hard to believe, except if she's some highly intelligent sociopath.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not exactly true. VHF can cause ocular issues due to heat buildup under the right circumstances. You can have this issue with extended use at relatively low power (<100 watts) if the distance is close (think ham sitting next to their antenna).
This is thermal heating which is the very well known mechanism for non ionizing radiation to affect the body (microwave oven cooking). Cell phones put out about 1000 times less power than your 100w ham radio. Which in itself is not enough to cause ocular heating damage unless perhaps it was within inches of your eye, I have never seen a case of it caused at that power level please point me to citations. Remember thes…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is thermal heating which is the very well known mechanism for non ionizing radiation to affect the body (microwave oven cooking). Cell phones put out about 1000 times less power than your 100w ham radio. Which in itself is not enough to cause ocular heating damage unless perhaps it was within inches of your eye, I have never seen a case of it caused at that power level please point me to citations. Remember thes…
I understand all that (except you are confusing laser damage with heat damage). The prior comment was saying that non-ionizing radiation is harmless unless next to a radio tower, which isn't true.
Radio waves are much lower frequency and therefore the ONLY KNOWN mechanisms for biological activity is thermal but you seem to dispute that.
And yes it is true you will not get significant ocular heating unless next to a high power radio tower. This will not occur a 100w ham radio levels as you said and certainly won't occur from cell phones 3 orders of magnitude lower than that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get what you’re saying but I don’t think that’s what’s happening here at all. His main statement is that there’s an biological explanation which is perfectly comprehensible. Backing it with a link instead of stating the explanation himself may be preferable but that doesn’t mean he did it to shut anyone down or that it should have that affect.
I understand that and I really really want to believe them. But this biological explanation could be obvious (to a biologist) or could be heavily controversial (among biologists). A reputable source would be helpful for us the non-biologist to know that this is either common knowledge or this is the SOTA, recent breakthrough, or simply disputed theory. That's what I was trying to say. Cheers.
Sometimes it will be useful to provide appeals to authority as a shortcut to skeptical verification of internet facts, but it seems wrong to attack the fundamental basis of clear communication - asserting a clear and concrete statement that enables you to independently check if it's true or who thinks the same.
We can't go around the internet citation-needing every statement; you should find the equilibrium of faith-disbelief-verification that works for you, that's the only thing that scales.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they look under 30 ask for ID. ID could be fake so get to know family friends and story too. I think a few good questions about life could spot a 12 year old from a 19 too.
> I think a few good questions about life could spot a 12 year old from a 19 too. It would take a really good liar to be able to pass for a 19 year old at 12 years old. You'd have to weave a really complex web of lies around being almost out of high school (I'm not American so not sure if this is true), drinking, driving. At 19 your life is so different, I find it very hard to believe, except if she's some highly int…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suspect the vast majority is voluntary. I find that a questionable assertion. A lot of therapy is pursued because someone is being given the message by a great many people around them "You are broken and you need to go get yourself fixed" in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. It's really rather hard to achieve a mental state of "I am going to therapy because I choose it for my benefit because I want this." A lot of peo…
I meant voluntary in the sense that the patient wants to be there and wants to be converted. As opposed to the patient being physically forced to be there and having no desire to be converted. I think the contextual factors, like what is causing the patient to want to be converted, are not relevant to how effective the therapy would be. This is not to say that those factors are not generally important, for other reas…
While in our early to mid twenties, my husband and I both ended up in therapy individually plus couples counseling. He was very introverted and hated talking to a therapist.
One day I told him "You don't have to go to therapy. Therapy is a means to an end and it's okay if it isn't your cup of tea. I just want our marriage to be better and I don't care how that happens."
He promptly quit both therapy for himself and couples counseling and was promptly a better husband. I never asked how he pulled that off and I never once threw it in his face that he quit or told him he should have continued for some reason. I got what I wanted out of it -- my marriage worked better, in spite of us both having issues -- and I had meant what I said.
For psychological and emotional stuff, intent and context can make a big difference. I typically think of this in terms of "The definition of rape hinges on the detail of consent. If you want it and agree to it, we call it making love and if it is done against your will we call it rape."
Making love is a very positive experience. Being raped is a very negative and scarring experience.
They don't necessarily look all that different in the details of what happens. People tend to imagine rape is some violent event perpetrated by some random stranger and that's mostly not how it happens.
The big difference is consent. And it makes all the difference.
I do not have a simple nor naive view of life. I'm well aware people are complex and life is not black or white nor even shades of grey. It's a highly technicolor experience and sometimes making the hard choice is a positive and sometimes something being forced upon is takes us where we need to go, though it's not a path we would have chosen.
But for something like how you feel about your own sexuality and express your own sexuality and relate to your own sexuality, I'm quite clear that it makes a big difference if you really wanted it or if it you "chose" it because all of the world had a gun pointed at your head and "choosing" this was presented to you as the lesser evil compared to what the world will do to you if you don't choose it.
I was homeless for some years and I still write about homelessness. I started a project for general support for the LGBTQ crowd because they are at such inordinately high risk of homelessness.
Having spent years homeless while a whole lot of people stood around and went "Meh. Not my problem. Get a real job." while I watched other people get support that got them off the street and kept them off the street (from the same people being ugly to me) I don't have to imagine the kind of pressure the LGBTQ crowd is subjected to regarding how unacceptable they are and how literally life threatening that can be in quietly prosaic evil ways.
I'm not straight but I'm very hetero passing. So I'm not unacquainted with the process of examining my own sexual orientation and wondering what that means and so forth.
Anyway, it's a subject I've thought a lot about and that's my take. This is not intended to be argumentative per se. It's intended as conversational, though it can be hard to adequately convey that online due in part to a lack of voice tone, body language and other important cues.
I hope you have a great day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are technically correct, but also missing the point. It's like saying an alcoholic can still responsibly drink by stopping at one.
Re-read what I said. If abstinence is what you need then go for it. That's not the point I was making.
While you do caveat things in your second comment, both your original and second comment basically minimize the OPs "not even one" stance, even calling it "nonsense". Replacing everything you say with alcohol shows the disconnect; you wouldn't say similar things to an alcoholic who said "alcohol makes you intoxicated", saying that's nonsense (since there are plenty of substances that can make you intoxicated) and then proceed to tell them that one drink is fine.