Barometer3689

joined 2 years ago
[–] Barometer3689 7 points 3 days ago

Emotional problems often require solutions that work on the emotion level. In my experience, trying to self it yourself sets you up to try to solve it with rationality. But that often does not work, because the problem is not rational in nature.

This is where a therapist helps. It helps you to solve the problem at the emotional level. That is something a person cannot do by themselves. Asking for help is way easier than trying to do it all yourself.

I personally benefit a lot from https://healthygamer.gg/ as a stopgap measure. I still needed actual therapy, but this helped me through the rough times.

[–] Barometer3689 19 points 3 days ago (21 children)

jesus I feel old, and I am only in my 30s. I remember not having apt. How young are linux users nowadays?

[–] Barometer3689 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

deciding what others can or cannot do is a whole other moral discussion.

[–] Barometer3689 1 points 6 months ago

Cause then it is no longer connected to your body? Why would the same logic apply here? I am confused what argument you are trying to make

[–] Barometer3689 1 points 6 months ago

I disagree on that. It is a example of the emergency room variation of the trolley problem, as can be read further on here: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem?wprov=sfti1#Variations

[–] Barometer3689 1 points 6 months ago

Yup in practice it is probably less risky and less invasive to do it early for the host. But that is a separate question. I thought you meant to question the classic “when would it be considered murder” so that is what I responded to.

[–] Barometer3689 11 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (11 children)

To answer your question. They consider the argument of “where do you draw the line” to be a red herring.

Consider the following: if a person is in need for a kidney transplant, or else he would die, would it be ethical to force someone to donate their kidney against their will? I think not.

Same applies to abortions. You are being forced to feed a parasitic being in your body, a being that destroys your body in the process. And not having an option to abort would be to take away your bodily autonomy.

As for the line, I think that the person making that choice is the one that draws that line. It is not for us to decide.

[–] Barometer3689 9 points 1 year ago (4 children)

It just means that they called their browser “the internet” right? Or am I missing something here?

[–] Barometer3689 9 points 1 year ago

Lol I know that place. Funny finding it on here.

[–] Barometer3689 7 points 1 year ago

I mean, I would technically still be welcome there. But no longer believing does mean I can’t really feel connected with that group. And thus losing community. Maybe “trapped” was a strong word to use here, but trying to discuss the flaws was just met with equally flawed arguments. Just look up the “five mindfulness trainings” from plum village and it should be easy to see how they can become problematic when followed to the letter.

[–] Barometer3689 21 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I have been on both sides on this. I was trapped in a Buddhist group. Considering that the teachings where flawed or wrong would basically mean that I would lose out on that community. Believe me, the sense of belonging can be euphoric in a religion.

Of course, changing your view in isolation is quite easy. It becomes harder when a big part of your life requires you to believe.

Also, when I was younger my need to “be right “ was quite strong. I had severe self confidence issues, so “being right” was the one thing I latched on to. Admitting being wrong gets really hard once your self confidence is that shaky.

I am doing much better now.

[–] Barometer3689 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It is very easy to get hooked on a toxic ideology when you are desperate. No need to judge so harshly.

view more: next ›