#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Who needs counselling? I can help..
Add New Argument |
1
point
You are such an asshole. How do you figure out what the problem is if it isn't there to be observed? You for sure 200% said that. Instead of avoiding the questions, why don't you correct the question and answer the corrected question? All you have done here is shown that you hate the English language and that you like being wrong. I answered your question. At some point you have to explain what problem you have with my answer and not just that you have a problem with my answer. Notice how in this debate you have identified that you don't like my answers, but you have not identified what you don't like about my answers. The first step is saying that you don't like my answers, and the second step is explaining why you don't like my answers. Just like I originally claimed. You answered with information that I wasn't asking for. I wasn't asking for you to explain what you meant by "identify". Notice how in this debate you have identified that you don't like my answers Which is identifying the problem. First step. , but you have not identified what you don't like about my answers. Uhh, what? What part of any thing that I've posted indicates this? The first step is saying that you don't like my answers, Which I'll only do after figuring out that I don't like your answers. and the second step is explaining why you don't like my answers. And which step is this on "the road to recovery"? Just like I originally claimed. No. Sorry. It doesn't match up. Now, I will retranslate my question, to keep from going off track like you usually do. How can someone admit that something is there, if they haven't first identified it's existence? This isn't me claiming that it's possible. I am quite sure that it is impossible, but you must provide an argument that substantiates it's possibility, to prove that, admitting the problem comes before identifying it. I'm quite certain that it can't be done. You answered with information that I wasn't asking for. I wasn't asking for you to explain what you meant by "identify". What were you asking for? Explain how I did not answer your question. Stop telling me I didn't answer your question. I understand that you think I didn't answer your question. What I don't understand is how you think I didn't answer your question. Which is identifying the problem. That isn't identifying the problem. All you have said is that you don't like my answers. The problem would be exactly what is wrong with my answers. What part of any thing that I've posted indicates this? You haven't given me an actual reason for what is wrong with my answers. The reason for my answers being wrong is the problem to identify. Which I'll only do after figuring out that I don't like your answers. If you figured it out why can't you state exactly what you figured out? And which step is this on "the road to recovery"? Ok, let's go back. What is the extent of figuring out that you have a problem originally in the road to recovery? Can you describe what your first step to recovery entails? What were you asking for? Explain how I did not answer your question. Stop telling me I didn't answer your question. I understand that you think I didn't answer your question. What I don't understand is how you think I didn't answer your question. What I was asking for is still their. Reread it. I did explain. Did you not read the second sentence that you CP&B;? That isn't identifying the problem. All you have said is that you don't like my answers. The problem would be exactly what is wrong with my answers. No. That's why it's a problem. You haven't given me an actual reason for what is wrong with my answers. The reason for my answers being wrong is the problem to identify. If that is true, it still does not mean that I didn't identify first. It only means that I didn't state the reasons. If you figured it out why can't you state exactly what you figured out? But I did state it. What I haven't stated is why you misunderstood the question. It's likely that i need to do a brain scan on you to figure that out. Can you describe what your first step to recovery entails? That one must figure out what their problem is. By figuring out the problem they can start the process of figuring out how to solve it. But you can't admit to a problem if you don't know what the problem is, because what are you admitting to? Nothing as far as you know because you havnt identified anything... I figured out what the problem is. We have vastly different idea of "figure out" and "identify". I have a much stricter concept of figuring things out. What you consider figuring out I would call sensing. In that case you would have to sense the problem before admitting it is there. So the issue was your misinterpretation of my word usage. No. I am not admitting that I was using "figure out" in the sense of "sensing". You can't know if you're sensing a problem until you've analyzed what you're sensing. I was using "figure out" as, analyzing then coming to the right conclusion. We've now figured out the problem(1st step) and admitted that there is a problem( 2nd step). Now the 3rd step is figuring out how to prevent it from happening again. That is extremely fallacious as you know the context by which he means 'problem'- and you do not expect to figure out a psychological condition that inherently deludes your reality. Secondly, you do not get 'counseled' for schizophrenia- you get medication and therapy. The proper example to use with respect to this debate would be someone with a problem such as a drug addict, sex addict, alcoholic, pedophile etc. (Note: You can still employ his categorical solving method even with schizophrenia (in some cases). For example, if I claim to see figures that no one else sees, and this happens much too frequently, herein lies an implicit problem that can be acknowledged and self-reported.) That is extremely fallacious as you know the context by which he means 'problem'- No, I do not. I have no idea what you guys mean by problem. I asked you for clarification, but instead you accuse me of fallacies. Secondly, you do not get 'counseled' for schizophrenia- you get medication and therapy. We are talking about the general road to recovery. The proper example to use with respect to this debate would be someone with a problem such as a drug addict, sex addict, alcoholic, pedophile etc. Oh. I wasn't thinking about that. Thanks for finally trying to explain something. Obviously can't get that from 31337. For example, if I claim to see figures that no one else sees, and this happens much too frequently, herein lies an implicit problem that can be acknowledged and self-reported. But, the underlying problem is not that you see things. The underlying problem is Schizophrenia, which you don't know about. Thank you very much for explaining your point of view. I didn't have any idea what you were talking about. But, the underlying problem is not that you see things. The underlying problem is Schizophrenia, which you don't know about. We are only referring to the problem in itself- it is irrelevant, at least for his categorical solving method, what the cause of the problem is. For example, I may not know about necrophilia, but I know I cannot stop perverse thoughts about having sex with a corpse; the point is, I figured out the problem, and know I can get help (which would include a diagnosis). is. For example, I may not know about necrophilia, but I know I cannot stop perverse thoughts about having sex with a corpse; the point is, I figured out the problem, and know I can get help (which would include a diagnosis). But, you haven't figured anything out. How is sensing that you are necrophiliac figuring out anything? That's like saying I figured out the sky looks blue. Once it's known that the average person does not fantasize about such things (sex with corpses) you have figured out that you have a problem. --- [Man walks into a therapist's office] Therapist: What seem to be the problem sir? Necrophiliac: I am addicted to the idea of having sex with corpses. - What more is there to figure out? I was thinking that figuring out meant learning something new about yourself that needs fixing. I forgot about having to learn about yourself over the course of your life. Aren't you saying that the first step to getting better is to have something wrong with you, though? In your example they still need to figure out what is causing the necrophilia, and that was the problem I thought we were talking about. 1
point
1
point
1
point
3
points
1
point
1
point
While you support 'innocent until proven guilty' it is actually more true to say that people are 'guilty until proven innocent'. Think about it for a minute, cases are solved by eliminating who could have done it, not by seeking out each person on Earth and seeing if they were 'not innocent'. 1
point
1
point
They are not legally bound by the same regulations or burdens of proof. The police are allowed to arrest someone upon reasonable suspicion in some cases, where as a court obviously could not convict someone based on that. That's just one example, not meant to be a full explanation of the differences. 1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
This is quite a stupid statement to begin with. You're obviously not a professional therapist and for your information it is illegal to impersonate a therapist as much as it is illegal to impersonate many other careers. Also religion should have nothing to do with counseling, a person with a problem is a person with a problem PERIOD! You would probably know that if you were a real therapist. |