Ahhh… the appeal to the Evil One. Completely fallacious, you are what you do. No one can condemn you for thoughts that are not acted upon.
If your whole view of reality has never been flipped over, you have wasted your life. You have failed to meet challenges. You have failed to thrive.
I would love to have a maniacal, murderous Demon with supernatural powers appear in my life. He would make a great friend for the invisible purple dragon that lives in my back yard. The demon and the dragon could spend their days comparing maniacal, murderous plans for ruling the universes. They could compare supernatural powers and pull pranks on each other. But most importantly, they could leave me the fuck alone.
Have you thought of inventing a magical purple dragon to go with your magical maniacal, murderous, demon? Perhaps they would get along and leave you the fuck alone. Perhaps they would kill each other, that would be good too.
Just consider the change it would make on your livelihood if you were to create a new magical demon to cancel out the old magical demon.
Think about it. You have found one magical demon deep within, THERE MUST BE MORE!
But I’d love to learn. I’ll come back to the forum after reading your 256 PAGE LINK!!!
(And I thought I thought highly of my self)
Here’s a deal. Tell me about mind crushing psychosomatic headaches which last years and are precipitated by months and months of annihilation anxiety and I’ll fuck off; read the book; and only then come back.
Side note: “annihilation anxiety” was once upon a time a very interesting and informative entry in Wikipedia. Since a while back you can find almost no trace of the entry; nor can you seem to find much information on “annihilation anxiety” - despite its description as a prevalence among Philosophers and Psychiatrists alike. It is also known as “the unthinkable anxiety”.
Why not feed it cookies and get on its’ good side? Given your lack of imagination and inability to create more than one demon at a time, a cookie might be a good alternative.
The theories/explanations of the concept of gravity, yes, which is my point exactly. A theory which is an explanation of the dynamics of observed phenomena, can be revised, improved on or rescinded. Only when a theory is proven to be all encompassing and irrefutable, does it become established fact. Laws, like reported speech, merely report observed phenomenon, and are an objective given.
Not at all, that reply says a great deal, I have of course selected the part that highlights you have no objective support for your claim. And again if you admit you do not know was relieves your back pain, how are you ruling out a placebo effect?
Well of course it doesn’t, getting the same result doesn’t verify any claim you care to assign as the cause, why on earth would you think it does? This is the very definition of a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. I gave one example of an alternative, the placebo effect, and you can offer no credible explanation as to how you’ve ruled it out. NB Note I am not making a claim, merely pointing out how biased and flawed your reasoning is here.
Not without objectively verifying the cause, you are simply assuming it here. we are also doing you the courtesy of accepting your claim here, in a peer reviewed study of course such a subjective anecdotal claim would be meaningless.
