Jump to content
Sal's RuneScape Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Sakura

Self-harm

Recommended Posts

You'll have to confront it eventually and if your not strong enough to handle it then what makes you be able to handle it later.

:eyebrows:

 

You have no idea what you're talking about. Honestly, no idea.

 

 

Let's even take something basic like alcoholism as an example. They are hurt in life, they cover it with drinking. They drink for ages, killing themselves, hiding the pain. They hurt everyone else in their life with their drinking as well. Finally, they loose something important to them, and after maybe even 40 years of hiding the problem, they face it.

 

Just because someone can't face it at the time when they're hurting themselves doesn't mean they'll never be able to face it. Just because they will be able to face it in the future does not mean they'll be able to face it in the present.

 

And thats better than confronting the problem right then and there? Become an alcoholic abuse your family beat your wife wait until she finally picks up and leaves your ass then come up and say hmm maybe I should of handled this problem before.

As lilshu said, you really don't know that you're talking about; it's not necessarily that easy just to go and sort out all your problems. Without being in that position yourself, you don't have any idea how difficult things may or may not be. You're looking at things from one point of view. If you wish to even attempt understand, you must first change your perspectives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh. Really I think it is like alcohol. You use it to cover up another problem.

 

In this case, you are in pain, usually psychological pain. To cover up that pain, you cause physical pain, that hurts even more, just to cover up the problem. It is the same with drugs and alcohol. It covers the problem, doesn't eliminate it.

 

~Vincent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Self-harm is a misnomer. It doesn't just harm yourself, it harms everyone who cares about you.

Altruism and empathy are the chains of cruelty that bind us together. A man's life is his own, he need not be concerned with what others want him to do.

 

No man is an island, all are part of the mainland; whatever one does affects the other. Or, as some have said, we are a peninsula. However, peer pressure is an overwhelming force that can be used for either good or bad. While it is true that you shouldn't think too much about the opinions others have of you, it's important not to isolate yourself and turn into someone that no-one likes. Social interaction is vital for survival.

 

But really now, at Evin:

It's true that those that self-harm hurt those around them who are close to them, but usually they aren't selfishly motivated. And as to the name, what you said is more of a psychological and philosophical response than an actual definition. A misnomer means that something's name is wrong, while what you are suggesting is that 'self-harming' is a misleading name.

Edited by Mohorak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you could really say it is right or wrong....I don't think there is any purpose in harming yourself(unless you are punishing yourself for something you did), so I can't say it is right, but I also think it is your body and you should be able to harm yourself if you want to, so I can't say it is wrong either.

Edited by Zon70

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think you could really say it is right or wrong....I don't think there is any purpose in harming yourself(unless you are punishing yourself for something you did), so I can't say it is right, but I also think it is your body and you should be able to harm yourself if you want to, so I can't say it is wrong either.

I agree with you on the latter, however I disagree that there is no purpose in harming one's self. It's an effective way of venting and controlling emotions, as well as reducing emotional pain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never felt the need to do something that could be considered self-harm, and I don't really see myself ever doing it, but I don't think I'm at all in any position to say that it's wrong and people who do it are selfish or stupid or anything like that. I've never been in such an extreme situation where I feel such stress or emotional tension that people who do harm themselves are/have been in, and if I were in such a place I don't know how I would respond to it. Self-harm might sound ridiculous or over the top to me now, but maybe some day it won't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Suicide? I was talking about self harm.

 

There may be nothing courageous about suicide or self harm, but calling it cowardly is callous and wholly ignorant. It's not cowardly- it's human.

 

Ah, my mistake.

 

No, it is cowardly. It is an "escape", the person doing it seeks to "escape" from their problem (real or fake). Rather then face it, and fix it. Also, things can be cowardly and human (case in point: the cowardly human :D). Being one does not make it not be the other. That said, I still classify it as cowardly, as everything we do, can be said to be "human".

 

I thank you for demonstrating my point :P Now apply that to other forms of self harm. The only difference I can tell is that there's no such thing as "second hand cuts".

 

Physically, to another person, I agree. However, mentally there are "second hand cuts", to the people who care about the person who is doing the self-harm.

 

Why the hell do people consume large amounts of alcohol? Because it gives them a release, a way of getting psychological relief through physical decay. Why does it feel like I've said that before?

 

Because they are cowards, seeking the easy "escape", that is why they consume large amounts of alcohol. Because they are too much of a coward to face their problem(s), they seek to avoid them.

 

No, there isn't. But if it's better than diving into the crapload of problems they have, then so be it.

 

It could very-well be one problem, given the person who is doing the self-harm. Reguardless, they are cowards.

 

And stating that doing something one disagrees with is an act only cowards do is, in itself, an act only cowards do. Funnily enough, people do things for different reasons. Different people have different limits, and different weak points. It is... impossible to understand how any one person feels, unless you happen to be that person.

 

I disagree, for the same reason we find the act of murder after another person "snapped", and went insane and murdered another person, wrong, there are some things that are universally condemned. By this logic, I apply the title of coward to a person who cuts themself as an "escape" from their problems. They make the choice to do so, rather then face their problem(s), and that, to me, is cowardly.

 

On a completely unrelated note, I find it hilarious that I like you so much as a person, but our views and stances on just about everything are polar opposite :eyebrows:

 

I could not agree more ^_^.

 

Because Ra knows, only angsty teens with no real problems in their perfect lives would ever try suicide.

 

To make it clear, while I did not write the above, I do not agree with that.

 

I agree that there are problems in these people(s) lives which is why they turn to the cowardly way of avoiding them. Or most of them, there are always a few people who do it, just to do it.

 

 

And this is where your misunderstanding lies.

 

People can't just confront things like that. Ask any therapist, any psychologist. Consult any AA handbook. Read any internet source.

 

No, people can confront such things, they choose not to.

 

Remove yourself from your "perfect world" and reference reality please. Ideally, people would confront the problem immediately- that's what would be best. But it never happens.

 

It's strange that even after your life experiences thus far you don't understand/realize that.

 

Again, people can do such things, they choose not to.

 

As lilshu said, you really don't know that you're talking about; it's not necessarily that easy just to go and sort out all your problems. Without being in that position yourself, you don't have any idea how difficult things may or may not be. You're looking at things from one point of view. If you wish to even attempt understand, you must first change your perspectives.

 

I, however, do have an idea of what it is like (not with drinking, or drugs, etc.). And it is that easy, if people choose to do it, and not make excuses for themselves.

 

~John

Edited by John Adams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And this is where your misunderstanding lies.

 

People can't just confront things like that. Ask any therapist, any psychologist. Consult any AA handbook. Read any internet source.

 

No, people can confront such things, they choose not to.

And people with schizophrenia can simply choose not to hear voices. :eyebrows:

 

 

I, however, do have an idea of what it is like (not with drinking, or drugs, etc.). And it is that easy, if people choose to do it, and not make excuses for themselves.

If you think it's that easy, you have no idea what it's like.

 

 

Schizophrenia is split personality ^_^

 

And no one said life was easy that doesn't mean we should use pain to solve our problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And no one said life was easy that doesn't mean we should use pain to solve our problems.

Why does it matter whether we "should" or not? I believe if somebody wants to use pain to cope with their problems, then let them. Their body belongs to them and deserve the right to do as they wish with said body.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And no one said life was easy that doesn't mean we should use pain to solve our problems.

Why does it matter whether we "should" or not? I believe if somebody wants to use pain to cope with their problems, then let them. Their body belongs to them and deserve the right to do as they wish with said body.

That's a selfish approach as it's not always just themselves they're hurting, say if you were a mother and had to watch your child slash their wrists up, day in, and day out, would you simply shrug your shoulders and say "ahwell, its her body, she can slash it up if she wants".

Edited by TheBlackSuperman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And no one said life was easy that doesn't mean we should use pain to solve our problems.

Why does it matter whether we "should" or not? I believe if somebody wants to use pain to cope with their problems, then let them. Their body belongs to them and deserve the right to do as they wish with said body.

 

Well couldn't the same be said for suicide?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And no one said life was easy that doesn't mean we should use pain to solve our problems.

Why does it matter whether we "should" or not? I believe if somebody wants to use pain to cope with their problems, then let them. Their body belongs to them and deserve the right to do as they wish with said body.

Someone said this before, I believe it was Evin, but he said "self-harm is a misnomer, you don't only hurt yourself but you also hurt the others who care about you."

 

It's selfish for someone to say that they have the right to harm their own body because their body belongs to them and only them. It's true that the body is technically theirs, but who gave birth to that body? Who nurtured that body? Who played with that body? Everyone who cared about that body.

 

By purposely self-harming a body, someone can make another person cry. That other person, most of the time, is someone who has helped that body progress and advance through life itself. So if someone were to self-harm their own body, there will always be consequences, as they will in all cases cause much pain upon the other people who care about them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And no one said life was easy that doesn't mean we should use pain to solve our problems.

Why does it matter whether we "should" or not? I believe if somebody wants to use pain to cope with their problems, then let them. Their body belongs to them and deserve the right to do as they wish with said body.

 

Well couldn't the same be said for suicide?

 

Yes - and tattoos ...

 

Or abortion for that matter.

 

It's "their" body -- they can do with it whatever they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And no one said life was easy that doesn't mean we should use pain to solve our problems.

Why does it matter whether we "should" or not? I believe if somebody wants to use pain to cope with their problems, then let them. Their body belongs to them and deserve the right to do as they wish with said body.

 

Well couldn't the same be said for suicide?

Yes - and tattoos ...

Tattoos and self-harm/suicide are nowhere near on the same level, though. You can't compare the two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But really now, at Evin:

It's true that those that self-harm hurt those around them who are close to them, but usually they aren't selfishly motivated. And as to the name, what you said is more of a psychological and philosophical response than an actual definition. A misnomer means that something's name is wrong, while what you are suggesting is that 'self-harming' is a misleading name.

While I appreciate your scrutiny, I was just trying to be succinct. :eyebrows:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And this is where your misunderstanding lies.

 

People can't just confront things like that. Ask any therapist, any psychologist. Consult any AA handbook. Read any internet source.

 

No, people can confront such things, they choose not to.

And people with schizophrenia can simply choose not to hear voices. :eyebrows:

 

People can change if they hear voices as much as people can change their race, what gender they are sexually attracted to, their height, their parents, and so on, which is to say, not at all.

 

That said, they can make the choice such things, and they can make the choice to confront such things. Just as they can make the choice to go to the store and buy food, or to take a walk, they can make the same choice to confront such things. That does not mean they make the choice, but they can make the choice.

 

If you think it's that easy, you have no idea what it's like.

 

Can you please define "it", just to be clear (not trying to be rude, but I do not want to go off in some direction if you meant "it" as something else)?

 

Why does it matter whether we "should" or not? I believe if somebody wants to use pain to cope with their problems, then let them. Their body belongs to them and deserve the right to do as they wish with said body.

 

By that logic, a murderer should escape punishment, simply because they have the right to not have their body restrained, as "their body belongs to them and [they] deserve the right to do as they wish with said body".

 

At such a point, and time, that a body inflicts harm on itself, or another, that body must be restrained, and kept from committing such harm, as previously committed, in the future. Restrained in this context is as defined by the state, and governing body whom that body holds residency under. For example, if the body was American, the restraint would be as whatever is deamed neccessary by an American judge and jury.

 

Yes - and tattoos ...

 

Or abortion for that matter.

 

It's "their" body -- they can do with it whatever they want.

 

Please explain the logic that makes "tattoos" equal to self (willing) mutilation of the skin. Or abortion.

 

~John

Edited by John Adams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes - and tattoos ...

 

Or abortion for that matter.

 

It's "their" body -- they can do with it whatever they want.

 

Please explain the logic that makes "tattoos" equal to self (willing) mutilation of the skin. Or abortion.

 

~John

 

Willing mutilation is conducted in certain cultures as a form of "beauty enhancement", which is not unlike tattooing. For that matter, one can argue that tattooing is a form of self-imposed-mutilation. It is, after all, the use of needles to inject ink into one's own body.

 

An abortion is the self determination of the removal of a meaningless unwanted clump of cells from the body.

 

Yes, there are people who are not, technically, in their right minds to be granted control over themselves and are placed in certain institutions in order that they cannot pose a harm to themselves or to others.

 

That said, someone who willingly mutilates themselves, knowingly and with the mental capacity and physical determination to do so, has that same right to do whatever they please unto themselves.

 

You cannot regulate what a person may do to their own body -- whether it's mutilation, tattooing or abortion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And no one said life was easy that doesn't mean we should use pain to solve our problems.

Why does it matter whether we "should" or not? I believe if somebody wants to use pain to cope with their problems, then let them. Their body belongs to them and deserve the right to do as they wish with said body.

That's a selfish approach as it's not always just themselves they're hurting, say if you were a mother and had to watch your child slash their wrists up, day in, and day out, would you simply shrug your shoulders and say "ahwell, its her body, she can slash it up if she wants".

I have no idea what I would do; I've never had a child so I couldn't possibly imagine my reaction if they were self-harming. However I have had friends who have self-harmed which I can use as an example instead. Although I wished for them to stop, I did not try to make them; I respected the fact that it was their body.

 

And no one said life was easy that doesn't mean we should use pain to solve our problems.

Why does it matter whether we "should" or not? I believe if somebody wants to use pain to cope with their problems, then let them. Their body belongs to them and deserve the right to do as they wish with said body.

 

Well couldn't the same be said for suicide?

Yes it could and I stand by those same beliefs; if somebody wishes to end their own life then so be it.

 

And no one said life was easy that doesn't mean we should use pain to solve our problems.

Why does it matter whether we "should" or not? I believe if somebody wants to use pain to cope with their problems, then let them. Their body belongs to them and deserve the right to do as they wish with said body.

Someone said this before, I believe it was Evin, but he said "self-harm is a misnomer, you don't only hurt yourself but you also hurt the others who care about you."

 

It's selfish for someone to say that they have the right to harm their own body because their body belongs to them and only them. It's true that the body is technically theirs, but who gave birth to that body? Who nurtured that body? Who played with that body? Everyone who cared about that body.

 

By purposely self-harming a body, someone can make another person cry. That other person, most of the time, is someone who has helped that body progress and advance through life itself. So if someone were to self-harm their own body, there will always be consequences, as they will in all cases cause much pain upon the other people who care about them.

So are you saying that because one's body has been nurtured and cared about, they should not participate in any activity that should harm said body? That people should not drink, smoke or take part in extreme exercise? These all harm the body in one way or another, but it doesn't mean the people that take part in these activities should be stopped.

 

Why does it matter whether we "should" or not? I believe if somebody wants to use pain to cope with their problems, then let them. Their body belongs to them and deserve the right to do as they wish with said body.

 

By that logic, a murderer should escape punishment, simply because they have the right to not have their body restrained, as "their body belongs to them and [they] deserve the right to do as they wish with said body".

 

At such a point, and time, that a body inflicts harm on itself, or another, that body must be restrained, and kept from committing such harm, as previously committed, in the future. Restrained in this context is as defined by the state, and governing body whom that body holds residency under. For example, if the body was American, the restraint would be as whatever is deamed neccessary by an American judge and jury.

In answer to your first point, a murderer escaping punishment does not involve the same principles as self-harm, as a murderer does not have that right by law, for a start. It is a pretty far-fetched comparison to be honest; how are the two things alike? When one self-harms, they are not threatening anyone else's life, whereas a murderer escaping imprisonment could be a physical danger to their society.

 

Your second point states that one should be restrained from inflicting harm on themselves. By this logic, we should ban drinking, smoking and the consumption of unhealthy foods. However as you also say that the context of the restraint is as defined by the state; self-harm is not illegal in most countries, so it also seems you are saying we should allow self-harm. Could you please make your points clearer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines and Privacy Policy.