One of the 'measures' of 'good' mental healthy is said to be 'tolerance' that's the ability to (37)
online today!online today!rohaanCoos Bay, Oregon USA229 Threads 10,513 Postsrohaan: Historically, psychologists and psychiatrists do tend to enter their fields BECAUSE they have disorders and/or at least idiosyncrinies (sp?) themselves. This was widely talked about when I was in college, and taking continuing education courses afterward. Policeman sometimes enter the force because they are fed up with crime.Some nurses go to college because they have a natural care-giving heart. People who are stay-at-home at heart but need to work sometimes get a degree in Home Economics, and enjoy both worlds.
*idiosyncrisies. (I guess !)------ This thread is Archived ------
serene56: No, mental illness is not contagious but yes, it's highly likely that many on here are affected by it.
LMAO
------ This thread is Archived ------
If I am intolerant of...
...the practise of cladding tower blocks in flammable materials, refusing to put in a fire escape and sprinklers because it's too costly, neglecting to ensure fire isolation safeguards are in place, neglecting to check and service fire alarms and emergency lighting and not only ignoring tenants concerns, but threatening them with legal action if they carry on...
...does that mean I must have a mental illness?
How about if that tower block goes up in flames? Am I mentally ill if I cannot tolerate the screams of children, or the sight of children disappearing from the windows they're banging on because something has exploded and wiped them off the face of the Earth?
How about if I'm so intolerant that I feel the need to interfere? Maybe I might rush into the fire wearing breathing apparatus, but not sure if the building is going to collapse, or if I'm going to get out alive. Surely, that kind of interference and intolerance must be a sign of mental illness? It's utter madness!
Where is the line between justified, acceptable, NECESSARY intolerance and inappropriate judgementalism?
At what point does my interference render me mentally ill? Before, during, or after people die in terror?
How about if I sit on information which might lead to changes in legislation which will save lives, but interfere with business profits? Does my lack of action, my non-interference in other people's lives render me the most mentally healthy of them all?
I would suggest intolerance has a purpose. Sometimes it serves our own needs, sometimes the needs of others and sometimes both.
I would suggest that if there is a link between intolerance and mental illness, it's correlative, rather than causal. Sometimes, perhaps people seek targets for their intolerance to deflect from intolerance directed at themselves, either by others, or themselves.
It's perhaps self-intolerance, self-hatred which is more likely causal with respect to certain types of mental illness.
...the practise of cladding tower blocks in flammable materials, refusing to put in a fire escape and sprinklers because it's too costly, neglecting to ensure fire isolation safeguards are in place, neglecting to check and service fire alarms and emergency lighting and not only ignoring tenants concerns, but threatening them with legal action if they carry on...
...does that mean I must have a mental illness?
How about if that tower block goes up in flames? Am I mentally ill if I cannot tolerate the screams of children, or the sight of children disappearing from the windows they're banging on because something has exploded and wiped them off the face of the Earth?
How about if I'm so intolerant that I feel the need to interfere? Maybe I might rush into the fire wearing breathing apparatus, but not sure if the building is going to collapse, or if I'm going to get out alive. Surely, that kind of interference and intolerance must be a sign of mental illness? It's utter madness!
Where is the line between justified, acceptable, NECESSARY intolerance and inappropriate judgementalism?
At what point does my interference render me mentally ill? Before, during, or after people die in terror?
How about if I sit on information which might lead to changes in legislation which will save lives, but interfere with business profits? Does my lack of action, my non-interference in other people's lives render me the most mentally healthy of them all?
I would suggest intolerance has a purpose. Sometimes it serves our own needs, sometimes the needs of others and sometimes both.
I would suggest that if there is a link between intolerance and mental illness, it's correlative, rather than causal. Sometimes, perhaps people seek targets for their intolerance to deflect from intolerance directed at themselves, either by others, or themselves.
It's perhaps self-intolerance, self-hatred which is more likely causal with respect to certain types of mental illness.
------ This thread is Archived ------
jac_the_gripper: If I am intolerant of...
...the practise of cladding tower blocks in flammable materials, refusing to put in a fire escape and sprinklers because it's too costly, neglecting to ensure fire isolation safeguards are in place, neglecting to check and service fire alarms and emergency lighting and not only ignoring tenants concerns, but threatening them with legal action if they carry on...
...does that mean I must have a mental illness?
How about if that tower block goes up in flames? Am I mentally ill if I cannot tolerate the screams of children, or the sight of children disappearing from the windows they're banging on because something has exploded and wiped them off the face of the Earth?
How about if I'm so intolerant that I feel the need to interfere? Maybe I might rush into the fire wearing breathing apparatus, but not sure if the building is going to collapse, or if I'm going to get out alive. Surely, that kind of interference and intolerance must be a sign of mental illness? It's utter madness!
Where is the line between justified, acceptable, NECESSARY intolerance and inappropriate judgementalism?
At what point does my interference render me mentally ill? Before, during, or after people die in terror?
How about if I sit on information which might lead to changes in legislation which will save lives, but interfere with business profits? Does my lack of action, my non-interference in other people's lives render me the most mentally healthy of them all?
I would suggest intolerance has a purpose. Sometimes it serves our own needs, sometimes the needs of others and sometimes both.
I would suggest that if there is a link between intolerance and mental illness, it's correlative, rather than causal. Sometimes, perhaps people seek targets for their intolerance to deflect from intolerance directed at themselves, either by others, or themselves.
It's perhaps self-intolerance, self-hatred which is more likely causal with respect to certain types of mental illness.
...the practise of cladding tower blocks in flammable materials, refusing to put in a fire escape and sprinklers because it's too costly, neglecting to ensure fire isolation safeguards are in place, neglecting to check and service fire alarms and emergency lighting and not only ignoring tenants concerns, but threatening them with legal action if they carry on...
...does that mean I must have a mental illness?
How about if that tower block goes up in flames? Am I mentally ill if I cannot tolerate the screams of children, or the sight of children disappearing from the windows they're banging on because something has exploded and wiped them off the face of the Earth?
How about if I'm so intolerant that I feel the need to interfere? Maybe I might rush into the fire wearing breathing apparatus, but not sure if the building is going to collapse, or if I'm going to get out alive. Surely, that kind of interference and intolerance must be a sign of mental illness? It's utter madness!
Where is the line between justified, acceptable, NECESSARY intolerance and inappropriate judgementalism?
At what point does my interference render me mentally ill? Before, during, or after people die in terror?
How about if I sit on information which might lead to changes in legislation which will save lives, but interfere with business profits? Does my lack of action, my non-interference in other people's lives render me the most mentally healthy of them all?
I would suggest intolerance has a purpose. Sometimes it serves our own needs, sometimes the needs of others and sometimes both.
I would suggest that if there is a link between intolerance and mental illness, it's correlative, rather than causal. Sometimes, perhaps people seek targets for their intolerance to deflect from intolerance directed at themselves, either by others, or themselves.
It's perhaps self-intolerance, self-hatred which is more likely causal with respect to certain types of mental illness.
Very well stated Jac
------ This thread is Archived ------
jac_the_gripper: If I am intolerant of... editted types of mental illness.
NOW you CLAIM intolerance of things, but ONLY after an horrific disaster which some might consider you are cruelly exploiting ?
Where was this Self Righteous Intolerance PRIOR TO that or other events ... there have been many, though nothing 'so close to home' ?
Do you actually have awareness of materials, architectural practices, risks involved in using specific materials, designs or correct / incorrect installation of those?
Did your newly self proclaimed intolerance cause you to protest IN ADVANCE about their use in this/other locations?
Or, are you just more concerned with trying to demonstrate superiority, your rightness over all others in all other situations that you have to attempt to stretch and distort meaning and context of anything and everything in any and every word that's used or could be used ?
Isn't an emergency service worker eg a fireman driven by compassion and love of their fellow human beings? They train hard & long in order to GAIN SPECIFIC KNOWLEDGE that equips them to use particular tools (such as Fireproof Suits & Breathing App) to enter locations that 'lesser mortals' would be foolish to consider.
If you want to bring it down to hard semantic (exact meanings of words) then YES ABSOLUTELY the wearing of a FS and BA does indeed allow the individual to 'tolerate' (exist in) the hostile environment of a fire.
Fire officers are TOLERANT that fire exists, fires are caused & occur & in order to maintain their own sanity, they have to be 'tolerant' of the knowledge that lives WILL be lost even despite best efforts of themselves and colleagues: those who cannot tolerate (handle) that usually have to pension out of active duty on stress (MH) grounds and no one should think less of them for having 'reached a limit'
Medical professionals are 'more tolerant' of blood and entrails than 'The Average Joe' and it's that same 'willingness and ability to tolerate' that makes them effective ... remaining conscious whereas some 'Lesser Mortals' faint into unconsciousness at mere thought of a needle to draw blood.
Forensic teams who have been called in to deal with the aftermath of the event, and especially those in forensic dentistry (which is usually 'last resort' for identifying deceased persons from remains) will 'tolerate' that they are seeing and dealing with things that no human being ought to have to see ... and, no doubt, some of those people will no longer 'choose' to tolerate longer and will move to other areas of their professions afterwards . And some (I know one well who was involved in Christchurch EQ aftermath) will be so moved with compassion by knowing that his work allowed the living 'closure' the 'peace of knowing' they had buried their own that he has gone beyond anything I can imagine and is now part of an international organisation and has travelled globally when called upon...
A person who is 'intolerant' of fire, of the destruction of property & 'intolerant of risk to their life' does not ever expose themselves to such things. Such persons are said to be experiencing agrophobia (they remain indoors as they cannot tolerate ANYTHING beyond their own familiar immediate environment) and the most unfortunate become autophobic (unable even to tolerate / accept themselves ie their own body and their own internal environment)
Tolerance is NOT the same as APATHY, it's not the same as having a casual disregard for life in order to boost profits.
Nor is it ignorance - rather the opposite, tolerance indicates conscious awareness of and willingness to accept 'that thing' be it as bold as entering an inferno or as small as riding a bicycle or allowing the opinions of others.
BTW yes IMHO though we often disagree LJ is entitled to full expression of her thoughts and opinions without being judged or labelled by you (or others)
Have a nice day now
:grin
------ This thread is Archived ------
umm hmm... How many people
on this thread actually "Earn a living"
on this thread actually "Earn a living"
------ This thread is Archived ------
While I have very clearly disagreed with and questioned the motives of Yac The Griper in the post above I'll also thank her, because, while writing and thinking it occurs to me that there could be a possible metaphor.
In terms of sanity vs insanity one could look at the shape of an enormous letter ' V '
At the bottom of the vee there's room for little or nothing (insanity, little or nothing can be tolerated) ... while the top of the vee represents the possibility for the potentially unlimited (or even perhaps infinite) expansion of that which we can tolerate ( handle / cope with )
As recent as this last century we (as a species) handled / coped with / tolerated incredible advances ...
The 'market and need for' Bell's telephone was questioned ...
IBM stayed away from personal computers they reckoned the market would run only into hundreds ...
We have created nano technologies in medicine ... tiny machines that enter the bloodstream etc
And some of us can even handle another person having a different PoV ... or not
But let's leave this on a light(ish) note
“The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four people is suffering from a mental illness. If you look at your 3 best friends and think that they’re ok then it’s you.”
The law of Indirect Action...
“Psychiatrists always urge patients to take their medications. When the patient doesn’t take the meds then the psychiatrists become agitated and label the patients as 'treatment resistant' so, then patients have to take the pills in order to calm down their psychiatrists.”
Q. What’s the difference between the psychiatrists and the patients at the mental hospital?
A. The patients are the ones that eventually get better and go home!
“My therapist always told me that I over-analyse everything. After several sessions I was able to explain to him that he only thinks that because of his unhappy relationship with his mother.”
“A question that always makes me hazy ... Is it me or are the others crazy? ”
Albert Einstein
And, was it a Freudian slip or was Carl Jung alerting us to the threat that he and hsi colleagues posed to mankind when he said
“Show me a sane man and I will cure him for you.”
n 
In terms of sanity vs insanity one could look at the shape of an enormous letter ' V '
At the bottom of the vee there's room for little or nothing (insanity, little or nothing can be tolerated) ... while the top of the vee represents the possibility for the potentially unlimited (or even perhaps infinite) expansion of that which we can tolerate ( handle / cope with )
As recent as this last century we (as a species) handled / coped with / tolerated incredible advances ...
The 'market and need for' Bell's telephone was questioned ...
IBM stayed away from personal computers they reckoned the market would run only into hundreds ...
We have created nano technologies in medicine ... tiny machines that enter the bloodstream etc
And some of us can even handle another person having a different PoV ... or not
But let's leave this on a light(ish) note
“The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four people is suffering from a mental illness. If you look at your 3 best friends and think that they’re ok then it’s you.”
The law of Indirect Action...
“Psychiatrists always urge patients to take their medications. When the patient doesn’t take the meds then the psychiatrists become agitated and label the patients as 'treatment resistant' so, then patients have to take the pills in order to calm down their psychiatrists.”
Q. What’s the difference between the psychiatrists and the patients at the mental hospital?
A. The patients are the ones that eventually get better and go home!
“My therapist always told me that I over-analyse everything. After several sessions I was able to explain to him that he only thinks that because of his unhappy relationship with his mother.”
“A question that always makes me hazy ... Is it me or are the others crazy? ”
Albert Einstein
And, was it a Freudian slip or was Carl Jung alerting us to the threat that he and hsi colleagues posed to mankind when he said
“Show me a sane man and I will cure him for you.”
n ------ This thread is Archived ------
crayons: umm hmm... How many people
on this thread actually "Earn a living"
on this thread actually "Earn a living"
raises hand ... and admits I don't need spend 24 / 7 / 365 on doing that :-)“I told my wife the truth and admitted I was seeing a psychiatrist.
Then she told me the truth: that she was also seeing a psychiatrist as well as two plumbers and a bartender.”
? Rodney Dangerfield
------ This thread is Archived ------
Are mental health systems loaded ... ie designed to 'get you in through the door'
Overheard at a party
Man ... so, how do you shrinks decide who's in need of admission ?
Shrink ... we fill a bath with water and offer the person a teaspoon, a table spoon, a jug, a bucket and a large sponge with which to empty the bath.
Man And then ...
Shrink, smiling slyly, ... Well, which would you choose ?
Man ... I guess the bucket it's obviously faster?
Shrink ' Then, would you like a private room or to share with another patient?
A person not in need of our professional care would simply pull the plug !
Overheard at a party
Man ... so, how do you shrinks decide who's in need of admission ?
Shrink ... we fill a bath with water and offer the person a teaspoon, a table spoon, a jug, a bucket and a large sponge with which to empty the bath.
Man And then ...
Shrink, smiling slyly, ... Well, which would you choose ?
Man ... I guess the bucket it's obviously faster?
Shrink ' Then, would you like a private room or to share with another patient?
A person not in need of our professional care would simply pull the plug !
------ This thread is Archived ------
Well Hex, you seem to have got yourself in a right old pickle with that one. 
Where do I start?
Okay, I didn't know anything about the renovation work carried out at Grenfell, or the fire risks until it burnt down.
When I wrote in the first person using Grenfell as an analogy it was in the general sense and I didn't mean me personally. (I think there's a word for that and if anyone can help me out with that, I'd appreciate it.)
My point was that in each scenario, there were issues of tolerance, or intolerance: some people knew of the fire risks and tolerated them; some people knew of the risks to their personal safety when they ran into the fire, but those risks were more tolerable than watching people suffer and die; and so on.
If you make a direct causal link with intolerance and mental illness and then look at those scenarios, it becomes plain that using the word 'intolerance' without context becomes insufficient.
I have never claimed absolutism when it comes to tolerance. I have never come across anybody who has because it's plainly ridiculous. We are all intolerant of some things, and rightly so.
Discriminating between the tolerable and intolerable is a part of survival and community; it's a part of how we function as a herd.
Now, in the scenario of the government possibly sitting on information which could have saved lives, but not acting on it because of a potential negative impact on business profits, there was also a discrimination between the tolerable and intolerable: which is best for the survival of the herd? Which is in the interests of others and which is in the interests of the self? Which is in the interests of the people I value, or the people I don't value?
'Intolerance' is an arbitrary category without context. Mental illness is arbitrary in as much as it's viewed within the context of knowledge and culture.
Trying to premise your argument with a definition of the word 'tolerate' is not enough to describe the complexities of intolerance in context, therefore your link between intolerance and mental illness cannot stand true without context.
Where do I start?
Okay, I didn't know anything about the renovation work carried out at Grenfell, or the fire risks until it burnt down.
When I wrote in the first person using Grenfell as an analogy it was in the general sense and I didn't mean me personally. (I think there's a word for that and if anyone can help me out with that, I'd appreciate it.)
My point was that in each scenario, there were issues of tolerance, or intolerance: some people knew of the fire risks and tolerated them; some people knew of the risks to their personal safety when they ran into the fire, but those risks were more tolerable than watching people suffer and die; and so on.
If you make a direct causal link with intolerance and mental illness and then look at those scenarios, it becomes plain that using the word 'intolerance' without context becomes insufficient.
I have never claimed absolutism when it comes to tolerance. I have never come across anybody who has because it's plainly ridiculous. We are all intolerant of some things, and rightly so.
Discriminating between the tolerable and intolerable is a part of survival and community; it's a part of how we function as a herd.
Now, in the scenario of the government possibly sitting on information which could have saved lives, but not acting on it because of a potential negative impact on business profits, there was also a discrimination between the tolerable and intolerable: which is best for the survival of the herd? Which is in the interests of others and which is in the interests of the self? Which is in the interests of the people I value, or the people I don't value?
'Intolerance' is an arbitrary category without context. Mental illness is arbitrary in as much as it's viewed within the context of knowledge and culture.
Trying to premise your argument with a definition of the word 'tolerate' is not enough to describe the complexities of intolerance in context, therefore your link between intolerance and mental illness cannot stand true without context.
------ This thread is Archived ------
jac_the_gripper: Well Hex, you seem to have got yourself in a right old pickle with that one.
Not at all Yac .., I took what you said and took it apart for the nonsense that I see ( and regard as typical Yac-o-Babble :-)
Where do I start?
Okay, I didn't know anything about the renovation work carried out at Grenfell, or the fire risks until it burnt down.
When I wrote in the first person using Grenfell as an analogy it was in the general sense and I didn't mean me personally. (I think there's a word for that and if anyone can help me out with that, I'd appreciate it.)
Standard Yac-o-Wriggle ... nothing new there !
My point was that in each scenario, there were issues of tolerance, or intolerance: some people knew of the fire risks and tolerated them; some people knew of the risks to their personal safety when they ran into the fire, but those risks were more tolerable than watching people suffer and die; and so on.
If you make a direct causal link with intolerance and mental illness and then look at those scenarios, it becomes plain that using the word 'intolerance' without context becomes insufficient.
Yac-o-Strategy 3 ... create and compound confusion by using many words but saying nothing
I have never claimed absolutism when it comes to tolerance. I have never come across anybody who has because it's plainly ridiculous. We are all intolerant of some things, and rightly so.
color=red] Yac-o-Strat 4 ... make allegations that the other person claimed that you had said whatever (in this case regarding absolutism) when in fact the word had never even been mentioned
Discriminating between the tolerable and intolerable is a part of survival and community; it's a part of how we function as a herd.
Yac-o-Strat 56 ... insert an opinion as fact, being careful to be sure that what you say has zero relevance to matter at hand
Now, in the scenario of the government possibly sitting on information which could have saved lives, but not acting on it because of a potential negative impact on business profits, there was also a discrimination between the tolerable and intolerable: which is best for the survival of the herd? Which is in the interests of others and which is in the interests of the self? Which is in the interests of the people I value, or the people I don't value?
Yac-o-Strat 3 again see above
'Intolerance' is an arbitrary category without context. Mental illness is arbitrary in as much as it's viewed within the context of knowledge and culture.
Yac-o-Strat 3 again see above and Yac-o-Strat 9 ignore that a context was in fact placed around the topic in the original post
Trying to premise your argument with a definition of the word 'tolerate' is not enough to describe the complexities of intolerance in context, therefore your link between intolerance and mental illness cannot stand true without context.
Not at all Yac .., I took what you said and took it apart for the nonsense that I see ( and regard as typical Yac-o-Babble :-)
Where do I start?
Okay, I didn't know anything about the renovation work carried out at Grenfell, or the fire risks until it burnt down.
When I wrote in the first person using Grenfell as an analogy it was in the general sense and I didn't mean me personally. (I think there's a word for that and if anyone can help me out with that, I'd appreciate it.)
Standard Yac-o-Wriggle ... nothing new there !
My point was that in each scenario, there were issues of tolerance, or intolerance: some people knew of the fire risks and tolerated them; some people knew of the risks to their personal safety when they ran into the fire, but those risks were more tolerable than watching people suffer and die; and so on.
If you make a direct causal link with intolerance and mental illness and then look at those scenarios, it becomes plain that using the word 'intolerance' without context becomes insufficient.
Yac-o-Strategy 3 ... create and compound confusion by using many words but saying nothing
I have never claimed absolutism when it comes to tolerance. I have never come across anybody who has because it's plainly ridiculous. We are all intolerant of some things, and rightly so.
color=red] Yac-o-Strat 4 ... make allegations that the other person claimed that you had said whatever (in this case regarding absolutism) when in fact the word had never even been mentioned
Discriminating between the tolerable and intolerable is a part of survival and community; it's a part of how we function as a herd.
Yac-o-Strat 56 ... insert an opinion as fact, being careful to be sure that what you say has zero relevance to matter at hand
Now, in the scenario of the government possibly sitting on information which could have saved lives, but not acting on it because of a potential negative impact on business profits, there was also a discrimination between the tolerable and intolerable: which is best for the survival of the herd? Which is in the interests of others and which is in the interests of the self? Which is in the interests of the people I value, or the people I don't value?
Yac-o-Strat 3 again see above
'Intolerance' is an arbitrary category without context. Mental illness is arbitrary in as much as it's viewed within the context of knowledge and culture.
Yac-o-Strat 3 again see above and Yac-o-Strat 9 ignore that a context was in fact placed around the topic in the original post
Trying to premise your argument with a definition of the word 'tolerate' is not enough to describe the complexities of intolerance in context, therefore your link between intolerance and mental illness cannot stand true without context.
A variation on Yac-o-Strat 3 and compounded by Yac-o-Strat 4 and Yac-o-Strat 5 dismiss the other person as ignorant and just try to make out they're wrong I suppose next you'll send in your Rusty Rannabe Keyboard Warriors to flame me here and in my pm box
------ This thread is Archived ------
HexagonKeySet: 'tolerate'
and, as I'd like to think it MAY still be possible to have a serious conversation here I'll offer the dictionary definition
Tolerate
verb
1. Allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one dislikes or disagrees with) without interference.
"a regime unwilling to tolerate dissent"
synonyms: allow, permit, authorize, sanction, condone, indulge, agree to, accede to, approve of; More
2. Be capable of continued subjection to (a drug, toxin, or environmental condition) without adverse reaction.
"lichens grow in conditions that no other plants tolerate"
So, and I ask in all seriousness, given that so many of the political left, the stridently politically correct and those of certain religious and cultural persuasions appear to be completely UNABLE to allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (anything that they dislike or disagree with) without interference is it reasonable to assume that they have mental health problems ?
I don't know if anyone here has come across the possibility that mental ill health might be contagious ... if there is I'm especially interested in hearing.
And to the bobbleheads and noddy dogs that can't take part seriously ... Gosh, look of course, absolutely you're entitled to a nice safe space ... so I created that just for you and it's called "The nice safe space thread" all stocked up with cuddly counsellors and aloe vera infused tissues ... but the therapy dogs, they all quit en masse ... quoting their own psychological needs as dogs and their refusal to be exploited further
;-)
and, as I'd like to think it MAY still be possible to have a serious conversation here I'll offer the dictionary definition
Tolerate
verb
1. Allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one dislikes or disagrees with) without interference.
"a regime unwilling to tolerate dissent"
synonyms: allow, permit, authorize, sanction, condone, indulge, agree to, accede to, approve of; More
2. Be capable of continued subjection to (a drug, toxin, or environmental condition) without adverse reaction.
"lichens grow in conditions that no other plants tolerate"
So, and I ask in all seriousness, given that so many of the political left, the stridently politically correct and those of certain religious and cultural persuasions appear to be completely UNABLE to allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (anything that they dislike or disagree with) without interference is it reasonable to assume that they have mental health problems ?
I don't know if anyone here has come across the possibility that mental ill health might be contagious ... if there is I'm especially interested in hearing.
And to the bobbleheads and noddy dogs that can't take part seriously ... Gosh, look of course, absolutely you're entitled to a nice safe space ... so I created that just for you and it's called "The nice safe space thread" all stocked up with cuddly counsellors and aloe vera infused tissues ... but the therapy dogs, they all quit en masse ... quoting their own psychological needs as dogs and their refusal to be exploited further
;-)
1. First definition, yes as long as I am free to disagree and as long as no one is being abused. There are things that should not be tolerated.
That is sometimes the cry of the one doing harm - that others should be more tolerant.
------ This thread is Archived ------
I also believe that a mental illness can be transmitted.
Not through microbes, of course, but if one holds conversations with a depressive or obsessive person, for example, one can share the wrong reasoning or feel those emotions.
It's just an opinion.
Not through microbes, of course, but if one holds conversations with a depressive or obsessive person, for example, one can share the wrong reasoning or feel those emotions.
It's just an opinion.
------ This thread is Archived ------
I think toleration means mental resolve; the ability to adapt. Can you tolerate your car exhaust falling off leaving you stranded at the side of the road.. or will you have a meltdown?
------ This thread is Archived ------
------ This thread is Archived ------
One cannot measure "mentality"
If you want, you can take from or learn from.
Then measure your personable cutting edge.
A wild child,a somber adult.
Leaves a way of intense, yet solice
Which way?
"a humble one"
If you want, you can take from or learn from.
Then measure your personable cutting edge.
A wild child,a somber adult.
Leaves a way of intense, yet solice
Which way?
"a humble one"
------ This thread is Archived ------
In my opinion insanity and mental health are two differant spheres.
If for instance you are looking after someone with seriouse mental health problems (that could be contagiouse?)
In a different way. Your own mental health can be comprimised with the caring role.
Different countries differ on what they think about mental health and eras too. I remember in my youth an antie used to wander the hills muttering to herself, all harmless my family assured me but she will not go to doc.
In hindsight i agree with her, they would have given her pills and made her a zombie. she was just odd--not the norm thats all. Is that tolerance?
Life teaches us how to become tolerant and when to be intolerant, as jac says how can she be tolerant on lives lost while folk working, claiming a wage with pension attached, did not do there job, and worse still even after the fact still sat on their hands. Yep intolerant shouts will change things, that does not mean your mental health is compromised, just common sense setting in and things will not be tolorated.
insanity contagiouse!! my opinion changes with life itself, as many young men have joined isis ideology and go out and kill. So life is a learning curve and it is no misdomeanor to change you opinions with new outlooks.
If for instance you are looking after someone with seriouse mental health problems (that could be contagiouse?)
In a different way. Your own mental health can be comprimised with the caring role.
Different countries differ on what they think about mental health and eras too. I remember in my youth an antie used to wander the hills muttering to herself, all harmless my family assured me but she will not go to doc.
In hindsight i agree with her, they would have given her pills and made her a zombie. she was just odd--not the norm thats all. Is that tolerance?
Life teaches us how to become tolerant and when to be intolerant, as jac says how can she be tolerant on lives lost while folk working, claiming a wage with pension attached, did not do there job, and worse still even after the fact still sat on their hands. Yep intolerant shouts will change things, that does not mean your mental health is compromised, just common sense setting in and things will not be tolorated.
insanity contagiouse!! my opinion changes with life itself, as many young men have joined isis ideology and go out and kill. So life is a learning curve and it is no misdomeanor to change you opinions with new outlooks.
------ This thread is Archived ------
This Thread is Archived
This Thread is archived, so you will no longer be able to post to it. Threads get archived automatically when they are older than 3 months.
« Go back to All Threads
« Go back to All Threads
More Threads
See It All The Time
makeover
Are the ads on here as phony as some of the profiles?
Democrats destroyed America
Kultur-multur
The Real Stormy Story
Would you hire this guy - for any job?
Say Anything Again
Ladies
One week of the most outrageous GOP leadership!
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).