ilovefuzz.com

Strange Tales wrote:

HighDeaf1080p wrote:

Strange Tales wrote:It works by a massive overflow of adrenaline during the event causing a biochemical change in your brain. The definition is just the surface.

Then why do some people develop it from the death of a loved one? Doesn't seem like that would cause a massive overflow of adrenaline. It also seems you have some causality knowledge that the National Institute of Mental Health does not have. You should call them and let them know.

It's incredibly well documented.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2046048
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12242055
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14644068

Also the death of an individual will cause a hormonal response which is more often than not a release of adrenaline to deal with stress. So yes, PTSD can develop from the death of a loved one.

I'm not sure why I'm doing this.

SO what IS your point? That I didn't experience adrenaline when a meth-head was beating me in the face and trying to steal my car? I'm lost here. Explain to me your comment "That's uh not how ptsd works."

D.o.S. wrote:

HighDeaf1080p wrote:Oh...my understanding of the constitution.

Given the current state of gun availability, which of us is more right about that document?

Like I said, if your so scared of guns...change the constitution. Apparently its easy...since its a fluid document.

I'm not scared of guns, I'm just pointing out that you're fundamentally wrong about the nature of the Constitution's construction (and for that matter, I've lived in towns too small to have their own police force, which would seem to be the perfect example for "what are we going to tell the people of rural Sticksville" and I still think they're fucking stupid). To the question, I'll say that correlation =/= causation, and that there are massive amounts of money donated on behalf of gun owners to keep legislation from being passed that would change it.

You drink alcohol, right? Heard of prohibition?

AAAAANND...when they repeal the 2nd amendment I will happily turn over my firearms. You're incorrect about me misunderstanding anything. People who disagree with you don't automatically misunderstand something. i'm fully aware of the process of adding amendments...its hard...as I've said NUMEROUS times. And I'm right about it.

That your experience didn't result in PTSD. You having a firearm isn't the magical cure for what you think you have. Your brain just didn't change. It's what happens.

Gotcha. I understand your assertion now.

I disagree with it. The reason it only develops in SOME people who experience those traumas is NOT well understood.

I believe it was my knowledge that I can defend myself that either prevented enough adrenaline, or created a psychological framework for me to better deal with the aftermath of the event.

What are your thoughts on the 19th Amendment? Good idea?

The point is not ease or difficulty (or agreement or disagreement on subjective things), the point is that "the constitution is not a fluid document" is wrong. Flat out wrong.

Haha. Yes, I believe it was a good idea.

D.o.S. wrote:What are your thoughts on the 19th Amendment? Good idea?

The point is not ease or difficulty (or agreement or disagreement on subjective things), the point is that "the constitution is not a fluid document" is wrong. Flat out wrong.

In fact...simply by the enormous act required to amend the constitution, I think if something passes that mustard, it is a good idea. And I think the word "fluid" implies ease of flow.

The shape of clay can be molded and changed...do you call clay "fluid"? How about stone? I can change that with a hammer and chisel...is that a fluid substance? You also don't seem to understand what "flat out" means, by the way.

Definition of fluid: pertaining to a substance that easily changes its shape; capable of flowing.

Since the actual word "easily" is in the definition of fluid, the point actually IS ease or difficulty. Have a nice day.

The Constitution is NOT a fluid document...it is actually very rigid and difficult to change...so when somethings in there, show it some respect whether you like that its in there or not.

Like I said before:

Chankgeez wrote:

D.o.S. wrote: the Constitution is a fluid

That's the name of our new band.

HighDeaf1080p wrote:

D.o.S. wrote:What are your thoughts on the 19th Amendment? Good idea?

The point is not ease or difficulty (or agreement or disagreement on subjective things), the point is that "the constitution is not a fluid document" is wrong. Flat out wrong.

In fact...simply by the enormous act required to amend the constitution, I think if something passes that mustard, it is a good idea. And I think the word "fluid" implies ease of flow.

The shape of clay can be molded and changed...do you call clay "fluid"? How about stone? I can change that with a hammer and chisel...is that a fluid substance? You also don't seem to understand what "flat out" means, by the way.

Definition of fluid: pertaining to a substance that easily changes its shape; capable of flowing.

Since the actual word "easily" is in the definition of fluid, the point actually IS ease or difficulty. Have a nice day.

The Constitution is NOT a fluid document...it is actually very rigid and difficult to change...so when somethings in there, show it some respect whether you like that its in there or not.

Adorable.

Whatever your chosen field is, it isn't linguistics, otherwise you'd understand the importance of a semicolon when using the dictionary. (This may also explain your craigslist woes)

But, to use your same source:

changing readily; shifting; not fixed, stable, or rigid:

All of these definitions are (wait for it) equally valid, so it's up to the writer to provide context/illumination, which I have. Semantics are fun, but you're still wrong here.

I might say evolving, but you might shoot back with "evolution isn't real", so...

AMEND ALL THE THINGS!

i like shooting guns. i like the idea of having something to protect me and the things and people i care about...... that said, the state of play right now..... indicates..... something is wrong?

i'm not saying that more restrictions/deeper background checks/whatever is a cure all, but this is the first time i've ever thought that maybe guns should be harder for people to get.

....... and yes, "gun control only slows down honest and lawful gun owners"...... but..... i dunno. how much of the NO GUN CONTROL LAWS EVER AT ALL is truly protecting gun ownership rights, and how much is huge lobbyist bullshit rhetoric?

also I am glad behnders is back among us. It fills the tentacle-y void in my heart.

HighDeaf1080p wrote:Gotcha. I understand your assertion now.

I disagree with it. The reason it only develops in SOME people who experience those traumas is NOT well understood.

I believe it was my knowledge that I can defend myself that either prevented enough adrenaline, or created a psychological framework for me to better deal with the aftermath of the event.

by this logic....how does anyone in america develop PTSD? if you have access to guns and that stops ptsd why do others with access to guns develop it

It's gotta be the cars.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhHONpmlxPc[/youtube]

HighDeaf1080p wrote:The Constitution is NOT a fluid document...it is actually very rigid and difficult to change...so when somethings in there, show it some respect whether you like that its in there or not.

You should get into religion, if you haven't already.

You shouldn't respect something just because it's old. That backwards. It's the kind of stubborn logic that ruins lives and halts positive progress. It's a scary, sheepish attitude to society.