"Ron" <homo@home.com> wrote

In article <1133jp1guhhl55e@news.supernews.com>, "Dutch" <no@email.com>
wrote:

"Ron" <homo@home.com> wrote

"Dutch" <no@email.com>
wrote:

"Ron" <homo@home.com> wrote

I consider it the disconnect between thought and action. It would

be

like a person stating they want to be thin and eating a gallon of

ice

cream a day, or the person stating they want to gain weight and

eating

nothing but a few crackers.

Where I find actions inconsistent with stated thoughts, I tend to
question the validity of the thoughts being stated.

I agree that there are inconsistencies but don't use that

observation to

jump to false conclusions.

People have contradictory goals and motivations, and conflicting

influences.

A girl may desperately wish to be thin but may have other issues

that

cause

her to overeat. Her weight problem may threaten her health, but she

neither

wants to to be fat, nor wants to die.

You can look at her weight and conclude that she overeats, but you

can't

conclude that she wants to be fat, although she may. You definitely

can't

conclude that she wants to die.

Ultimately though I believe that you can and should assign

*responsibility*

for her predicament to her, nobody else, even if other people (ie

abuse)

caused the problem.

What this last paragraph has to do with the discussion is anyone's
guess.

I was attempting to make a salient point out of an exchange that has

been

essentially pointless.

I was clearly speaking to the issue of behaviour being consistent
or inconsistent with a claim that is being made.

First of all, please lose the notion that you own exclusive control over

the

direction of the discussion.

I own absolute and exclusive control over my portion of the
conversation. You wish to evade a discussion on statements and their
evidence which can be found (or not found) in behaviour. Noted and moved
on.

You are incorrect, I am not evading any portion of this debate. I'm
disagreeing with your logic.

Behaviour, intentions and statements are all different issues that

sometimes

coincide, sometimes not. A person may have an intense desire to be thin,

but

at the same time have a strong urge to eat a coconut creme pie. The pie

may

win, but the desire to be thin is still real.

So, what you seem to be agreeing with here is my perspective of a
duality of a personality, or in the conflicting nature or polarities at
work. The desire(s) to be fat and thin are opposite ends of the
spectrum, or polarities on a continuum.

However, both activities at both ends of the specture (over and
undereating) are not consistent with a will to live, but are conssitent
with a will to become sick in one fashion or another and die.

This is where you jump to a simplistic conclusion. Poor eating habits may be
inconsistent with good health, but they do not necessarily indicate a wish
to die. They may have many other roots. Skydiving may be dangerous, that
doesn't mean people do it because they wish to die, they do it for the
excitement.