Rspekten for de som bruker dette forumet, og hva jeg har lært hær er mye. Derfor spør jeg nå om kritikk på ett enkelt teorem. Tvilsomt blir teoremet hverken anerkjent, eller riktig. Men, uten å ha sjekket om dette teoremet er for lengst undersøkt, eller ikke, så vil jeg ha det kritisert uansett.
Men for å være litt spesifikk. Jeg trenger øvelse i å argumente i tekst form på engelsk. Gjerne argumenter imot, men også påpek eventuelle logiske fallgroper. Men hovedsakelig ønsker jeg feedback på det språklige, men også gjerne en diskusjon rundt dette temaet.
Men for å være litt spesifikk. Jeg trenger øvelse i å argumente i tekst form på engelsk. Gjerne argumenter imot, men også påpek eventuelle logiske fallgroper. Men hovedsakelig ønsker jeg feedback på det språklige, men også gjerne en diskusjon rundt dette temaet.
A point could be made about point addiction. This meaning that only if, and if being the operative word, you can sustain an addiction, simply by using the substance. Again, meaning, that in the meaning of the word addiction, you are not needing this for a well life lived, only as a want to treat yourself now. This means that I’m, to some degree changing the definition of the word addictive, or addict.
In some way, ‘point addiction’ would refer to the need for the body to sustain something, as well as the mind. By saying this, I’m including both, a physical and a psychological dependence. A person living on the street, hating his life, would by my words, be point addicted. This meaning that he is not necessarily addicted to the substance itself, but more to his own predicament, in this case, living on the street. A point made about being addicted to some substance, because you are living on the street, is not a new idea.
A life long addiction is not what I’m talking about here. Well it is in principle. Addicts pertaining to a life long addiction is another matter. The essence of what I’m saying, is that it is possible to be addicted to something on a point to point basis. Case in point, I’m hung over now, and drinking a few beers will fix that. Of course, this being only an anecdote, serves no other scientifically proof, other than as an example.
To the heart of the matter. What I’m proposing is not a new way of thinking about addict. What I’m proposing is a new definition of addicts. In turn, this may change the way we are thinking about addicts.
In some way, ‘point addiction’ would refer to the need for the body to sustain something, as well as the mind. By saying this, I’m including both, a physical and a psychological dependence. A person living on the street, hating his life, would by my words, be point addicted. This meaning that he is not necessarily addicted to the substance itself, but more to his own predicament, in this case, living on the street. A point made about being addicted to some substance, because you are living on the street, is not a new idea.
A life long addiction is not what I’m talking about here. Well it is in principle. Addicts pertaining to a life long addiction is another matter. The essence of what I’m saying, is that it is possible to be addicted to something on a point to point basis. Case in point, I’m hung over now, and drinking a few beers will fix that. Of course, this being only an anecdote, serves no other scientifically proof, other than as an example.
To the heart of the matter. What I’m proposing is not a new way of thinking about addict. What I’m proposing is a new definition of addicts. In turn, this may change the way we are thinking about addicts.
Vis hele sitatet...
Sist endret av murloc; 12. april 2017 kl. 19:22.