Amnesia through hypnosis to erase painful memories.

No.

As already stated, if erasing or blocking a selective memory was an option, there would be a store on every street corner.

How many women have gotten an abortion they would like to forget? How many soldiers come back from war with painful memories? How many people go through life trying to forget a love they lost or a bad decision they made? All of us have bad memories.

Pranjal, grow up! You are not a child that needs to hide under your bed and close your eyes, hoping the monster won't get you. Whatever bad thing you did, you need to face it like an adult, not a child.

You started a previous thread about this same subject. I understand you don't like the answer, but running from it isn't going to do you any good. The longer you run away, the longer you will struggle to move forward in life.

Don't get me wrong Pranjal, there will be people that tell you they can make it happen for you. You will then be parted with your money and instead of 1 bad memory you will have 2 bad memories you wish to erase.

I highly encourage you to seek a path of maturity, of wisdom, of growth instead of one of running away.

Not to be the man who starts trouble, but that response was a little aggressive.
I also have to disagree, from my own experiences with subjects, it is not only quite possible to remove select memories, but also to rewrite and implant memories.

I have done this with individuals in the past, although i prefer a rewrite as removing a person's memories technically changes who they are, as a persons memories and experiences make them who they are. Sometimes it's better to merely influence the way they react to the memory so they feel less bad about it, rather than removing it.

The response above to the original post is insinuating / accusing the poster of some sort of criminal action, such accusations should not be thrown around lightly. He has stated it's for hypnotherapy in the original post after all. Is it really necessary to be quite so aggressive?

krystian4684 wrote:Not to be the man who starts trouble, but that response was a little aggressive.

Well then don't presume that you know the entire story based on one post.

I also have to disagree, from my own experiences with subjects, it is not only quite possible to remove select memories...

Great, so then you are a billionaire? Have you patented this and sold it to the military, churches, family planning clinics, etc? There is a HUGE market for removing selected memories.

You are an extremely rude individual, and I will not entertain you further.
Good Luck.

krystian4684 wrote:You are an extremely rude individual, and I will not entertain you further.
Good Luck.

YOU made the decision to "not be the man to start trouble, but..." and then started trouble. That was your decision, not mine. You could have just kept your troubling opinion to yourself.

My life will be inconmplete without you to entertain me. Maybe I will have to find a way to erase this particular memory so my life can be whole again.

I also have to disagree, from my own experiences with subjects, it is not only quite possible to remove select memories...

Great, so then you are a billionaire? Have you patented this and sold it to the military, churches, family planning clinics, etc? There is a HUGE market for removing selected memories.

So are you going on record saying that you are incapable of figuring out how it could be possible or reasonably believed to be possible by someone who isn't a billionaire, or is this just how you like to treat people who reasonably disagree with you?

jimmyh wrote:So are you going on record saying that you are incapable of figuring out how it could be possible or reasonably believed to be possible by someone who isn't a billionaire, or is this just how you like to treat people who reasonably disagree with you?

I have no issue with the opinion that it is possible to erase a selective memory. I disagree, and consider it pseudo-science that can easily be demonstrated false, but take no issue with anyone that wants to use a public forum to espouse such an opinion.

On the other hand, the hypocritical "I'm not the man to start trouble, but..." is a different story.

>I have no issue with the opinion that it is possible to erase a selective memory. I disagree, and consider it pseudo-science that can be easily be demonstrated false, but take no issue with anyone that wants to use a public forum to espouse such an opinion.

Nobody thinks you agree and it's not about whether you "have issue" with it. The question is whether it is a belief you cannot see as reasonable, or if this is just how you choose to treat people with whom you have reasonable disagreements. I can explain why this question is important, if you'd like.

>On the other hand, the hypocritical "I'm not the man to start trouble, but..." is a different story.

What krystian4684 said on the topic was
>>Not to be the man who starts trouble, but that response was a little aggressive.

Anyone that says "not to X, but Y" clearly anticipates that Y is likely to cause X to occur. That doesn't necessarily mean they're the ones at fault if it does.

For example, if krystian4684 was just throwing out accusations because they *wanted* to cause trouble, then yes, it would be dishonest and hypocritical.

It seems more likely to me though, that krystian4684 really didn't want trouble, but honestly thought that your response was unnecessarily aggressive, didn't want to be cowed into silence in the name of "keeping the peace", and felt that if you respond to honest feedback with "trouble", then that is on you. Do you know something I don't about krystian4684's intent, or do you actually think that honestly held feedback is an offense or something?

jimmyh wrote:It seems more likely to me though, that krystian4684 really didn't want trouble,

Do you know something I don't about krystian4684's intent,

What? Do you know something I don't? It "seems more likely to you," but I'm not allowed that same privilege? You can interpret his intent, but I can't?

but honestly thought that your response was unnecessarily aggressive, didn't want to be cowed into silence in the name of "keeping the peace", and felt that if you respond to honest feedback with "trouble", then that is on you. or do you actually think that honestly held feedback is an offense or something?

Lol. No, I don't care if you or krystian4684 or anyone else wants to pick a fight, because "they feel" or in their "honest opinion" they don't like my approach. That is perfectly fine, but then don't get all offended when the person you pick a fight with responds.

If you feel the need to defend krystian4684, the OP, or yourself by providing "honest feedback" that is great, have at it, but don't expect the "honest feedback" to give you or anyone else to make you immune from my honest feedback.

Use a physical rather than a verbal example. You come into a forum and say, "I'm not the man to start trouble, but"...(slap). You physically slap someone. You feel justified in slapping that person, because in your opinion they slapped another person, in this case it would be me slapping the OP. Really? You expect your "honesty" in the form of a slap is justified and is not going to prompt a response? Wrong.

Now we are not talking physical, rather we are exchanging verbal slaps. Krystian4684 felt justified in slapping me, yet prompted it with a "I'm not, but..." and you with such wonderful insight into the mind of Krystian are jumping on the bandwagon. And that is fine. We can go back and forth slapping in each other around if you like.

>What? Do you know something I don't? It "seems more likely to you," but I'm not allowed that same privilege? You can interpret his intent, but I can't?

No, you can have your guesses and respond to them as well. It just seems like if you don't know for sure it's worth giving someone the benefit of the doubt usually. You didn't seem to give them the benefit of the doubt, so I was wondering if you thought there was none. If you're just the kind of person that doesn't like to give people the benefit of the doubt, then that would explain it as well, but that's not a very charitable assumption so I was trying to give you a chance to explain what I've missed.

>Now we are not talking physical, rather we are exchanging verbal slaps. Krystian4684 felt justified in slapping me,[...]

Right, so you're taking it as a slap. Krystian said "that response was a little aggressive", and it feels to you like you've been slapped, so you respond by doing what you intend as a retaliatory slap ("We can go back and forth slapping in each other around if you like").

That... kinda seems to prove Krystian's point though? And maybe, if Krystian's intent might have actually been helpful feedback rather than an act of aggression, maybe the best response isn't to slap the person who is saying that you might be a little overly aggressive?

jimmyh wrote:That... kinda seems to prove Krystian's point though? And maybe, if Krystian's intent might have actually been helpful feedback rather than an act of aggression, maybe the best response isn't to slap the person who is saying that you might be a little overly aggressive?

So your logic is that a person comes into a forum and says, "I think you are a bit aggressive. I'm going to now helpfully slap you for being aggressive. If you respond to my aggression, that proves you are overly aggressive."

Do you see the flaw in your logic? It is like saying, I'm going to punch you for being "too aggressive" and if you retaliate it proves my point.

I absolutely see the flaw in *that* logic. If Krystian had said "I'm going to now helpfully slap you for being aggressive", then your response would be quite understandable. However, all I saw was "that response was a little aggressive" and it kinda looks like you hallucinated the slapping part out of nowhere.

That's why I'm asking if you know something about Krystian's intent that I don't, or if you just don't like giving people the benefit of the doubt or something.

jimmyh wrote:
That's why I'm asking if you know something about Krystian's intent that I don't,

Pretty simple. "Not to be the man that starts trouble, but...." that is pretty clear intent to me. Maybe you don't see the intent in that statement.

And you don't see how that could just be "I should probably make it explicitly clear that I have good intent and am not trying to cause trouble because this guy seems unnecessarily hostile and might find a reason to respond to this with more unwarranted hostility if I don't make this clear"?