|
The big problem with trying to prevent baldness is all the supposed fixes involve killing your testosterone levels. Doing a shit load of cardio excercise is supposed to help, as it lowers free testosterone levels. If it bothers you so so much, I would also switch to a Paleolithic diet (loads of fish,chicken, fruit and veg), this may help (will probably do fuck all but some people say diet helps). Taking any of those drugs, to me is totally insane, i would take baldness over man tits and small balls any day of the week. |
Hair loss • Page 20
-
dagoberto 323 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 16 years ago -
Mike_Hunt 23,524 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 19 years ago
Great, as that's exactly what I'm saying! To be fair to Blize, it really does sound like he has weighed up the benefits, and only he can truly appreciate those. I don't think anyone can argue that he's making an ill-informed decision here.
My advice with all drugs – be they recreational, medicinal or in this case I suppose cosmetic - would be to weigh up the benefits against the potential consequences and make an informed decision based on that. I wouldn’t make a blanket statement as every drug will be different in that balance.
I think you're absolutely entitled to give a view, I wouldn't have it otherwise. It's just that your view (he shouldn't take this medication, despite making an informed decision), differs from your actions (where you take a drug, after making an informed decision). That's the hypocracy I see here. The fact that they're different drugs is irrelivant in this case.
I really don’t agree that me taking a drug automatically makes me an advocate of it, although yes, I probably would advocate my particular drug of choice, but that’s not the topic of conversation here. Like I say, each drug is a separate discussion, and I don’t really see how my personal choices mean I can’t give a view on blize’s dilemma without being a hypocrite.
Fair point, there's a clear difference between physical and psychological addication. You've got to ask 'why' he'd want to break that addiction though. If he's happy having hair and isn't suffering from any side effects then I don't see a problem... I know that even if I had a full head of hair and I suddenly grew man boobs and had a broken winky then I'd find it very easy to break an addiction.
I made a comparison before with me wearing designer pants as I thought it might help me pull. Whether it did or not directly, it may have boosted my confidence, and helped me find a wife. Now I have a wife, I’m back on the M&S boxers, but “Calvin Klein’s = confidence” was a fairly easy thing to dissociate. What worries me about the decision blize is making is that drugs are a very different thing to pants, and that dissociation will be much harder to make. Bottom line is you don’t get a physical addiction to pants, and any psychological addiction you get is probably easy to break and pretty harmless anyway.
.gif)
Ah, so it seems to be the main disgreement is the different in belief as to whether or not he's making an informed decision. Whilst I'd agree that at the start of the thread he seemed to be jumping on any old solution to his problem, he has done a lot of reading around on the 'net, has spoken directly with other users and consulted medical advice from his doctor - I don't see how that's an uninformed decision. If you still believe that to be then that's your opinion and we'll have to agree to disagree on this point.
I completely agree, this is basically what I said above. However I don’t think blize is actually doing that. I think he’s made an uninformed decision to take the drugs and is now looking for validation in that decision and I can’t in good conscious not state my opinion on that. I think he’s going to give himself issues, but yeah, that’s his choice, and to be fair I think I’ve been pretty helpful and non-judgemental in my advice, and he seems to have accepted it in the way it was intended.
I think you *have* been helpful, and have had good intentions, honestly. I'm not attacking your posts or yourself here. I just found some of your latter posts slightly hypocritical - which wasn't meant to be an attack on yourself, and I hope it didn't come across that way.
[MH] -
Mike_Hunt 23,524 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 19 years agosquarejawhero wrote:
Again, this is what I take issue with here. Just because someone says they'd rather have hair than not doesn't mean they have deep underlying issues. I take offence to that.
I disagree with it removing a problem because the problem is deeper, and he'd just move onto the next thing. I've seen it happen, personally, too many times. It'd be a temporary fix.
I've dealt with a nervous condition all my adult life which I could only solve by confronting it - and, even though it's still present on occasion, I did. Personally, I know everybody's different and problems are solved dependent on the case, but with each case until you accept that you have this problem and understand that's the root, then you can't solve it. Bandaging it over doesn't mean it'll heal on its own.
I also think baldness/hairloss is one of those things that's easier to deal with as you get older. If you're receeding at 17 then it's a bastard to deal with, if you're receeding at 30+ then it's a different kettle of fish. Either way, I don't believe someone has deep psycological issues because of this, I just believe they're human.
[MH] -
smoothpete 37,743 posts
Seen 4 days ago
Registered 17 years agoWhatever you do, just don't get those hair implants -
malteaserhead 13,443 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 17 years agosmoothpete wrote:
Whatever you do, just don't get those hair implants
Wrong. Why live all glum like [link=http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1160/1193792861_b6db2018e2_m.jpg">this when you could be lording it up (threesome style) like -
malteaserhead 13,443 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 17 years agoantialias64x wrote:
You got to think though. In the days of yore did men really have self esteem issues to hair loss like today, almost certainly not.
Not quite
Had the two bog men met [over 2000 years ago], Oldcroghan man would have towered over Clonycavan man, who measured just 5 feet, 2 inches (157 centimeters) tall.
Perhaps to compensate for his short stature, Clonycavan man coiffed up his hair using an early hair gel.
"Naturally enough, he wanted to make himself look grander," Mulhall said. "It's a bit like someone wearing platform shoes." -
silentbob 29,527 posts
Seen 1 year ago
Registered 19 years agodagoberto wrote:
Why was I not informed of my evil Spanish twin brother's infiltration of these forums?
-
silentbob 29,527 posts
Seen 1 year ago
Registered 19 years agoI just realised that makes absolutely no sense to anyone here not familiar with my gamertag.
And now I've tried to explain it too much.
I probably should have just left it.
..
I really fancy some Toblerone. -
Mike_Hunt 23,524 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 19 years agoYou've got a gamertag? Add me already, damn you!
[MH] -
Mike_Hunt wrote:
I think you're absolutely entitled to give a view, I wouldn't have it otherwise. It's just that your view (he shouldn't take this medication, despite making an informed decision), differs from your actions (where you take a drug, after making an informed decision). That's the hypocracy I see here. The fact that they're different drugs is irrelivant in this case.
I think we’ve found a point of agreement on the rest of the discussion, but I’m going to pick up on the above bit, just because it’s interesting to me.
I don’t really follow your logic here, and boiling it down to ‘making an informed decision and taking a drug’ seems a bit simplistic and a little contrived to me.
Yes, there’s *a* recreational drug that I choose to take; there are also many others that I have made an informed decision not to take. Do you see my point? Am I now not a hypocrite due to advising him not to take a drug, when there’s drugs that I’ve chosen not to take?
What if didn’t smoke weed, would you point to drinking alcohol has a reason why I’m a hypocrite? I don’t see why your logic wouldn’t follow that, they’re similar recreational drugs. One’s illegal of course, but legality has nothing to do with this conversation. What about taking an aspirin or a cup of coffee? Does anyone that takes any of these drugs become a hypocrite if they advise blize not to take a completely different drug? I realise this is a ludicrous point, but in your own words – “The fact that they're different drugs is irrelivant in this case.”
Basically, can only someone who has never chosen to take any type of drug of any kind give blize advice which isn’t hypocritical, and if so, how on earth could that advice be informed? -
I heartily recommend shooting heroin into the corners of your eyes. -
chopsen 21,958 posts
Seen 10 hours ago
Registered 16 years agoIt's only bloody finestaride ffs. It's not like he's thinking of going on [insert drug with lots of nasty side effects]. -
What, like losing use of your cock. -
Mike_Hunt 23,524 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 19 years ago
I don’t really follow your logic here, and boiling it down to ‘making an informed decision and taking a drug’ seems a bit simplistic and a little contrived to me.
Yes, there’s *a* recreational drug that I choose to take; there are also many others that I have made an informed decision not to take. Do you see my point? Am I now not a hypocrite due to advising him not to take a drug, when there’s drugs that I’ve chosen not to take?
What if didn’t smoke weed, would you point to drinking alcohol has a reason why I’m a hypocrite? I don’t see why your logic wouldn’t follow that, they’re similar recreational drugs. One’s illegal of course, but legality has nothing to do with this conversation. What about taking an aspirin or a cup of coffee? Does anyone that takes any of these drugs become a hypocrite if they advise blize not to take a completely different drug? I realise this is a ludicrous point, but in your own words – “The fact that they're different drugs is irrelivant in this case.”
Basically, can only someone who has never chosen to take any type of drug of any kind give blize advice which isn’t hypocritical, and if so, how on earth could that advice be informed?
I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding of my 'issue' here.
My issue isn't that you gave advice, I don't think there really should be any sort of prerequisite with regards to expirience when giving advice. Obviously the person receiving the advice should decide how much weight this advice carries appropriately.
So - no issue with you giving advice, regardless of what drugs you've taken or not.
My point was that your advice differred from your actions - hence 'hypocracy'. I'll state my point again - you flat out told him that you thought he shouldn't take that tablet, because drugs are bad/complicated/have side effects (all based on your experience/knowledge).
The thing is - he's made an informed decision (as I stated in my previous post) to take a drug he doesn't need, so why would you, with that knowledge, still state that he shouldn't take this particular drug, when you yourself have made an informed decision to take a drug you don't need?
The fact that the drugs are different really doesn't matter, it's that your advice differs from your own actions.
Yes, some drugs are worse than others, obviously. Using your own examples, people make informed decisions whether or not to take paracetamol, smoke a cigarette, or drink a pint every day. The risks/side effects are fairly well known, yet they decide to take it regardless.
You weren't coming across as saying "this isn't a decision to be taken lightly, look into it a bit more", your posts all read as "Drugs are bad, hands off, you really shouldn't be doing this".
To use another extreme example, if he was talking about injecting heroin into his eyeballs to help make him feel better about himself then I think you, or anyone, would have been right to stay "whoa, not a good idea", because anyone of a sound mind would be able to see that that's such an extreme drug that the risks clearly outweigh the benefits here. However, when you're talking of lesser drugs, such as finisteride (or weed), I think it is entirely possible for someone to make an informed decision as to whether or not they want to take it.
These posts always come out longer than I intended... to sum up.
o) Paracetamol and booze are 'everyday' drugs, the side effects are fairly well known, people make informed decisions whether or not to take these every day.
o) Finisteride/Propecia and Weed are less common, but neither are that nasty that it's not possible for someone to make an informed decision whether or not to take that particular drug.
o) So my point is, he's looked into a drug that he doesn't need to take, clearly made an informed decision and decided to take it. You then proceeded to tell him it was wrong, despite you yourself making an informed decision about another drug and also deciding to take it.
Do you see what I'm saying - he made an informed decision to take some medication, what's so wrong about that? Especially when you've done the same.
[MH] -
I just think that’s over-simplification for the sake of rationalisation. By your logic I still don’t see how I can give any advice other that “go for it” which wouldn’t be hypocritical.
The fact that the drugs are different does matter - I fundamentally disagree with you on this. The reasons for taking them are different, the alternatives are different and the consequences are different. The whole notion of an ‘informed decision’ goes out the window if you’re basically going to lump all ‘everyday drugs’ into the same bracket as equally harmless. Again, your over-simplified logic would dictate that if you’ve decided it’s ok to smoke weed then there’s no point in doing the research into finisteride, as they’re fairly equally everday. This is patently nonsense.
Besides, the whole reason I’m advising him against it is that I don’t agree with the conclusion he’s come to based on his ‘research’ (which is not as great as you seem to think it is btw. It was me that found the stuff about the Swedish research into impotence after 2 seconds googling, which he hadn’t found). Just because I choose to smoke weed I really can’t fathom how they makes me a hypocrite.
Twist it round, imagine I’d gone into the thread and said “Well, I smoke weed and that’s fine, so you should definitely take finistride” everyone would have said it was completely irrelevant, so how can the opposite be hypocritical? -
Mike_Hunt wrote:
My point was that your advice differred from your actions - hence 'hypocracy'. I'll state my point again – you flat out told him that you thought he shouldn't take that tablet, because drugs are bad/complicated/have side effects (all based on your experience/knowledge).
Also I need to pull you up on this – I absolutely didn’t do this. It would nicely reinforce your point that I’m a hypocrite if I did, but I didn’t… -
Mike_Hunt 23,524 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 19 years agoYou're still not getting my point, which is why I've tried to simplfy it. You're also trying to put words into my mouth, which is unfair.
By my logic - if you'd come in and said something along the lines of "Look, I've got some hands on experience with drugs, it's not to be taken lightly, I recommend you do some additional research before you come to a conclusion", then that wouldn't have been hypocritcal at all. But your posts were along the lines of "It's a bad idea, look, I've even looked into it for you, don't do it".
So my question is, why shouldn't he be allowed to make his own decision?
How would you feel if people were constantly asking you to justify smoking weed, and then regardless of your reasoning still told you that you shouldn't be doing it, that you're wrong?
The reason drugs don't matter is because that's not the point here, at all. I've not lumped anything into any bracket, nor have I graded anything based on harmful affects.
The reason drugs don't matters here is because in some cases it's easier to make an informed decisions (example include (but aren't grouped together in any sort of level of harmfulness) paracetamol, alcohol, tobacco), this is because the general level of awareness of these drugs is high. In some cases it's more difficult to make an informed decision as awareness isn't as high (examples include the likes of finisteride, weed etc).
The whole point is a persons right to make an informed decision about what they want to do. What they are actually doing is irrelivant, and that's not what I'm arguing. If someone's come to a conclusion to do something, based on sound research, and they still decide to go ahead then they've got a right to do so IMO.
You can't wade in and suddenly state that that person is wrong, because despite you thinking that you know the risks, you can't possibly, ever, comprehend the reward as that's unique to that individual. Therefore they can be the only one capable of making the decision to proceed.
By the same token, I've got no right to get in your face and state that you're totally wrong for smoking weed. Regardless of your motives, it's just wrong (something I don't believe BTW). I could question your research, I could suggest alternatives, I could state that in the same situation I'd do something different, but I've no right to just say "wrong wrong wrong".
To reiterate my point about his research, it was Blize who first pointed out the side effects and stated that these were concerning him. He stated this well in advance of your post. He's spoken to other people taking the drug, he's read lots on the internet and has also taken medical advice - this, in my book at least, constituted an informed decision, especially over a drug like finisteride.
Twist it round, imagine I’d gone into the thread and said “Well, I smoke weed and that’s fine, so you should definitely take finistride” everyone would have said it was completely irrelevant, so how can the opposite be hypocritical?
This is over simplified, and isn't actually an accurate example. If you'd said "Well I smoke weed and I decided to do so based on an informed decision, so it's fine that Blize has followed the same process for finisteride" that statement is clearly relevant as you're giving advice based on experience, so how can the opposite (not actually saying that, rather simply stating he was wrong) *not* be hypocritical?
[MH] -
Mike_Hunt 23,524 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 19 years agokalel wrote:
I think you're seeing the use of the word 'hypocrite' as a personal attack, it honestly wasn't intended as such.
Mike_Hunt wrote:
My point was that your advice differred from your actions - hence 'hypocracy'. I'll state my point again – you flat out told him that you thought he shouldn't take that tablet, because drugs are bad/complicated/have side effects (all based on your experience/knowledge).
Also I need to pull you up on this – I absolutely didn’t do this. It would nicely reinforce your point that I’m a hypocrite if I did, but I didn’t…
But thanks for making me flick through this monster of a thread again!
I do think you should look for a solution other than drugs or plugs or anything like that mind you. I’d recommend finding a solution based around gracefully accepting baldness, this is the only practical long term solution really. It sucks, but there it is.
Ideally once he gets a gf he'll realise that it's nothing to do with his hair or whatever, and then won't care about it anymore. However, in order to get to that point, he may need to find a solution to the hair thing that he's confortable and confident with (ideally not involving drugs or anything like that as it's a bit retarded).
I'd still suggest getting a hair cut mind you. Drugs are funny things, and much easier (and more harmful) to build up weird dependencies on. As much as I disagreed with some of sjh's points, I strongly agree with him on this.
You seem to have made your mind up but I really think you're making an error. I'd fully explore some other ways of making you feel better about your appearance before getting into something like that. Go to a gym or something, bulk up. Get some new clothes.
I think maybe you believe I was making my point more aggressively than I actually was. Your posts have all been helpful, with the best of intentions, and offering sound advice for the most part (I've never disgreed with any of this). I just didn't like the fact that you were clearly saying that he should avoid drugs (I don't think this can be argued), even though he's made an informed decision (I don't think this can be argued), whilst you also have decided to take a drug after making an informed decision (again I don't think this can be argued).
For fear of getting into an infinite loop here - please see my previous post about why I don't believe that the type of drug matters, only the person's right to come to a decision to take a drug.
[MH] -
mrpon 37,367 posts
Seen 5 hours ago
Registered 15 years agoJust cutting my hair tonight? Any takers? -
chopsen 21,958 posts
Seen 10 hours ago
Registered 16 years agosquarejawhero wrote:
What, like losing use of your cock.
So does drinking alcohol. And cycling. -
Mike, I’m going to try and keep this short (in all seriousness it would be good if you could do the same, those posts are getting essay-like).
A) You can’t call someone a hypocrite without them taking it as an attack, because it is one.
B) I don’t think really think I put words in your mouth, I just applied what I understand you logic to be to scenarios to show the flaws in your rationale. You’ve done the same to me as well, plus used a number of other rhetoric devices – a little hypocritical to take issue with me on this frankly…
C) I AM giving advice based on my experience. That’s the point! If you must have it spelt out I’m making recommendations based on 1st hand experience of addiction. That’s not hypocritical.
D) blize can do whatever he wants. I’m not saying he can’t. I’m recommending he doesn’t take the drugs based on my experience (see C) – I assumed this is what he wanted when he started a thread in the first place.
Reading between the lines I’m guessing you yourself take (or have taken) this drug or something similar. Forgive me for suggesting it, but could there be an element of defensiveness in your reaction? Could it be that you have taken some of the comments in here personally?
Fair enough if so, but I just hope you’re not giving blize advise to somehow make you feel more justified in the conclusions you came to when you were in a similar position to him, as that really would be hypocritical. -
smoothpete 37,743 posts
Seen 4 days ago
Registered 17 years ago"Winners don't do pants" -
Mike_Hunt 23,524 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 19 years agoA) I think 'attack' is a little extreme. I'm struggling to tell via the medium of the internet just how pissed off you are. If you're even sligthly pissed off I apologise. I was simply pointing out that I thought you were saying one thing and doing another on this particular occasion. It's not something that would offend me, and if I thought it would've upset you, I would've kept my mouth shut (my first post wasn't particularly directed at anyone).
B) You were twisting what I was trying to say into ridiculous examples. If you were using extremes to try and prove a point then that's one thing, but I don't believe they were accurate reflections of what I was saying.
C) I've never claimed that was hypocritical. I've stated that it is, in fact, beneficial.
D) Of course he can. Recommending that he doesn't take drugs when you yourself take drugs is pretty much the dictionary definition of hypocritical, so I don't see how you're so upset about how I came to that conclusion. We've gone into more detail about motives, alternatives, and awareness, at length, but the point still stands that his situation isn't all that different to yours, yet you're giving him different advice to what you're following.
There's shouldn't be any reading between the lines, I've stated as much earlier in the thread. I've been on propecia for a while, I'm not on it right now, but that's not related to these side effects in any way, it's due to other circumstances - not relating to the drug.
I've not taken anything stated here personally at all! I've never once tried to defend the use of the drug. I've stated that I've used it without any side effects whatsoever. This whole discussion with yourself is has been about a person's right to make that decision. I certainly wouldn't have been bothered had Blize decided not to take it - and I certainly would never put any pressure on him to take it! I really don't like your last paragraph. You can read my earlier posts for yourself, and I'm sure Blize would be able to confirm that this most certainly isn't the case.
The only things I found offensive in this thread were the fact that many people seemed to indicate that if you prefer the look of having hair then you've obviously got mental issues and should seek help. Thankfully, your first post in this thread agreed that this was ridiculous.
[MH] -
Chopsen wrote:
squarejawhero wrote:
What, like losing use of your cock.
So does drinking alcohol. And cycling.
/blankface
research moar -
Mike – I’m fast coming to the conclusion that our understandings of the word ‘hypocrite’ differ, which is perhaps where most of our disagreement is coming from.
Firstly yes, I find it highly pejorative and I get very offended when I’m accused of it. I think most do to be honest.
I also think if you acknowledge that “C” (above posts) is not hypocritical, then I don’t really see where you think I am being a hypocrite. For me that’s a contradiction. If you understand why my experience results in the advice I’m giving, then how can giving that advice be hypocritical? This is a rhetorical question, I understand your view. You think because I take a similar drug (I still strongly disagree with that btw, but whatever) it’s hypocritical for me to tell him not to, and ok, perhaps in those extremely simplistic terms it is. But the reality is that it’s the experience I have that gives me the unique insight with which I can give him useful advice. That’s far from hypocritical.
It’s perfectly possible to give advice different to what you do, and not be a hypocrite, especially if that advice is based on experience. If I get stuck on the motorway I might advise someone else take an A road. If I find the lasagne is disgusting I might advise someone else get the fish. These are not “ridiculous examples”– they perfectly illustrate my point, and are equivalent to the situation here.
I did purposefully go a little below the belt with the other stuff so sorry about that, but I was trying to illustrate a point about getting personal and throwing accusations of hypocrisy around. -
Mod Alert!
Khanivor and Ahab have hacked kalel and Mike_Hunt's accounts.
.gif)
Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.
