Umm.. No... Let us Christians have atleast one good thing about our religion. We can condemn people 
But not judge >.<
How does that work, exactly? Tell me the difference between "condemn" and "judge."
You are assuming that I think this. Which is untrue, I know that being able to change your own personality is not something that can happen overnight. I am not refering to the parts that we are trying to change, but the parts that we accept but do not let out all the time. For example, most men hide thier emotional side to the masses. They do not try and change this part of them, they accept it but push it deep inside them so that it doesn't come out. Except in situtations where it can not be held in, or when certain chemical put into your body open this part of you. Thus, you see the jocks who are incredibly macho, but when they are drunk they become buddy buddy with everyone they see. Hence the phrase "I love you man!" was born. I can see how you misinterpreted my statements, for I am lazy and usually try and summarize rather than divulge.
I think we're getting away from what we were originally talking about. Leebot said that his fear was losing his mind--i.e., being intoxicated:
My one fear is kind of similar to Aitrus': The fear of losing my mind. But mine is not necessarily just through insanity (in fact, if it developed naturally out of me, that wouldn't trigger the fear), but through any outside factor interfering with my being. That's why I never drink any alcohol, and one of many reasons I'll never do other drugs.
I never thought of it as a fear, just as something I thought crazy to do (and crazy that so many people do it). It bothers me when people advise people to drink some before a party to loosen up; I just don't see why people would voluntarily want their minds to be controlled...
Why do you think it is crazy?
Because one's mind is oneself. There is no distinction between the two. Abandoning our will to the influence of an intoxicating substance is almost the stupidest choice a person can make, in character terms. The world can throw boatloads and dumptruckfuls of shit at us, and all we can do is deal, but as long as we're in control of ourselves there is always a way ahead...come what may.
Or, to put it less figuratively, everything about who we are and what we do, begins with our state of mind.
You make it sound like the person is completely different when they are under the influence. If anything the person is more "themself" in this inebriated state, for they are less inhibited by thier fears. Whether this is for good or for worse is dependent on the person.
That's where "inhibition" came into the discussion, with me saying:
I hold that inhibition is an important quality of personality. Oftentimes our inhibitions define and sharpen our character.
All of which let to this final pertinent exchange:
True, but in the same note, denying a part of who you are just hurts you in the long run. When those emotions eventually come out, you won't know how to handle them.
"Who you are" is never set in stone. Our behaviors reinforce our personality. You seem to be implying that if we inhibit our behaviors, they will remain perfectly intact and will inevitably erupt at some point in the future. That isn't necessarily so. Personality is dynamic, and behavior, and inhibition is an important quality of personality.
What you're talking about is unconditional self-indulgence, a behavioral trait which, absent external limiting factors, is a guaranteed path to self-destruction. Inhibition is not an inherently wrong or bad quality. Our biological instincts, our desire for immediate physical gratification, our emotional pettiness, our imprudence and small-mindedness, our impulsiveness, and a whole host of other human qualities...these are all frequently counterproductive to people's ideals of character and personal ambitions. Inhibition is a way of rationally or at least dutifully imposing self-discipline on oneself in order to achieve something more desirable than the basic short-term satisfaction of uncondtional self-indulgence.
So what I have been saying all this time is that Leebot's fear is well-founded, and the inhibition against losing control over oneself by substance abuse is an understandable and respectable character trait. But now we get back to what you just said:
You are assuming that I think this. Which is untrue, I know that being able to change your own personality is not something that can happen overnight. I am not refering to the parts that we are trying to change, but the parts that we accept but do not let out all the time. For example, most men hide thier emotional side to the masses. They do not try and change this part of them, they accept it but push it deep inside them so that it doesn't come out. Except in situtations where it can not be held in, or when certain chemical put into your body open this part of you. Thus, you see the jocks who are incredibly macho, but when they are drunk they become buddy buddy with everyone they see. Hence the phrase "I love you man!" was born. I can see how you misinterpreted my statements, for I am lazy and usually try and summarize rather than divulge.
There's no disagreement between us that most people inhibit themselves from acting on every last emotional impulse, and that sans inhibition these emotions would become behaviors, but that's not what I was talking about. I've been saying that inhibition, like many other traits, is an important part of our character.
