posted
You are saying that because I have summed up a view I disagree with...that I must agree with it...and then you lecture me on that belief that I disagree with? You're insane.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's an interesting perspective from a medical standpoint. This doctor, (and author of a textbook on treating addictions) states that alcoholism is 60% biological. Certainly gives a new angle to consider this issue from.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tendency to alcoholism is considered genetic. Same thing with addictions in general - And depression.
Some people simply don't get clinical depression, no matter how awful their upbringing has been. Their bodies simply don't have that option coded into them.
Posts: 273 | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: You are saying that because I have summed up a view I disagree with...that I must agree with it...and then you lecture me on that belief that I disagree with? You're insane.
Uh, no. I said that you summed up a view that you disagreed with, making *that* view appear to lack any room for ambiguity. I suggested that this is because your own view, the opposite view, probably also lacks room for ambiguity.
Essentially: you see your opposition as being unambiguous, and therefore your own view is likely unambiguous as well. In my experience, this is quite common.
Do you understand now?
ETA: Ah, I see your mistake. When I wrote "mirror reflection," I was indicating that your view was quite similar in many respects (those pertaining to ambiguity I have mentioned above), but was the *opposite* view. That was quite clear from the context, but nevertheless you were confused. Perhaps I should have stressed the point even more clearly. Now I hope I have made myself clear.
And, for future consideration, calling someone else crazy because you are having a hard time parsing their argument is not best, if you would like to indicate that you have an actual interest in discussion. If you don't have any interest, and are just saying things, and demanding that others listen without comment, then you may be posting in the wrong forum. That kind of attitude is not helpful.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'll reiterate my point my simply pulling a couple quotes from Annie's article:
quote:Is there a different term that you would use to describe the medication-based approach?
I wouldn't call it a "rehabilitational" approach. I would use the term evidence-based treatment, which is really what I think is required. The medicines that work are better than the psychological treatment alone. To not have someone have a medicine is like tying your hands behind your back.
Alcoholism is about 60 percent genetic and biological—that's about the same percent as asthma or high blood pressure. And no one would dream of treating asthma with psychological methods alone. No one would dream of telling someone with high blood pressure to just relax and take it easy. Why then, with alcohol and drug dependence, would that be a reasonable treatment? With diabetes, yes, you can have behavioral control for diabetes—you tell them not to eat too much sugar or not to eat a whole cake, but at the end of the day you still give them insulin.
....
Does overcoming addiction really depend on a person's decision and willpower to do so? It's a complete myth. And it's one of the myths that has to be dispelled. One of the presumed tragedies of Amy Winehouse,—if this turns out to be related to drug and alcohol use—is that she didn't want to go to rehab. But rehab might not have been necessary. Maybe medical treatment from a personal doctor would have been an option.
The key to addiction treatment is that anyone who wants treatment gets effective treatment. And it doesn't depend on any power—higher power, lower power, willpower. It takes the level of compliance of anyone going to a doctor to get checked out.
When people realize it might be possible to get treatment without superhuman power, maybe it will make people want to seek treatment. It's a message of hope.
Is this getting through at all? It's not about excusing behavior, it's about explaining it. You can come back at me again with "but that's not EVERYONE," and that's all well and good, but, in this thread anyway, you've shown a willingness to paint all sufferers with a single brush, with no sense of nuance or specificity whatsoever.
Out of curiosity, have you ever listened to Winehouse's "Rehab," and have you really stopped to think about what she's saying?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sadly, that's just a big myth all around. The twelve step approach (just as an example) is almost completely focused on submission, rather than personal willpower. It takes such enormous personal willpower for a lot of addicts to *continue* using drugs. It's silly to imagine that these people actually *lack* willpower. I often think it clarifies a common misconception about what willpower actually is: the will is not logical- it doesn't do what is best or most sensible. So, considering that, willpower can be destructive, as well as fortifying.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
the degree to which willpower based intervention therapy just flat-out doesn't work is staggering to me. I mean, I'm no Libertard BOOTSTRAPS type but it depresses me to look that grimly on those factors. I'd legitimately prefer it if you could rely upon or otherwise take in virtues that could be anticipated to reliably manage these conditions.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, one must consider whose "will" is involved in any intervention. The will of an interested party is an opposition to the will of an addict. And people have strong wills. Simply defeating the will is impossible. People die, daily, rather than surrender. My personal theory is that if ever big pharma and the medical community get really serious about looking for addiction cures, the cure is going to be akin to temporary lobotomization. Completely shutting off the personality of the sufferer in a sAfe way, so as to allow diversion to take place. Interesting idea for a short story...
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro: Instead of stating that you're insane, here's what I should have said: It is bad form to assign someone a view by conjecture and then lecture them about that view. Add to that that the person you are assumptive lecturing is someone who stated in no uncertain terms a strong dislike for you, and you have...a really bad idea. Miscommunications over a text medium are so easy to achieve that assuming people's stances is dangerous at best, and ill advised in general. Personally, I have very little interest in discussing anything with you, so when you add a layer of presumption and scolding my motivation for have a useful discourse with you drops to near zero.
Lyrhawn: I understand your view that addiction is a disease, and I disagree with the level that you take it to. Yes, people do have predilections towards addictive behaviors, not limited to intake of drugs. But I don't share your sentiment when it comes to how to view these unfortunate losses of life where choice is involved, unlike, say, cancer, where no choice is involved. I have not really listened to "Rehab", except if I was feeling lazy and didn't change the radio when it came on, as I am not a big fan of Winehouse's music.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stone_Wolf, try thinking about it this way. Two people are caught in an earthquake and pinned under rubble. One of the people is a big, young guy and fairly strong and he is able to lift the rocks. The other is a small, frail woman who is too weak to lift the rocks and she dies. Did she choose not to lift the rocks? Or was she just too weak? Should we despise her weakness or should we mourn her?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's not a fair analogy boots...because an earthquake is an external circumstance where as putting a pipe/bottle to your lips is a choice. And again, yes, some people have less ability to defend from the evils of addiction then others, but that simple fact alone does not alleviate all responsibility.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I understand your view that addiction is a disease, and I disagree with the level that you take it to.
It's not just his view.
quote:That's not a fair analogy boots...because an earthquake is an external circumstance where as putting a pipe/bottle to your lips is a choice.
Having a propensity to addiction is a choice?
An example from myself: I smoked pot twice when I was 17-19-ish. It did nothing for me, I got a bit high but I had absolutely no interest in doing it again. It wasn't a matter of willpower, it just did nothing for me. I didn't have interest in doing it again in the same way I've got no interest in being an auto mechanic. Likewise with alcohol. I didn't grow up in an abstaining family or anything, so it's not in my background to be apathetic, but I got really drunk a few times around the same period at parties, but I only ever drank at parties, and rarely to any kind of excess. I enjoyed the buzz, but it didn't...pull me. It took no willpower for me to avoid alcoholism.
Is my willpower superior to an alcoholic's? Sure, he chooses to hoist that bottle, but he doesn't choose to need it more than (in some cases) he needs the respect of his family, his health, his job, etc.
I was born loving seafood, I'm told by my parents. I was born without a predilection to enjoying alcohol to a dangerous extent. I'm fortunate that the thing I was born loving is tasty and doesn't kill me, cooked right.
posted
Stone_Wolf, you seem to believe that choices are easy things to make and that all people are just as free to make them as you are. That is simply not the case. You may as well say that the frail woman could have made the choice to lift the rocks. After all the strong guy made that choice.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, what exactly are you suggesting boots? That addicts should be completely let off the hook morally and legally for all their negative actions which are associated with their uncontrollable "disease"?
So a crack head that shoots up a 7/11 should be set free?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh...You are never going to leave me alone are you? Too much fun right? Well, that's your bad.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
By all means, use that as an excuse to avoid addressing the points I made. Rather like you did just now. She was making the point that people might be less free to choose the pipe than you think. Your response? "Psht, so what, crackhead robbers should be set free?"
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dobbie: Yes, not all forms of cancer lack responsibility...but I have a real serious question for you...why is the Family Guy clip in German?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, please understand that when you try and bring points of discussion to me, you guarantee I won't address them, as I do not in any shape or form wish to discuss anything with you. You are hostile, argumentative and so focused on proving me wrong at every turn that the resulting bickering derails legitimate topics even when on every important point of discussion we agree. You at times have very good points, and I tend to agree with you on half or more of your opinions. It doesn't change the fact that our posting styles are similar enough, and emotionally charged enough that our direct interactions are horribly unproductive and frustrating and I choose to not engage in them. You can continue to beat your head on a wall if you choose. I have nothing further to say to you, ever.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, then. How about from me? Might you consider rethinking or rereading what I wrote and come up with a more realistic idea of what I was writing?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was a pretty solid bet you weren't going to address them anyway. You already weren't, with your straw-manning of crackhead robbers.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure boots! Let's make it a less biased and more realistic question:
Exactly what level of responsibility does having an addiction alleviate by your suggestion? I am unclear on exactly what you are indicating.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, weak woman under rocks was responsible for not getting in shape. We are all responsible for a lot of things but that does not preclude some compassion for human frailty. We all have some - not about the same things not in equal measure.
We could all use a lot less, "It's their own fault" and a whole lot more, "There but for the grace of God* go I."
*or blind luck if you prefer.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: So, what exactly are you suggesting boots? That addicts should be completely let off the hook morally and legally for all their negative actions which are associated with their uncontrollable "disease"?
So a crack head that shoots up a 7/11 should be set free?
This sounds like a straw-man argument.
People, including Kmboots, are disagreeing with you about your idea that a serious drug addiction is a choice.
They are not disagreeing on the idea that criminals should be punished. I would assume that pretty much everyone here agrees that criminal actions should be punished, even if the criminal is himself a "victim" of unfortunate circumstances that made him a criminal. So you are trying to argue a stance that nobody has taken.
BTW, Amy Winehouse didn't kill anyone, or commit any other serious crimes, except for taking illegal substances.
Posts: 273 | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
boots...That is very confusing....I thought the point was that the relative strengths of the people under the rocks was innate to them, not a choice or responsibility...I get the part about compassion is good and judgment is less...but that's not my question.
With the assumption that addiction is a disease comparable to cancer as Lyr suggested on the last page...i.e. like your earthquake scenario where some outside tragedy is happening to someone, how much of their bad behavior is not their fault? Continuing to take drugs to the point of their death? Stealing to get money for their drugs? Prostituting to get money for drugs? Not caring for their minor children to the children's detriment? Where does the buck stop?
Tuukka...yes, those were biased questions...sorry.
Even if continuing a serious drug addiction is not a choice (which is relative to effort and desire to quit, right?) then is a least trying illegal, and nearly universally known to be dangerous drugs in the first place a choice?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fault is not the point. Assessing blame is not the point and won't help. All it does is allow those of us lucky enough not to be subject to addiction to feel superior and to decide that it isn't our problem.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If that is all that is keeping you from answering the question...then replace the word "fault" with "responsibility".
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:With the assumption that addiction is a disease...
This is one of those 'assumptions' that, y'know, medical professionals experienced in treating rather than judging addicts make. Medical organizations, too.
(Now, hopefully someone else will make that point so you'll semi-address it, and drop this 'their choice to be addicts!' rhetoric which according to medicine as it's understood now is bunk.)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since you haven't listened to "Rehab," Stone Wolf, here are some of the lyrics that I think are very telling about this situation:
quote: I didn't get a lot in class But I know it (the things you want to teach me) don't come in a shot glass
…
The man said, "Why do you think you here?" I said, "I got no idea" I'm gonna, I'm gonna lose my baby So I always keep a bottle near
He said, "I just think you're depressed Kiss me, yeah baby and go rest"
…
I don't ever wanna drink again I just, ooh, I just need a friend I'm not gonna spend ten weeks Have everyone think I'm on the mend
And it's not just my pride It's just 'til these tears have dried…
What's the point of the song? The point of the song is that the underlying problem isn't her addiction, it's her depression. Rehab doesn't fix people who don't want to be fixed. She doesn't want to be fixed because the substances are the only escape from her mental illness and the horror of the real world.
It's terribly tragic; I stand by that statement. And though I believe that alcohol and substances are all very bad things, I don't think that Amy Winehouse is a very bad person. I think she is an extremely unfortunate person who deserves our empathy and compassion.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: If that is all that is keeping you from answering the question...then replace the word "fault" with "responsibility".
It still doesn't matter. It was that woman's responsibility to get out from under the rocks. She was too weak to manage that responsibility. We can blame her or we can help her.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Dobbie: Yes, not all forms of cancer lack responsibility...but I have a real serious question for you...why is the Family Guy clip in German?
Because Germans cause cancer.
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
SW, you are arguing here with others about whether it is a choice, but deeper than that, you seem to hold the view that if it is a choice, then the choice is clear. And it may be for you. These drugs/alcohol are dangerous and I shouldn't do them.
Have you considered that, if it is a choice, that the addict doesn't choose the drugs they take because they are so good, but because his life without them is so bad? To the point of being unendurable? That perhaps the crackhead puts the pipe to his lips hoping that he doesn't wake up again and have to figure out how he is going to endure yet another day? That each morning, when he opens his eyes and remembers who he is, that he wishes he hadn't woken up at all? That for him, it may be a horrifying thought that he might still be alive a year from now? A person who has reached a point like this in their lives is not worth your sympathies?
If not, :shrug: so be it. Have you considered that perhaps the reason Lyr was insulted, and perhaps others who have not voiced it, is because, aside from Amy Winehouse, the people about whom you are announcing your non-sympathy are people they personally know, or are people who are actually reading your words here? People, who are at, or who have been, at this point?
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Annie...again, I'm glad you (and those like you) to provide that empathy and compassion, I don't share those sentiments. My empathy and compassion goes to her family and loved ones.
boots...I hear you loud and clear...and just like Annie, I'm glad you feel that way and in no way shape or form are calling for everyone to feel as I do. But please answer my questions. If an someone who suffers the disease of addiction allows their child to suffer from negligence do to said addiction, are they morally and legally responsible or not? And why?
Nighthawk...I thought Germans cause strudel.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
SM: Thank you for your thoughtful reply...I have acknowledged that every human, regardless of situation deserves some understanding and compassion...and while some addictions no doubt are fueled by incredibly tragic circumstances, to deny that there is no choice involved is...um...unrealistic to me. I know someone who was raped by her father at the age of 4 and was used as a sex slave by her father and brothers until she left home at age 18, who's mother blamed and abused her for it and who was used as a sex slave party favor by her father with strangers, who gave birth to her father's child, who was so malformed by incestuous genes that the baby died. She by all accounts shouldn't be alive considering the vast majority of humans who suffer such atrocities at such a formative age by those who should love and treasure them end up dead by addiction or intentional suicide. She struggles on a day to day basis even decades later to quiet the ghosts in her head. But she also works her butt off in therapy and with PTSD/depression/BiPoloar meds to be able to live in this world which has caused her so much pain.
She has attempted suicide many times. And at times struggles to not abuse her medications as you described above, in an attempt to numb the pain.
As I said on page one, I of course do feel compassion for people who have suffered like this. But to assume that all addicts have suffered such catastrophic lives is too much. And while even acknowledging that trauma has lasting and real damage in lives, personal responsibly is undeniable. While I am glad people can look past it and feel compassion and empathy to see all the stops along the road that lead to the ultimate destination, I still do not agree for myself that people who do destructive and self destructive things should be above personal responsibility.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Stone_Wolf, you are not hearing me at all.
I think we are cross talking...what words from me would make it clear to you that I understand your point?
And what will it take to get you to answer my question, which, by the way, isn't a point/rhetorical question, it is a real, "I want to know your answer" question.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe your asking questions in good faith would be a start, such as by not suggesting (as you already did) that she thinks violent addicted criminals should be released because none of it is their fault.
But, hey, you don't have to listen to me. Regardless of how relevant something I say might be, you can just say, "Not listening la la la la!"
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My understanding of boots point: It isn't a question of fault, but a question of being compassionate and helping people who are suffering an aliment which might have struck us and is not their fault.
posted
Nope. You still seem to think that it matters whose fault it is.
ETA: Look, you can point out that the woman under the rocks should have been working out or that she shouldn't have been where the rocks where likely to fall or that if she were a better person she could move the rocks.
Or you could work out the best way to help her move the d*** rocks.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Nope. You still seem to think that it matters whose fault it is.
ETA: Look, you can point out that the woman under the rocks should have been working out or that she shouldn't have been where the rocks where likely to fall or that if she were a better person she could move the rocks.
Or you could work out the best way to help her move the d*** rocks.
For the sake of argument, assume it does matter whose fault it is. Who makes that decision? Actual professionals with experience beyond the anecdotal seem to think it's a disease.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay how about this...boots point: Addiction isn't about fault, it could happen to anyone and those lucky enough to not have it happen should have compassion and try and help?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a start, but even bigger than that. We all need compassion and help for things that are too big for us to lift by ourselves. And for most of the things we do manage to lift, we have more help than we know.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm trying to earn the right to disagree here boots...by showing you that I do in fact listen and comprehend your point...just not agree with it.
It's not like I'm calling for people to not help addicts...everyone sure does need help sometimes...
I still would like you to answer my question...that is, does addiction alleviate wrong doings against others in your opinion?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Out of curiosity, have you ever listened to Winehouse's "Rehab," and have you really stopped to think about what she's saying?
Not speaking g for SW, but the part of the song I always found most tragic is when she says, "I'm not gonna spend ten weeks / Have everyone think I'm on the mend."
It's like she knows, to her core, that she will not get better and can't stand the thought of giving people that hope.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I'm trying to earn the right to disagree here boots...by showing you that I do in fact listen and comprehend your point...just not agree with it.
It's not like I'm calling for people to not help addicts...everyone sure does need help sometimes...
I still would like you to answer my question...that is, does addiction alleviate wrong doings against others in your opinion?
Blaming people doesn't alleviate those harms either. In fact, it usually exacerbates them. Focusing on fault and blame gets in the way of alleviating or even preventing those harms. It obscures the need for assisting those that need assistance and the only alleviating it does is to our sense of compassion.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My question is not about blame, it is about responsibility, legally and ethically. I doubt you are suggesting that we disregard those concerns for everyone, let alone for addicts.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
