How to fit in at Fornits.com

[Ursus]

But the truth of the matter (addiction is/is not a disease) wasn't your argument.  Your argument was that most at Fornits held the opinion that addiction was not a disease.  That *is* something that can be objectively proven or disproven.

Where did anyone state "most of fornits believes addiction is not a disease" ?  I'll be waiting for that quote.

Here it is, ya don't have to go far, just scroll up to the OP of this very thread for its original entrance!  

Since you seem to be so familiar with the title of this thread, I imagine you would at least be familiar with the contents as well, eh? In fact, based on your writing style and your repeated harping on the "secret forum," I'd venture that there is a good possibility that you even wrote it!  

Basically if you want to get in good with the posters at fornits I can tell you how. You have to say these things but don't list it off because that's kind of obvious. Just bring up these things now and then and you'll see how quickly you rise in the ranks of fornits...

<snip>

#2 Addiction is NOT a disease

Despite decades of scientific research and studies, and what every single professional and school has ever told you, they are wrong. Addiction is NOT a disease and claiming so gives those stupid addicts an excuse not to get better. If you know an addict, kick them out on the street and they will choose to get better. if they don't, who cares. It's not like they can't just stop whenever they want.

[psy]

This way the new user can fit in, and perhaps even gain access to the secret forum. Oh.. wait. Strike that last line from the record.

There is no secret forum...   unless you mean the formerly secret forum (secret for like a month) at the bottom of the forums list.  That should be open to all posting, btw.  If it's not, i'll fix the permissions (it should be).

[psy]

Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?

No, but I'll concede it hasn't been scientifically proven one way or another.  Identical twins seperated a birth have a 20% greater likelyhood of having the same sexuality, which implies even when there is a propensity to a behavior there is still a choice involved (similar to alcoholism, where even if there is a propensity to a behavior, there is still a choice involved).  But again, propensity to a behavior does not  mean "destiny" nor does it mean "disease".

That being said, people shouldn't be condmened for personal choices, even if those choices are self destructive (such as drinking to excess).  Even if homosexuality were a choice, it's besides the point as there is nothing wrong with it (where "wrong" means harming another person).  Same with drinking.  I think the moral element should be taken out of it as it's a person's choice what they put in their bodies...  whether sexual organ or alcohol.

[Anonymous]

But the truth of the matter (addiction is/is not a disease) wasn't your argument.  Your argument was that most at Fornits held the opinion that addiction was not a disease.  That *is* something that can be objectively proven or disproven.

Where did anyone state "most of fornits believes addiction is not a disease" ?  I'll be waiting for that quote.

Here it is, ya don't have to go far, just scroll up to the OP of this very thread for its original entrance!  

Since you seem to be so familiar with the title of this thread, I imagine you would at least be familiar with the contents as well, eh? In fact, based on your writing style and your repeated harping on the "secret forum," I'd venture that there is a good possibility that you even wrote it!  

Basically if you want to get in good with the posters at fornits I can tell you how. You have to say these things but don't list it off because that's kind of obvious. Just bring up these things now and then and you'll see how quickly you rise in the ranks of fornits...

<snip>

#2 Addiction is NOT a disease

Despite decades of scientific research and studies, and what every single professional and school has ever told you, they are wrong. Addiction is NOT a disease and claiming so gives those stupid addicts an excuse not to get better. If you know an addict, kick them out on the street and they will choose to get better. if they don't, who cares. It's not like they can't just stop whenever they want.

Still waiting for that quote. It's okay, I won't ask you to retract your statement, just try to read more carefully next time.

[Anonymous]

Still waiting for that quote. It's okay, I won't ask you to retract your statement, just try to read more carefully next time.

You've been provided with it.  If you're gonna continue to dance around the issues or play semantics, you're gonna do it alone.

[Anonymous]

Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?

No, but I'll concede it hasn't been scientifically proven one way or another.  Identical twins seperated a birth have a 20% greater likelyhood of having the same sexuality, which implies even when there is a propensity to a behavior there is still a choice involved (similar to alcoholism, where even if there is a propensity to a behavior, there is still a choice involved).  But again, propensity to a behavior does not  mean "destiny" nor does it mean "disease".

That being said, people shouldn't be condmened for personal choices, even if those choices are self destructive (such as drinking to excess).  Even if homosexuality were a choice, it's besides the point as there is nothing wrong with it (where "wrong" means harming another person).  Same with drinking.  I think the moral element should be taken out of it as it's a person's choice what they put in their bodies...  whether sexual organ or alcohol.

If being gay caused 75,000 deaths per year in the US, then I'd say I'd agree with you. But once people pass a point in their addiction disease, they lose the ability to make rational and informed choices. It becomes the responsibility of loved ones, family members or even the state (in some cases) to prevent the person from killing themselves or others. We all give up certain freedoms to live in a society. Otherwise we'd still be living by the rules of the jungle.

[psy]

But once people pass a point in their addiction disease, they lose the ability to make rational and informed choices.

At that point, since they don't really have free will, it's no problem to deny them their rights and forcibly "treat" them to give them that "free will" back, right?  That's basically what you're saying, right?

Let me ask you this: who gets to make the decision that a person is at that point and is no longer in charge of their own facilities?

[psy]

It becomes the responsibility of loved ones, family members or even the state (in some cases) to prevent the person from killing themselves or others.

Oh, I see.  So substances cause murder.   I can imagine the mental hoops you just jump through to argue that.  Can the substances cock the gun and pull the trigger?  If that's the case, shouldn't we find all murderers innocent if they were under the influence at the time of the crime (actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea)?

We all give up certain freedoms to live in a society.

The right to self ownership, an by extension the right to self harm, is not something that can *ever* be denied.  To take away the right to self ownership is slavery.

Something to help you think:
http://www.isil.org/resources/philosoph ... nglish.swf

[Anonymous]

At that point, since they don't really have free will, it's no problem to deny them their rights and forcibly "treat" them to give them that "free will" back, right?  That's basically what you're saying, right?

People have  "free will" to kill themselves. Family  members and loved ones want to prevent this from happening. Do you think once an addict recovers they will be bitter like fornits posters for their family saving their life? I suppose it might happen, but at least they are alive to be bitter in the first place.

Let me ask you this: who gets to make the decision that a person is at that point and is no longer in charge of their own facilities?

For legal adults, the courts decide. It takes a lot of evidence for a court to forcibly put someone into a hospital or treatment, and rarely happens. Hence, the huge number of deaths.

For minors, their parents make the decision.

[Anonymous]

Oh, I see.  So substances cause murder.   I can imagine the mental hoops you just jump through to argue that.  Can the substances cock the gun and pull the trigger?  If that's the case, shouldn't we find all murderers innocent if they were under the influence at the time of the crime (actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea)?

I don't think your gun analogy is accurate. I would say, the drugs and alcohol are the bullet. The disease of addiction is the gun. When the "bullet" is loaded into the gun, that is when bad things happen. Bullets by themselves are not dangerous (people who use substances responsibly), but inside of a gun (the addict), a bullet(substances) becomes potentially very deadly.

The right to self ownership, an by extension the right to self harm, is not something that can *ever* be denied.  To take away the right to self ownership is slavery.

Something to help you think:
http://www.isil.org/resources/philosoph ... nglish.swf

It's easy to be ideological like this when you aren't talking about a loved one. Yes, freedom is wonderful. In an ideal world nobody would coerce anybody to do anything, but life doesn't work that way. Let's say you have a 15 year old kid who just broke up with their boyfriend. The kid is so distraught that they come and tell you they are considering suicide. Instead of seeking help immediately (even against the teens wishes in closed and safe environment), you provide them a link to philosophical arguments about the freedom to die. Then your kid hangs themselves in their closet.

Congratulations, your philosophy has just cost you the life of your child. Was it worth it?
And remember before you answer, this type of pointless suicide happens all the time to adolescents. Too bad nobody was there to help them, maybe they had parents like you who use philosophy to justify gross child neglect.

[Ursus]

If that's the case, shouldn't we find all murderers innocent if they were under the influence at the time of the crime (actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea)?

According to the study described in the article cited by Guest, these murders would count towards that 75K deaths per year mortality rate. In fact, close to 41,000 of the "some 75,000" deaths were due to indirect causal factors like these. I'm not saying that these contributing factors should be ruled out per se, but given that the remedy thereof could very well be different from that of deaths where alcoholism was a more direct causal factor (e.g., through "cirrhosis of the liver, cancer and other diseases linked to drinking too much beer, wine and spirits"), I think that a distinction should be made.

These are the criteria by which this study allegedly defines the "excessive drinker":

Researchers considered any man who averaged more than two drinks per day or more than four drinks per occasion to be an excessive drinker. For women it was more than one drink per day or more than three drinks per occasion.

"These results emphasize the importance of adopting effective strategies to reduce excessive drinking, including increasing alcohol excise taxes and screening for alcohol misuse in clinical settings," the study said.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6089353/[/list]

I could not find a link to the actual study itself, so a number of questions remain unanswered, such as:

• How is a drink defined?
  
  Did the researchers take into consideration the alcoholic content of "the drinks?" A couple bottles of beer on a hot summer afternoon is hardly excessive in my book.
• Who did the study? Was there a vested interest involved?
  
  The article noted that this was a study published by the CDC (
  which department?) Might government sponsorship have something to do with the stated importance of increasing alcohol excise taxes and required drug screenings in the workplace?

[/li][/list]

[Anonymous]

•   I believe the evidence shows addiction is a 'disease,' AA is not in the cultic spectrum, and I’m definitely not a libertarian.
•   
•    Not every victim of the teen torture and murder cults Elan, Desisto, Cedu, WWASP, Synanon, Pathway etc have the same thoughts about everything.

                 Peple are free to post or not post about their beleifs without fear of vindication by forum administrators which makes this a pretty unique and special place.

[psy]

At that point, since they don't really have free will, it's no problem to deny them their rights and forcibly "treat" them to give them that "free will" back, right?  That's basically what you're saying, right?

You didn't answer the question.

Let me ask you this: who gets to make the decision that a person is at that point and is no longer in charge of their own facilities?

For legal adults, the courts decide. It takes a lot of evidence for a court to forcibly put someone into a hospital or treatment, and rarely happens. Hence, the huge number of deaths.

Do you have any evidence showing forced treatment would have prevented those deaths?  One study by Jeffery Brandsma showed that forced AA attendence actually caused an *increase* in the probability of relapse.

For minors, their parents make the decision.

Aha.  So the parent who doesn't like that joey is fucking adam is perfectly justified in sending his kid off for "treatment" to "fix" him.  I see.

Did you know that in most states kids can refuse medical treatment after the age of 13 or so (even life saving treatment)?  The only way programs get around this is by masquerading as "boarding schools" and calling their treatment "emotional growth" and their counselors "coaches" since they're unlicensed.

[psy]

Oh, I see.  So substances cause murder.   I can imagine the mental hoops you just jump through to argue that.  Can the substances cock the gun and pull the trigger?  If that's the case, shouldn't we find all murderers innocent if they were under the influence at the time of the crime (actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea)?

I don't think your gun analogy is accurate. I would say, the drugs and alcohol are the bullet. The disease of addiction is the gun. When the "bullet" is loaded into the gun, that is when bad things happen. Bullets by themselves are not dangerous (people who use substances responsibly), but inside of a gun (the addict), a bullet(substances) becomes potentially very deadly.

So you're saying addicts don't have the choice to abstain from substances (not load the gun, in your analogy?).  What you seem to be saying is that they have a "disease" are "powerless" over substances, right?  As such, they must be incarcerated and "treated" against their will for their own damn good, right?

The right to self ownership, an by extension the right to self harm, is not something that can *ever* be denied.  To take away the right to self ownership is slavery.

Something to help you think:
http://www.isil.org/resources/philosoph ... nglish.swf

It's easy to be ideological like this when you aren't talking about a loved one. Yes, freedom is wonderful. In an ideal world nobody would coerce anybody to do anything, but life doesn't work that way. Let's say you have a 15 year old kid who just broke up with their boyfriend. The kid is so distraught that they come and tell you they are considering suicide. Instead of seeking help immediately (even against the teens wishes in closed and safe environment), you provide them a link to philosophical arguments about the freedom to die. Then your kid hangs themselves in their closet.

No, But i'd talk to my kid and offer a therapist to talk to.  I'd relate my own experiences about getting dumped and explain that no matter how horrible it feels, it goes away in time, etc...  I wouldn't lock my kid up.  In my experience, programs merely make depressed kids much, much, worse.

Congratulations, your philosophy has just cost you the life of your child. Was it worth it?
And remember before you answer, this type of pointless suicide happens all the time to adolescents. Too bad nobody was there to help them, maybe they had parents like you who use philosophy to justify gross child neglect.

Programs aren't the only option.  However, if a person decides to kill themselves, nothing really can be done about that.  Killing their free will is much worse than killing their bodies.

[psy]

According to the study described in the article cited by Guest, these murders would count towards that 75K deaths per year mortality rate.

Ah.. I see.  anybody who got killed by somebody that was drunk at the time was killed by alcohol.  I see.  Totally the devil drink's fault.