Fornits
General Interest => Open Free for All => Topic started by: Anonymous on March 12, 2009, 06:04:46 PM
-
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.
#1 Mormons are evil
Did you know that Mormons are behind most programs? Yep, it's true. They also hate fags and don't want them to get married. Mormons are EVIL and the world would be bunnies and kisses if they just converted to Catholicism already.
#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.
#3 Alcoholics Anonymous is evil
AA is a CULT that sucks people in and ruins their life and their families life. BEWARE OF THE EVIL AA! (I heard the coffee is poisoned and donuts contain brainwashing drugs that make you come back every week)
#4 Ron Paul isn't insane
Ron Paul, the biggest political supporter of programs that could possibly exist, isn't crazy. No, just because his politics would create more programs and no way to regulate or shut them down, doesn't mean he shouldn't win. Let's take the country back to the stone age and elect the only candidate who appears to have a mental illness. RON PAUL!
#5 If a kid dies from drug addiction any point in their life and went to the program, ITS THE PROGRAM's FAULT
Let's say a kid went to a program when they were 15. If they die of a drug or alcohol overdose in their 20's or 30's, or anytime for the rest of their life, the blame lies solely with the program they attended. If programs worked, then they should of been cured of addiction (which isnt a disease), right? RIGHT!
#6 Nobody is at fault
Program parents were suckered. Staff were kind-hearted, but misguided do-gooders. Owners just want to make a buck. Peer abuse happens because they are brainwashed. Nobody is at fault really, it's the 'system' that's bad.. yeah.. man... that's it.
#7 Having a website will solve the problem
Internets to the rescue! If parents don't find this website then they didn't do enough research.
#8 Child abuse will end when the program I went to is shut down
Since I only care about the abuse that happened to me, when the place I was at is shut down then abuse will no longer happen to any other kid!
#9 All kids in programs are innocent
All the kids in programs are sweet 14 year old, straight A students who were sent away for no reason at all. Which leads into...
#10 All program parents are EVIL
They send their kids away for no reason to the worst place they can find so they can have their kid tortured. They want their kid to be abused in horrible ways and pray every night their kid is away the kid is being beaten into a submissive pulp.
There you go, if you want to one day make it to moderator status these will help you fit in here. They might also help you gain access to the secret forum... oh wait, nobody posts in that forum anymore. Never mind!
And just one more thing...
:moon:
-
last time I slid on a rash of farm animals, my pylon divided into three and a half tea cozies.
I'm still not sure how to feel about that.
-
Kudos - I'll give credit where credit is due. Your adept at the art of discreditia
Back to the point at hand.
Assemble the population of CEDU graduates/alumni in one place and record the honest summary of their experiences.
Perhaps you're right. All Future parents considering a cedu clone program/derivative should get out their checkbook and ignore everything but the marketing brochure.
-
There you go, if you want to one day make it to moderator status these will help you fit in here.
Does this guy have ambitions of being moderator here?
:rofl: :whip: :whip:
-
#6 and #10 are mutually exclusive, among other things.
-
#6 Nobody is at fault
Program parents were suckered. Staff were kind-hearted, but misguided do-gooders. Owners just want to make a buck. Peer abuse happens because they are brainwashed. Nobody is at fault really, it's the 'system' that's bad.. yeah.. man... that's it.
Troll or no troll, you make some valid observations here. Broad-brush assertions of the sort you mentioned are bothersome.
I'll expound a little: Sure, there were parents that were suckered, but some were just irresponsible and wanted to dump their kid somewhere. Yes, there were some kind-hearted staff, but there were also some tyrannical staff members too, and they shouldn't be let off the proverbial hook too easily (from what I have seen on this forum, they usually aren't, not usually...) Owners DO want to make a buck, but some had good intentions -- on this point I would say that this doesn’t excuse them, though.
That being said, these forums can be a great place to gain understanding and insight, at least in retrospect.
PS- it is true about #6 & #10; you should clarify.
-
#6 and #10 are mutually exclusive, among other things.
PS- it is true about #6 & #10; you should clarify.
It's called cognitive dissonance, a prerequisite of taking fornits seriously. For instance, how do you reconcile the claim that addiction is not a medical disease based on pseudo-science and gut-instinct, in the exact same deductionary process that programs engage in?
But besides that, "program parents" is a broad term. They are evil! But, of course, "my" parents are not evil. They just got duped. See how that works?
Staff who abuse kids are evil bastards. But a staff who comes to fornits and admits as much, well he's just a nice guy who got caught up in something beyond his control and we are friends.
Cognitive dissonance. Gotta love it!
-
It's called cognitive dissonance, a prerequisite of taking fornits seriously. For instance, how do you reconcile the claim that addiction is not a medical disease based on pseudo-science and gut-instinct, in the exact same deductionary process that programs engage in?
Despite being unprofessionally and inaccurately labeled a "druggie" in 1982 and shanghaied into Straight Inc., I acknowledge that there is such a thing as physical addiction (especially with alcohol or opiates), but let the person get help if they want it, don't force them into it.
-
It's called cognitive dissonance, a prerequisite of taking fornits seriously. For instance, how do you reconcile the claim that addiction is not a medical disease based on pseudo-science and gut-instinct, in the exact same deductionary process that programs engage in?
Well. The opinion that addiction is not a disease is not based on pseudo-science or gut instinct... but that is a discussion for another thread. It's also not an opinion that is shared by everybody on fornits... just some. Put up a poll and see how many registered users think addiction is a disease. I bet it's a split 50/50 (which is higher than elsewhere... polls elsewhere have gone 80/20 towards addiction *not* being a disease).
But besides that, "program parents" is a broad term. They are evil! But, of course, "my" parents are not evil. They just got duped. See how that works?
Apart from a few exceptions, I don't think i've ever stated that program parents are evil. Most are duped, and i've said that many times before. The con wouldn't work if program parents weren't duped. You honestly think programs are honest with parents?
Staff who abuse kids are evil bastards. But a staff who comes to fornits and admits as much, well he's just a nice guy who got caught up in something beyond his control and we are friends.
Staff who come to Fornits generally get blasted. Staff who come to fornits on hands and knees begging for forgiveness or apologizing for what they have done... that's a different story, but it's natural and expected. No cognitive dissonance about that.
Also, it's a big mistake to think that everybody on Fornits thinks alike. They don't.
-
Put up a poll and see how many registered users think addiction is a disease. I bet it's a split 50/50 (which is higher than elsewhere... polls elsewhere have gone 80/20 towards addiction *not* being a disease).
Science is not a democracy. If 51% of the world believed the Earth was flat, it wouldn't make it true.
-
Put up a poll and see how many registered users think addiction is a disease. I bet it's a split 50/50 (which is higher than elsewhere... polls elsewhere have gone 80/20 towards addiction *not* being a disease).
Science is not a democracy. If 51% of the world believed the Earth was flat, it wouldn't make it true.
Who said anything about a democracy, or even science, for that matter?
Psy suggested that you put up a poll to determine what people's opinions were, since you seemed a bit stuck on assuming that all fornits posters were one and the same on that issue.
Your response does not logically follow from psy's post.
-
Put up a poll and see how many registered users think addiction is a disease. I bet it's a split 50/50 (which is higher than elsewhere... polls elsewhere have gone 80/20 towards addiction *not* being a disease).
Science is not a democracy. If 51% of the world believed the Earth was flat, it wouldn't make it true.
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.
But with your unrelated point, I completely agree with you. Even if 90% of the planet held the opinion that addiction was a disease, it wouldn't make it true. For example, homosexuality was once considered a disease, for instance. Now it is not.
-
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.
But with unrelated point, I completely agree with you. Even if 90% of the planet held the opinion that addiction was a disease (this, thankfully is not the case), it wouldn't make it true. For example, homosexuality was once considered a disease, for instance. Now it is not.
Many people also believe homosexuality is a choice. In the exact same fashion you believe using drugs and alcohol to excess is a choice. Do you believe homosexuality is a choice? There comes that pesky fornits cognitive dissonance again.
In the US 75,000 deaths per year are attributed to alcoholism alone, that is not counting drug related deaths.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6089353/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6089353/)
That is the equivalent of a 9/11 every two weeks. But they are all just stupid people who could of stopped whenever they want, right?
So when people wonder why addicts don't just choose to be sober before destroying their life at fornits, it sounds exactly the same as people questioning why anybody would ever choose to be gay. You all (the everything is a choice crowd) sound equally ignorant and mean spirited.
-
since you seemed a bit stuck on assuming that all fornits posters were one and the same on that issue.
Nobody said "all fornits posters share the exact same opinion". The title of this thread is "how to fit in at fornits.com". I think if someone says "addiction is not a disease" , they have a better chance of fitting in with the regulars currently frequenting fornits (which in fact, is very few).
If a new poster came here and took the scientifically backed position of addiction being a disease, I fear they will be in for a flamewar they are not ready for, and will leave before giving fornits a chance. If you had an open mind you'd realize I am helping the new user, and fornits.com by letting them know of some of the arguments going on here.
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.
-
[
Where did anyone state "most of fornits believes addiction is not a disease" ? I'll be waiting for that quote.
Well, in #2 of your list of how to fit in you state that believing it is not a disease will help. That pretty much implies that you believe most of us think that.
Many people also believe homosexuality is a choice. In the exact same fashion you believe using drugs and alcohol to excess is a choice. Do you believe homosexuality is a choice? There comes that pesky fornits cognitive dissonance again.
Not even a comparison! Homosexuality is not a choice. You either are attracted to people of the same sex or you're not. It is a sexual orientation that, in itself, has no bearing on anyone's character or causes any physical problems. Alcohol abuse (there is a difference between use and abuse) quite obviously causes many problems for the abuser. Gays are gay before they ever act on their feelings. Alcoholics are not alcoholics until they drink to excess.
In the US 75,000 deaths per year are attributed to alcoholism alone, that is not counting drug related deaths.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6089353/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6089353/)
That is the equivalent of a 9/11 every two weeks. But they are all just stupid people who could of stopped whenever they want, right?
Most of them, yes. If someone is truly ADDICTED (that is, physically dependent) to a drug, seek medical help. Not quackery.
So when people wonder why addicts don't just choose to be sober before destroying their life at fornits, it sounds exactly the same as people questioning why anybody would ever choose to be gay. You all (the everything is a choice crowd) sound equally ignorant and mean spirited.
It may sound that way to YOU, but not many others. Alcoholism is a problem. IMO, it is not a 'disease' . Addiction is different from "excessive use". Addiction requires a physical dependence.
-
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! :D
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! :D
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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! :D
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! :D
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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 (http://www.isil.org/resources/philosophy-of-liberty-english.swf)
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.isil.org/resources/philosophy-of-liberty-english.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.
-
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/ (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]
-
• 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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.isil.org/resources/philosophy-of-liberty-english.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.
-
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.
-
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.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. But the only right you are denying them, is their right to consume alcohol or drugs in suicidal quantities. You can't force adults into treatment. You can coerce, pressure, hope and pray they enter treatment and stick with it, but that's it. If it's a minor, that's a different story. As it is now, it's solely up to the parents. I would be fine with a review panel of some kind to prevent unnecessary child placements, but that could quickly spiral out of control into a bureaucratic nightmare.
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.
It would of saved some of them. AA is OK, but most addicts need full intensive drug rehabilitation for months in the start of their recovery, at least. AA doesn't provide the kind of in depth treatment most addicts need. AA is a support group not a treatment system, although many involved with AA also run sober houses and other treatment programs. It's a good place to start and ask for help, at the very least.
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.
As the law is now, this is allowed. If you have a problem with it I suggest you write to your lawmakers, because I am not the one who decides these things. I haven't mentioned gay people needing "treatment", and would not recommend it. Like I said, being gay doesn't kill you. Being addicted to deadly substances does kill, there is a big difference.
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.
So if someone had a chemical imbalance in their brain that caused them to run repeatedly into a brick wall head first, would you do anything to stop it? Would you give them medication if it solved it? Would you lock them in a padded room? Would you force them to wear a helmet? Would you try to treat them and get them to stop through talking? Punish them every time they do it? Or do nothing and let them bash their brains in?
I can only speak for myself, but I wouldn't be able to watch that gruesome scene without trying to intervene. Sure, the methods might not be perfect at first, but eventually I might figure something out that helps. If not, well, they can always go back to bashing their head into the wall.
-
Being addicted to deadly substances does kill, there is a big difference.
No. Consuming large quantities and/or impure substances can kill. There is a big difference. Even "addicts" can choose not to consume substances or to quit (unless you believe it's the rubber chicken and/or flying spaghetti monster that has that power).
No true "disease" can be cured with willpower alone. That is one element that makes addiction not a disease. It exists, sure, but it's not a disease.
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.
So if someone had a chemical imbalance in their brain that caused them to run repeatedly into a brick wall head first, would you do anything to stop it?
Not without their explicit consent.
Would you give them medication if it solved it? Would you lock them in a padded room? Would you force them to wear a helmet? Would you try to treat them and get them to stop through talking? Punish them every time they do it? Or do nothing and let them bash their brains in?
I can only speak for myself, but I wouldn't be able to watch that gruesome scene without trying to intervene. Sure, the methods might not be perfect at first, but eventually I might figure something out that helps. If not, well, they can always go back to bashing their head into the wall.
Maybe you can rig them with shock devices like at Judge Rotenberg center. You can shock them whenever they do something that harms themselves or you plain don't like. Eventually it can get to the point where they are shocked for saying a bad word or not combing their hair. With that kind of power, that sort of stuff tends to happen. But hey... it's for the kid's own damn good, right?
-
So you're saying addicts don't have the choice to abstain from substances (not load the gun, in your analogy?).
Everybody has this choice. Of course you probably won't know you're an addict until after this choice is made. Why do some people enjoy one glass of wine with dinner, while others are totally consumed by it to the point of destroying their entire life? I don't think the answer is as simple as "it's a choice". I know non-addicts would like to believe that for a variety of reasons, but it's not true.
What you seem to be saying is that they have a "disease" are "powerless" over substances, right?
Those who have become powerless in their ability to control the substances they consume have the disease of addiction.
As such, they must be incarcerated and "treated" against their will for their own damn good, right?
Nobody is forcibly incarcerated and treated for addiction, unless they commit some kind of crime in additional to using itself. Society takes action against an individual at the point they begin to negatively effect other people within the society. Drunk driving is a good example of this. It kills a lot of innocent people on the roads, that is why the society is trying to prevent it. I wish we were more effective.
If it were totally up to me, there would be some kind of health professional committee where family members or loved ones could bring a case against individuals. If granted, the committee would temporarily rescind the freedom of the individual to consume the substance causing them problems. Whether this is through drug treatment attendance, or some kind of pill or something that would prevent the person from being intoxicated is up to debate. Andy Dick was on the Tyra Banks show and proudly displayed his ankle bracelet which actually monitors his alcohol blood level through his skin, transmitting to the NY state authorities in real time. If he takes a drink, the police will be contacted and he will be arrested. You know what? Andy Dick said he is thankful, because without it he wouldn't be able to stop drinking. Then they started talking about the disease of addiction with other guests and I didn't see anybody claiming it wasn't a disease.
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.
Then you should help find alternatives that work better. I think we can all agree that depressed kids should receive help. What type of help? This is also up for debate. I don't argue on behalf of programs, I just think some people need help, even if they don't realize it, or want it. Instead of being against one form of treatment, I want to know what are people for in it's place.
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.
I couldn't disagree more. But the fact you would be willing to sacrifice your fictitious 15 year old child to the altar of a particular philosophical belief is hard core. You can't "kill" free will. To argue that the short term mental distress of dealing with unwanted treatment is better than ceasing to exist altogether is absurd. "If a person decides to kill themselves" there is plenty that can be done, and no options should be off the table. Suicide is a 100% preventable cause of death, and shouldn't happen in our society. The attitude you take that people have a right to destroy themselves is wrong. People with sound thinking and a sound mind do not commit suicide. It's a mental illness that is very much treatable.
Some European countries are toying around with the idea of euthanasia clinics, where adults can come and have themselves put to sleep like a sick old dog. If people want to know the difference between Europe and America, that right there is a good place to start.
-
No. Consuming large quantities and/or impure substances can kill. There is a big difference. Even "addicts" can choose not to consume substances or to quit (unless you believe it's the rubber chicken and/or flying spaghetti monster that has that power).
Then why doesn't everyone quite before they destroy their life and/or die from it? Do you really believe alcoholics and drug addicts want to be that way?
No true "disease" can be cured with willpower alone. That is one element that makes addiction not a disease. It exists, sure, but it's not a disease.
Overeating is a choice. Obesity is a disease. Do addicts have the choice whether to start using or not? Of course they do. Just in the same way overweight individuals have the right to not eat. But when an obese person goes in for gastric bypass surgery, do you think the surgeon badgers them on the fact overeating is a "choice"? Or do you think they are more concerned with the negative effects of overeating (heart disease, diabetes, early death) and do what they need to do in order to treat it?
So if someone had a chemical imbalance in their brain that caused them to run repeatedly into a brick wall head first, would you do anything to stop it?
Not without their explicit consent.
Well obviously if they are bashing their head into the wall over and over, their psychological condition is not too good. You are asking a person who is illogical, to engage in logical thought. You wouldn't even both putting a helmet on this obviously mentally distressed person? Wow.
Maybe you can rig them with shock devices like at Judge Rotenberg center. You can shock them whenever they do something that harms themselves or you plain don't like. Eventually it can get to the point where they are shocked for saying a bad word or not combing their hair. With that kind of power, that sort of stuff tends to happen. But hey... it's for the kid's own damn good, right?
You claw at the moral high ground here, yet you just admitted you would stand by and watch the brick wall person spill their brains right in front of you. This positions is analogous to your overall position on programs. You want people to sit back and watch their loved one's destroy themselves. You are quick to point out what you view as controversial tactics to control mentally distressed people, while your solution is to let them bang their head into the wall until they kill themselves. Your position is not located in the safe haven of a moral high ground. In fact, quite the opposite. At least the people who so easily criticize are trying. I'd like to see how well you'd do. (but we both know you won't, since your position is to sit back and watch people self destruct)
-
Then why doesn't everyone quite before they destroy their life and/or die from it? Do you really believe alcoholics and drug addicts want to be that way?
More than they want to quit, yes. Otherwise they would quit.
No true "disease" can be cured with willpower alone. That is one element that makes addiction not a disease. It exists, sure, but it's not a disease.
Overeating is a choice. Obesity is a disease.
Drinking too much is a choice (not a disease). Cirrhosis is a disease.
Do addicts have the choice whether to start using or not? Of course they do. Just in the same way overweight individuals have the right to not eat. But when an obese person goes in for gastric bypass surgery, do you think the surgeon badgers them on the fact overeating is a "choice"? Or do you think they are more concerned with the negative effects of overeating (heart disease, diabetes, early death) and do what they need to do in order to treat it?
Do you think the fat person in question should be coddled and told that their overeating is a "disease" that they are powerless over (like in OA). I know plenty about OA. I had a GF who was in OA. I saw her got a LOT worse as she progressed through that program. She felt she was powerless and had a "disease" so she didn't bother to try to control herself, so she ate and ate and ate and threw up and threw up... It was her choice. I told her of the health consequences and how much it hurt me to see her hurt herslef like that, but I knew that ultimately I *was* powerless over her choices.
At the time (shortly after program), I thought she truly had a "disease" over which she was powerless over so I didn't bother to encourage her that she could control herself, or to suggest an alternative... hindsight is 20/20
So if someone had a chemical imbalance in their brain that caused them to run repeatedly into a brick wall head first, would you do anything to stop it?
Not without their explicit consent.
Well obviously if they are bashing their head into the wall over and over, their psychological condition is not too good. You are asking a person who is illogical, to engage in logical thought. You wouldn't even both putting a helmet on this obviously mentally distressed person? Wow.
So are you saying the person slams his/her head into the wall 24/7 and has never stops so that one might ask a question such as "do you want help with that?". As I understand it, most such behavior is in fits. If a person truly is not competant to make his/her own decisions (legally retarded and parents have extended custody), well than that is a different situation.
That situation does not apply to an addict/alcholic, however. Using drugs is not an involuntary behavior. It's a choice.
Maybe you can rig them with shock devices like at Judge Rotenberg center. You can shock them whenever they do something that harms themselves or you plain don't like. Eventually it can get to the point where they are shocked for saying a bad word or not combing their hair. With that kind of power, that sort of stuff tends to happen. But hey... it's for the kid's own damn good, right?
You claw at the moral high ground here, yet you just admitted you would stand by and watch the brick wall person spill their brains right in front of you.
IF they were of sound mind otherwise and made the choice to do so... sure. I'd probably even suggest a less painful method. If the action was truly involuntary and a person was not of sound mind to consent to treatment, then maybe treatment would be appropriate... otherwise it's interfering with a person's right to self ownership.
This positions is analogous to your overall position on programs. You want people to sit back and watch their loved one's destroy themselves. You are quick to point out what you view as controversial tactics to control mentally distressed people, while your solution is to let them bang their head into the wall until they kill themselves. Your position is not located in the safe haven of a moral high ground. In fact, quite the opposite. At least the people who so easily criticize are trying. I'd like to see how well you'd do. (but we both know you won't, since your position is to sit back and watch people self destruct)
Show me research showing that addiction is a progressive incurable disease over which one is powerless. Prove that. A mentally challenged person's involuntary headbanging is hardly a good comparison to a voluntary action such as picking up a drink or cooking heroin.
-
I misspoke in relation to over eating. What I meant to say was that when you first start eating is a choice, or eating an extra desert now and then is a choice. For people like your GF, that definitely sounds like it is not a choice. I didn't mean to belittle Overeaters Anonymous in any way and apologize for suggesting that in any way. I realize my statement came across really bad. Because who would choose to be like that?
If it was as easy as switching a mental button on or off, then people would do so as soon as they recognize a problem. Yet we persist in our self destructive behaviors even when we know what we are doing is going to kill us.
We live in a time of relative excess and the science of addiction is still relatively new. We have excess alcohol, drugs, food, tobacco, and gambling. In the future they might even refer to this as the "time of excess". When our biggest killer become a disease caused by eating unhealthy foods and inactivity and smoking, with insane regularity, a product that has no benefit but death.
I know people want to believe they are in full control of their life. Some have an extreme desire to convince themselves of this and start heretical cults to garner supporters to confirm their egotistical and arrogant claims of complete control. Some of us know we aren't fully in control, it takes losing control despite your best efforts to realize you are not in full control.
At the time (shortly after program), I thought she truly had a "disease" over which she was powerless over so I didn't bother to encourage her that she could control herself, or to suggest an alternative... hindsight is 20/20
Well what would you suggest as an alternative? The treatment centers for eating disorders are not created on another planet, they are very similar to drug treatment centers. What if a person starves themselves to the point at being at risk of death? Would you still not support forced treatment for this person? Would you let a loved one starve to death if they were anorexic, and that was their intention or direction?
How exactly would you of "encouraged her that she could control herself"? That sounds like the same things some of the "alternative" adolescent treatment centers do (non medical based).
-
I misspoke in relation to over eating. What I meant to say was that when you first start eating is a choice, or eating an extra desert now and then is a choice. For people like your GF, that definitely sounds like it is not a choice. I didn't mean to belittle Overeaters Anonymous in any way and apologize for suggesting that in any way. I realize my statement came across really bad. Because who would choose to be like that?
Maybe they don't see themselves accurately and feel such methods deal effectively with their problems. Lots of reasons one might choose to abuse substances (even food). It feels good, and lots of people think more about the short term and not enough about the long term... lots of reasons... however consuming excess food in itself is not a disease.
If it was as easy as switching a mental button on or off, then people would do so as soon as they recognize a problem. Yet we persist in our self destructive behaviors even when we know what we are doing is going to kill us.
That's a choice. Some people want to die but just aren't brave enough to commit suicide... so they do it slowly. There are a myriad of reasons. Many of them causes, some of them diseases... but drug abuse is a symptom, not a disease in itself.
We live in a time of relative excess and the science of addiction is still relatively new. We have excess alcohol, drugs, food, tobacco, and gambling. In the future they might even refer to this as the "time of excess". When our biggest killer become a disease caused by eating unhealthy foods and inactivity and smoking
And those things are choices, not disease in themselves, though those *behaviors* can cause diseases (dangerous weight gain, heart attacks, lung cancer, etc...). I smoke cigarettes. Why? because it feels good, is a stimulant that keeps me sharp, etc... I know it might kill me, but what the fuck.. gotta die someday. That's a choice.
I know people want to believe they are in full control of their life. Some have an extreme desire to convince themselves of this and start heretical cults to garner supporters to confirm their egotistical and arrogant claims of complete control. Some of us know we aren't fully in control, it takes losing control despite your best efforts to realize you are not in full control.
Of course people aren't in full control of their lives (that's lifespring / est / Scientology / human potential movement). People are, however, in full control of their own actions. Sure there are desires for substances, but none of them overpower free will. You can't argue in court that you killed somebody because you really really needed money for smack. You can't argue you killed somebody driving drunk because you couldn't control yourself not to drink and drive. The courts realize people are responsible for their actions and there is significant evidence addiction is not a disease, much less one that absolves people of personal responsibility for their actions (supreme court ruled this, writing in 1988 "a substantial body of medical literature that even contests the proposition that alcoholism is a disease, much less that it is a disease for which the victim bears no responsibility ... Indeed, even among many who consider alcoholism a "disease" to which its victims are genetically predisposed, the consumption of alcohol is not regarded as wholly involuntary.").
At the time (shortly after program), I thought she truly had a "disease" over which she was powerless over so I didn't bother to encourage her that she could control herself, or to suggest an alternative... hindsight is 20/20
Well what would you suggest as an alternative?
Therapy to improve self image. Anything to help the girl see herself as she is: beautiful inside and out. She wasn't fat by any means... she just thought herself that way. All OA does is to teach people that they have a lifelong disease that they are powerless over, which is bullshit since so many people with eating disorders grow out of it (the vast, vast, majority). All OA does is to create meeting addicts who becomes obsessed with their problem to the point where it becomes their identity. It's fucking nuts.
The treatment centers for eating disorders are not created on another planet, they are very similar to drug treatment centers. What if a person starves themselves to the point at being at risk of death? Would you still not support forced treatment for this person? Would you let a loved one starve to death if they were anorexic, and that was their intention or direction?
If that was their desire, yes. I would, however try to talk a person into getting help, etc. However the ultimate choice is up to them. I believe even AA teaches you can't help a person unless they want help.
How exactly would you of "encouraged her that she could control herself"? That sounds like the same things some of the "alternative" adolescent treatment centers do (non medical based).
No, programs generally tell kids they are powerless. If you know of a program that does not teach that, i'd be fascinated.
-
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.
#1 Mormons are evil
Did you know that Mormons are behind most programs? Yep, it's true. They also hate fags and don't want them to get married. Mormons are EVIL and the world would be bunnies and kisses if they just converted to Catholicism already.
#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.
#3 Alcoholics Anonymous is evil
AA is a CULT that sucks people in and ruins their life and their families life. BEWARE OF THE EVIL AA! (I heard the coffee is poisoned and donuts contain brainwashing drugs that make you come back every week)
#4 Ron Paul isn't insane
Ron Paul, the biggest political supporter of programs that could possibly exist, isn't crazy. No, just because his politics would create more programs and no way to regulate or shut them down, doesn't mean he shouldn't win. Let's take the country back to the stone age and elect the only candidate who appears to have a mental illness. RON PAUL!
#5 If a kid dies from drug addiction any point in their life and went to the program, ITS THE PROGRAM's FAULT
Let's say a kid went to a program when they were 15. If they die of a drug or alcohol overdose in their 20's or 30's, or anytime for the rest of their life, the blame lies solely with the program they attended. If programs worked, then they should of been cured of addiction (which isnt a disease), right? RIGHT!
#6 Nobody is at fault
Program parents were suckered. Staff were kind-hearted, but misguided do-gooders. Owners just want to make a buck. Peer abuse happens because they are brainwashed. Nobody is at fault really, it's the 'system' that's bad.. yeah.. man... that's it.
#7 Having a website will solve the problem
Internets to the rescue! If parents don't find this website then they didn't do enough research.
#8 Child abuse will end when the program I went to is shut down
Since I only care about the abuse that happened to me, when the place I was at is shut down then abuse will no longer happen to any other kid!
#9 All kids in programs are innocent
All the kids in programs are sweet 14 year old, straight A students who were sent away for no reason at all. Which leads into...
#10 All program parents are EVIL
They send their kids away for no reason to the worst place they can find so they can have their kid tortured. They want their kid to be abused in horrible ways and pray every night their kid is away the kid is being beaten into a submissive pulp.
There you go, if you want to one day make it to moderator status these will help you fit in here. They might also help you gain access to the secret forum... oh wait, nobody posts in that forum anymore. Never mind!
And just one more thing...
:moon:
:bump:
-
"In the US DOT publication "The Economic Costs Of Motor Vehicle Crashes," NHTSA investigator Lawrence J. Blincoe reports that in 1994, motor vehicle crashes accounted for 40,676 fatalites, and 4,100,000 injuries (of which 533,000 or 13% were serious). The total lifetime cost to the US economy for automobile accidents that occured in 1994 was $150.5 billion. The 1996 NHTSA report "1996 Traffic Safety Facts" (pdf) came up with similar though somewhat improved statistics: 41,907 fatalities and 3,511,000 injuries, 456,430 of them serious. The 1997 NHTSA report "Traffic Safety Facts 1997" reports 41,967 fatalities and 3,399,000 injuries, 441,870 of them serious. The 1998 NHTSA report "Traffic Safety Facts 1998 Annual Report" reports 41,471 fatalities and 3,192,000 injuries, 414,960 of them serious."
Holy shit Batman, if this is the case, I'd best git myself to a Driver Rehab Center to help with my Driving Addiction Disease Disorder... 40,676 deaths and over 4 MILLION injuries, just driving a car or truck? WOW, I am really really sick!! I need help now!!! Where's the nearest Driver Rehab Center? :roflmao:
-
If I may be welcomed to interject my opinion here, I think that what the "disease vs not a disease" argument is missing here is the cause of said compulsions. Is it genes, chemical deficiencies or just an obsession? If Addiction were say a disease in itself, which would require that the symptoms stood alone and affected an otherwise perfectly healthy and mentally stable person, in scientific terms, it would be classified as a disorder. My opinion is however that a disorder like depression, OCD, ADD and various others that require medication to level the brain chemistry can be the cause for an addict to consume substances, its plainly self medicating. MANY if not MOST of the people I met in AA, NA or other chemical dependency classes were struggling with other underlying disorders and their drug of choice was usually the kind of substance that they would be prescribed legally through pharmaceutical treatment. (for instance Meth = Ritilin or Alcohol = Anti-depressants) The existence of other noteworthy mental disorders makes the addiction simply a symptom of the pre-existing disorders, not a disorder itself and especially in this instance calling it a disease would in fact be pseudo-scientific. I note that this kind of addiction is way more common then physical addition.
Which brings us to the question, Is physical addiction a disease?... one can argue that it can certainly be considered an ailment, being as the drug itself creates a chemical and physical change in the body when it is being used and if the patient stops using the body goes into physical and mental withdrawls. Although the initial choice to start using the drug is an action of free will, I would never say that a physical addiction is a choice. However I think that even in the state of withdrawl, a physical addiction can't accurately be classified as a disease, but more like an allergic reaction.
I can understand, that through a doctor's eyes it is better to air on the side that addiction is a medical condition so that people can seek treatment instead of the state stepping in and just doling out jail time. That I agree with, that addicts should seek PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL help for their addictions however I find it a very hard stretch that the 12 step program is anywhere close to what you would call treatment. The main reason I don't personally agree with AA adopting the disease concept is because they have twisted what medical professionals have done to go out on a limb for patients in order to preach a false dogma of powerlessness, and exerting power of the group, the addiction and "a god" over the person. I find it hard to believe that this kind of backward thinking really helps anyone. Especially when recovery from a substance addiction honestly takes enormous amounts of willpower.
My question is, if addiction were a disease, what could possibly be the cure? Can medical professionals even find any kind of treatment for such an aliment or is the cure really just the same as the affliction? A choice.
-
If I may be welcomed to interject my opinion here, I think that what the "disease vs not a disease" argument is missing here is the cause of said compulsions. Is it genes, chemical deficiencies or just an obsession? If Addiction were say a disease in itself, which would require that the symptoms stood alone and affected an otherwise perfectly healthy and mentally stable person, in scientific terms, it would be classified as a disorder. My opinion is however that a disorder like depression, OCD, ADD and various others that require medication to level the brain chemistry can be the cause for an addict to consume substances, its plainly self medicating. MANY if not MOST of the people I met in AA, NA or other chemical dependency classes were struggling with other underlying disorders and their drug of choice was usually the kind of substance that they would be prescribed legally through pharmaceutical treatment. (for instance Meth = Ritilin or Alcohol = Anti-depressants) The existence of other noteworthy mental disorders makes the addiction simply a symptom of the pre-existing disorders, not a disorder itself and especially in this instance calling it a disease would in fact be pseudo-scientific. I note that this kind of addiction is way more common then physical addition.
Which brings us to the question, Is physical addiction a disease?... one can argue that it can certainly be considered an ailment, being as the drug itself creates a chemical and physical change in the body when it is being used and if the patient stops using the body goes into physical and mental withdrawls. Although the initial choice to start using the drug is an action of free will, I would never say that a physical addiction is a choice. However I think that even in the state of withdrawl, a physical addiction can't accurately be classified as a disease, but more like an allergic reaction.
I can understand, that through a doctor's eyes it is better to air on the side that addiction is a medical condition so that people can seek treatment instead of the state stepping in and just doling out jail time. That I agree with, that addicts should seek PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL help for their addictions however I find it a very hard stretch that the 12 step program is anywhere close to what you would call treatment. The main reason I don't personally agree with AA adopting the disease concept is because they have twisted what medical professionals have done to go out on a limb for patients in order to preach a false dogma of powerlessness, and exerting power of the group, the addiction and "a god" over the person. I find it hard to believe that this kind of backward thinking really helps anyone. Especially when recovery from a substance addiction honestly takes enormous amounts of willpower.
My question is, if addiction were a disease, what could possibly be the cure? Can medical professionals even find any kind of treatment for such an aliment or is the cure really just the same as the affliction? A choice.
There are medications that are supposed to help with cravings, support groups like AA have been shown to be beneficial--I dont think AA "preaches" powerlessness, the idea that I get from their material is that the individual is 'powerless' in the sence its not their fault they have a disease i.e. they are powerless over having a disease, individual therapy is supposed to be helpful. AA has no official stance on what addiction is other than that its an illness of some sort, they also use the term "allergy" to describe alchohalism. You can skip any of their "steps" you want to, and if you like start your own AA group without any of their material. I researched and confirmed this a while back. You can do it too if you want to take the time. Remember to look for original source material or other legitimate sources. I think its a fine organization, it would be great if some changes in their literatire were made, but they cant really change anything without, i think, 2/3s? of their members voting for a change, so nothing really changes--one of the drawbacks of a democratic organization.
JAI, if an individual is using alchohal as a psych crutch missing holes in their lives need to be filled, anti depressants utilized, --a doctor or a competant person in some regard should help them manage their lives for a while, imo
-
There are medications that are supposed to help with cravings, support groups like AA have been shown to be beneficial--I dont think AA "preaches" powerlessness, the idea that I get from their material is that the individual is 'powerless' in the sence its not their fault they have a disease i.e. they are powerless over having a disease, individual therapy is supposed to be helpful. AA has no official stance on what addiction is other than that its an illness of some sort, they also use the term "allergy" to describe alchohalism. You can skip any of their "steps" you want to, and if you like start your own AA group without any of their material. I researched and confirmed this a while back. You can do it too if you want to take the time. Remember to look for original source material or other legitimate sources. I think its a fine organization, it would be great if some changes in their literatire were made, but they cant really change anything without, i think, 2/3s? of their members voting for a change, so nothing really changes--one of the drawbacks of a democratic organization.
JAI, if an individual is using alcohol as a psych crutch missing holes in their lives need to be filled, anti depressants utilized, --a doctor or a competant person in some regard should help them manage their lives for a while, imo
I see your point, and I agree that in dire situations medications can help, but the sad truth is that they are simply different versions of the drug they were getting on the streets. For instance, heroin users are often detoxed by using Oxycotin to ween off the substance the body craves but Oxycotin is simply a scientifically engineered version of heroin and is just as addicting and potentially fatal as heroin. As well Oxycotin is often the source for creating a heroin addiction. In the case of my good friend, she started using Oxy socially, then more than occasionally with her boyfriend who sold the pills. They got addicted when it was easily accessible and in their situation affordable. However soon he couldn't sell anymore but the habit remained, they quickly went from taking prescription pills to intervieniously injecting black tar heroin. The same goes for some meth heads, I knew a guy who took Ritilin and Aderal most of his life until he lost his health insurance. He soon found that meth had the same effect and got to the point he is now that he shoots up and has to steal cars to support his habit. This all goes back to the argument that what actually caused these people to become addicted. In both cases I am more than positive it was an underlying, pre-existing mental disorder that they were at first seeking to medicate themselves and became phycially addicted to their drug of choice.
It's funny you say I could open up my own AA meeting. Maybe someday I will have the degree's necessary to facilitate a properly devised treatment center for truly addicted patients, however at this point, just opening up a free AA meeting and making up a new dogma would really be against my values. I don't think that addicts should find treatment from ex addicts, support yes, possibly in a medical setting with at least one medical doctor and one psychologist there to give professional opinions. But that's not what AA is, its JUST a religion, not treatment and shouldn't be perpetrated as such.
-
There are medications that are supposed to help with cravings, support groups like AA have been shown to be beneficial--I dont think AA "preaches" powerlessness, the idea that I get from their material is that the individual is 'powerless' in the sence its not their fault they have a disease i.e. they are powerless over having a disease, individual therapy is supposed to be helpful. AA has no official stance on what addiction is other than that its an illness of some sort, they also use the term "allergy" to describe alchohalism. You can skip any of their "steps" you want to, and if you like start your own AA group without any of their material. I researched and confirmed this a while back. You can do it too if you want to take the time. Remember to look for original source material or other legitimate sources. I think its a fine organization, it would be great if some changes in their literatire were made, but they cant really change anything without, i think, 2/3s? of their members voting for a change, so nothing really changes--one of the drawbacks of a democratic organization.
JAI, if an individual is using alcohol as a psych crutch missing holes in their lives need to be filled, anti depressants utilized, --a doctor or a competant person in some regard should help them manage their lives for a while, imo
I see your point, and I agree that in dire situations medications can help, but the sad truth is that they are simply different versions of the drug they were getting on the streets. For instance, heroin users are often detoxed by using Oxycotin to ween off the substance the body craves but Oxycotin is simply a scientifically engineered version of heroin and is just as addicting and potentially fatal as heroin. As well Oxycotin is often the source for creating a heroin addiction. In the case of my good friend, she started using Oxy socially, then more than occasionally with her boyfriend who sold the pills. They got addicted when it was easily accessible and in their situation affordable. However soon he couldn't sell anymore but the habit remained, they quickly went from taking prescription pills to intervieniously injecting black tar heroin. The same goes for some meth heads, I knew a guy who took Ritilin and Aderal most of his life until he lost his health insurance. He soon found that meth had the same effect and got to the point he is now that he shoots up and has to steal cars to support his habit. This all goes back to the argument that what actually caused these people to become addicted. In both cases I am more than positive it was an underlying, pre-existing mental disorder that they were at first seeking to medicate themselves and became phycially addicted to their drug of choice.
It's funny you say I could open up my own AA meeting. Maybe someday I will have the degree's necessary to facilitate a properly devised treatment center for truly addicted patients, however at this point, just opening up a free AA meeting and making up a new dogma would really be against my values. I don't think that addicts should find treatment from ex addicts, support yes, possibly in a medical setting with at least one medical doctor and one psychologist there to give professional opinions. But that's not what AA is, its JUST a religion, not treatment and shouldn't be perpetrated as such.
I dont think AA is a religion. I think it is a support group. I think support groups can be helpful for people who are struggling. I am a member of a support group (not aa) Its an informal internet thing. Its nice to have people who have been through the same thing to talk to and share techniques to fix your crappy situation. People dont care about other people in general and arent necessarily there to listen to you bitch and help guide you. Support groups can be useful as center where people can gather to be caring in a symbiotic fashion. I wish there was something like that for survivors. I really do.
This is how i think AA can be helpful to people. Particualy for people who have become isolated from society in general do to their problems, or just as likely were isolated from the get-go due to abusive parents and became more isolated due to their problems. JMI
-
Obesity is a disease.
Studies that show fat people live longer than thin people and have a better chance of surviving surgeries, and a few other things.
(Obesity Paradox #1 (http://http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2006/11/obesity-paradox-1.html)and Obesity Paradox #2 (http://http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2006/12/obesity-paradox-2-how-can-it-be.html))
Suggested Reading: Paul Campos' The Obesity Myth.
-
I dont think AA is a religion.
Law of the land is that it is. Legally, courts have ruled AA to be a religion.
http://orange-papers.org/orange-spirrel.html#judges (http://orange-papers.org/orange-spirrel.html#judges)
I wish there was something like that for survivors. I really do.
That would be nice. A lot of people have found just talking to people they meet on fornits to be helpful... There are some private email lists as well (especially for specific programs). Check the fornits wiki for information on a support group / email list for your program.
This is how i think AA can be helpful to people.
Well. There are support groups that don't have steps, sponsors, the flying spaghetti monster, and moral inventories. Statistically, AA's sucess rate is non-existant (http://http://www.morerevealed.com/library/coc/chapter7.htm). That being said, I have never had a problem with people doing just about anything voluntarily... even things that are self-destructive. All I have a problem with is when treatment is forced and people are sentenced to a religion (or a program using a religion). Technically, Judges aren't supposed to do it anymore, but some still do.
-
Here's where many AA members (and some ex programmers) refuse to separate the sentiment of the relationships they have formed in order to be objectionable toward the system that is forced upon them in that program. still thinking in the ends justifies the means, but that's not what were talking about. No one ever said that support groups were bad, unless that group is geared toward forcing someone to admit things they aren't comfortable with (like that you are an addict and if you don't admit it your in denial and everyone shuns you) I would like to see a kind of "rehab" or support group meetings that did not follow the 12 step program. Maybe something that was more centered around the persons will power and working toward building a life for themselves outside of a criminal lifestyle. I like the "one day at a time" idea because it means that you don't have to get all worked up about if your going to be able to stay sober, but one thing it lacks is building up a reason in your mind to stay sober, like the life you want to live, your goals and your future. I think that's an important step that AA skips, find a reason to stay sober and strive for that. Instead they say you can't get sober for your kids or your family or your job or your health even though those are exactly the things that should matter to you and those that are effected the most by the addiction and the lifestyle (or consequences) that come with the territory.
BTW there are support groups for survivors, only problem is no one visits them. There are a few on myspace and for a while antiwwasp was considered one. I have considered starting one with solely that purpose in mind, I'm sure I will make it well known here on Fornits so if that's what your looking for just keep checking back. If I knew a decent amount of people were interested in posting on a regular basis I would create this group, so PM me, If I get enough responses Psy and I will get on the design.
-
Why is it that 76% of the threads these days end up in a debate about AA?
YMAO (yawning my ass off)
-
Why is it that 76% of the threads these days end up in a debate about AA?
YMAO (yawning my ass off)
I agree. I joined the fray on this issue a while ago, but Im out of steam.
Methinks that the reason it's become so hot-button recently is because of the fifth estate article, in addition to the fact that a lot of these programs that did not initially institute stepcraft are now doing so. (Including the old CEDU schools, such as NWA and BCA.)
I attended in the 80s, back when the cow creek campus housed RMA, and had no stepcraft whatsoever. Still, my mom says to this day that she feels the place wasn't appropriate for me since it seemed to her from the outside that the place was geared more towards kids who had serious drug problems. She's right. It did focus on drug use, but a lot of the kids in there, as most people on this site know, since its consistent with a lot of programs, housed many kids who had only experimented with drugs or who hadn't done drugs at all. I had only been a drinker, but I sure picked up some drug habits after I got out, lemme tell u.
Compare this with my previous time at the children's home, where I hung out with kids who did drugs (mostly pot), and I never had a desire to, even though sometimes I'd even chip in on a dime bag, despite the fact that I wouldn't partake. (They'd always hit me back later by springing for lunch or something.)
-
I don't think a support group for survivors will work. The reason being that a large portion of the abuse going on in programs is peer to peer.
That's why the term "survivor" itself is misleading. Many kids in programs, for whatever reason, become rabid ideologues who torture the new kids with a convert's passionate desire to prove their new found faith.
Program utilize the strategy of divide and conquer, and they do it very effectively, and with permanence.
-
I don't think a support group for survivors will work. The reason being that a large portion of the abuse going on in programs is peer to peer.
That's why the term "survivor" itself is misleading. Many kids in programs, for whatever reason, become rabid ideologues who torture the new kids with a convert's passionate desire to prove their new found faith.
Program utilize the strategy of divide and conquer, and they do it very effectively, and with permanence.
That's true, but without the program, the motivation to be malicious is often gone. Also, it's my opinion that the "alpha dogs" in the program are less likely to show up here (or at least consider themselves survivors)... I think the influence on them, with the learned malice and the guilt that goes with it is a lot more long lasting.
-
Law of the land is that it is. Legally, courts have ruled AA to be a religion.
http://orange-papers.org/orange-spirrel.html#judges (http://orange-papers.org/orange-spirrel.html#judges)
This has been said 1,000 times and I don’t want to rehash the same ground, which is besides the point anyway, but AA was never ruled a religion, it was ruled it has enough religious components that people should not be ordered to participate in it. Same thing happened with the Boy Scouts. (cannot lease public land--too many religious compenants)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholics_Anonymous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholics_Anonymous)
That would be nice. A lot of people have found just talking to people they meet on fornits to be helpful... There are some private email lists as well (especially for specific programs). Check the fornits wiki for information on a support group / email list for your program.
.
good idea
Statistically, AA's sucess rate is non-existant (http://http://www.morerevealed.com/library/coc/chapter7.htm).
Again, as far as I know, that isn’t true, but that has been hashed to death by other guests, so I wont even go there.
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?f= ... 6&p=323461 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=26586&p=323461)
Why is it that 76% of the threads these days end up in a debate about AA?
YMAO (yawning my ass off)
LOL.
-
I don't think a support group for survivors will work. The reason being that a large portion of the abuse going on in programs is peer to peer.
That's why the term "survivor" itself is misleading. Many kids in programs, for whatever reason, become rabid ideologues who torture the new kids with a convert's passionate desire to prove their new found faith.
Program utilize the strategy of divide and conquer, and they do it very effectively, and with permanence.
Yes, I dont know how i feel about appealing to the same kid that abused me for support, regardless about how they feel about it now.
-
I don't think a support group for survivors will work. The reason being that a large portion of the abuse going on in programs is peer to peer.
That's why the term "survivor" itself is misleading. Many kids in programs, for whatever reason, become rabid ideologues who torture the new kids with a convert's passionate desire to prove their new found faith.
Program utilize the strategy of divide and conquer, and they do it very effectively, and with permanence.
Yes, I dont know how i feel about appealing to the same kid that abused me for support, regardless about how they feel about it now.
A support group doesn't have to be about hashing out old drama with old friends, it can really just be a place where people know what your talking about when you talk about how you feel about your experience at the program. That's the good I get out of Fornits, even though there isn't one person who posts here regularly that actually went to my school or knows me personally. I can assume if it were really to get large enough people that knew each other would run into each other but I don't think that would be a bad thing, as well all have the ability to ignore the people we don't want to talk to or just dont visit the site at all. I'm sure there are both pros and cons of the idea but I tend to think if there are enough people interested it would be a good idea to create a safe haven for people who aren't looking to argue with trolls on Fornits.
There is one important reason in my opinion, A girl I knew in Casa By The Sea committed suicide barely a year after she graduated. Her death really effects me and another friend of mine who knew her because we think if we were able to reach her she might not have felt so alone, alone enough to take her life. I'm not saying I have the power to save people's lives but I do feel I would be able to give her support and friendship. The problem is that this happens all to often and I bet we all knew someone in the program who has died young and just think if there were a place that these people felt safe, welcome and cared about maybe even just one life could be spared.
I know being involved in this movement gives me a lot of hope for the future and I think it has made a big difference in my life, and I just want to make sure that kind of a community is available to everyone else.
-
I don't think a support group for survivors will work. The reason being that a large portion of the abuse going on in programs is peer to peer.
That's why the term "survivor" itself is misleading. Many kids in programs, for whatever reason, become rabid ideologues who torture the new kids with a convert's passionate desire to prove their new found faith.
Program utilize the strategy of divide and conquer, and they do it very effectively, and with permanence.
Yes, I dont know how i feel about appealing to the same kid that abused me for support, regardless about how they feel about it now.
A support group doesn't have to be about hashing out old drama with old friends, it can really just be a place where people know what your talking about when you talk about how you feel about your experience at the program. That's the good I get out of Fornits, even though there isn't one person who posts here regularly that actually went to my school or knows me personally. I can assume if it were really to get large enough people that knew each other would run into each other but I don't think that would be a bad thing, as well all have the ability to ignore the people we don't want to talk to or just dont visit the site at all. I'm sure there are both pros and cons of the idea but I tend to think if there are enough people interested it would be a good idea to create a safe haven for people who aren't looking to argue with trolls on Fornits.
There is one important reason in my opinion, A girl I knew in Casa By The Sea committed suicide barely a year after she graduated. Her death really effects me and another friend of mine who knew her because we think if we were able to reach her she might not have felt so alone, alone enough to take her life. I'm not saying I have the power to save people's lives but I do feel I would be able to give her support and friendship. The problem is that this happens all to often and I bet we all knew someone in the program who has died young and just think if there were a place that these people felt safe, welcome and cared about maybe even just one life could be spared.
I know being involved in this movement gives me a lot of hope for the future and I think it has made a big difference in my life, and I just want to make sure that kind of a community is available to everyone else.
yes. i see . I think i do need some kind of help. i would be scared to reach out to any of the exact people i went away with though. I dont know why. Posting anonymously here is less frightening but somehat...I dont know? somewhat like treading water i dont think it gets you to far..psychologically. Maybe nothing does
-
it can really just be a place where people know what your talking about when you talk about how you feel about your experience at the program
Actually....
I kind of *like* the fact that I have friends who have no idea what the deal is with that. The one thing I would think would be an issue regarding hanging with survivors is that I think it would be all too easy for us to be in each others' heads... simply out of common experience. Someone is triggered by something and everyone else is kind of conscious about what just happened.
I do have survivors who are close friends, and fortunately, we try to keep program discussion down to a minimum, especially since there is always such lovely fresh and new drama in our lives we can bitch about instead.
-
Well I don't think you would be required to devulge your identity simply to participate in this group. Actually, I've always been a fan of the anonymous posting on Fornits, however I think the one thing that makes this site an abrasive environment is the lack of mods willing to enforce rules about content.
For instance, I would probably state that blantent attacks and aggressive, hateful posts will be deleted. I don't mind debating with the other side of the fence about the subject and I certainly wouldn't ban them for simply holding a different opinion but I would be protective of the "safe haven" environment. The way I see it is that if anyone is intending on visiting a support group for survivors and only intends to insult and attack them they shouldn't be welcome.
It would also help to have individual groups for each individual school, that way If you did want to get in touch with old friends you would be able to do so easily. I could also do some networking on myspace in order to bring in more old buddies... I did that with Darrington Academy and I already have 200 survivors on my friends list. Myspace and facebook are good ways to get a hold of old program buddies, I think if we did make this support group I would launch a full flown networking campaign and see how many survivors I could pull into the site.
The only problem is finding the time. lol.
-
Well I don't think you would be required to devulge your identity simply to participate in this group. Actually, I've always been a fan of the anonymous posting on Fornits, however I think the one thing that makes this site an abrasive environment is the lack of mods willing to enforce rules about content.[/size]
For instance, I would probably state that blantent attacks and aggressive, hateful posts will be deleted. I don't mind debating with the other side of the fence about the subject and I certainly wouldn't ban them for simply holding a different opinion but I would be protective of the "safe haven" environment. The way I see it is that if anyone is intending on visiting a support group for survivors and only intends to insult and attack them they shouldn't be welcome.
It would also help to have individual groups for each individual school, that way If you did want to get in touch with old friends you would be able to do so easily. I could also do some networking on myspace in order to bring in more old buddies... I did that with Darrington Academy and I already have 200 survivors on my friends list. Myspace and facebook are good ways to get a hold of old program buddies, I think if we did make this support group I would launch a full flown networking campaign and see how many survivors I could pull into the site.
The only problem is finding the time. lol.
[/size]
I see what you are saying, but I wouldn’t go as far as deleting their posts. If a person (parent or ex staff ,for example) is attacked for no reason then maybe the attacker could be placed on probation or banned for a few days as a lesson or cooling down period. Just outright banning someone or deleting posts I don’t think is right. We should all try to keep the debate healthy, productive and a safe place for people to speak out. Also, it may help if other posters speak out when someone is being aggressive and point out that the behavior is not welcome here.
-
Why is it that 76% of the threads these days end up in a debate about AA?
YMAO (yawning my ass off)
Then STAY OUT OF THEM. Leave it alone for others who WANT to discuss it. If you don't, great. GTFO. :boycott:
-
Actually, I've always been a fan of the anonymous posting on Fornits, however I think the one thing that makes this site an abrasive environment is the lack of mods willing to enforce rules about content.
For instance, I would probably state that blantent attacks and aggressive, hateful posts will be deleted.
It's called StrugglingPeople (a forum psy started), I think the last post there was a year ago? For some reason this forum survives, while the moderated ones dwindle and die. Although, antiwasp seems to be doing well, for a moderated forum. There are actually also moderated forums on fornits, but rarely see any posts. Fornits has found a niche, not a particularly noble one, and I don't mean that as insulting, but it is consistently the busiest forum on this topic I know about.
-
Why is it that 76% of the threads these days end up in a debate about AA?
YMAO (yawning my ass off)
Then STAY OUT OF THEM. Leave it alone for others who WANT to discuss it. If you don't, great. GTFO. :boycott:
Whatever you say, fuckin' forum nazi!!! :fuckoff:
Guess my posting behavior should fall in line with what YOU think, eh? :rofl:
Tell ya what -- I'll make a point to bitch about this sort of thing more, if only to irritate you. :twofinger:
-
Well I don't think you would be required to devulge your identity simply to participate in this group. Actually, I've always been a fan of the anonymous posting on Fornits, however I think the one thing that makes this site an abrasive environment is the lack of mods willing to enforce rules about content.[/size]
For instance, I would probably state that blantent attacks and aggressive, hateful posts will be deleted. I don't mind debating with the other side of the fence about the subject and I certainly wouldn't ban them for simply holding a different opinion but I would be protective of the "safe haven" environment. The way I see it is that if anyone is intending on visiting a support group for survivors and only intends to insult and attack them they shouldn't be welcome.
It would also help to have individual groups for each individual school, that way If you did want to get in touch with old friends you would be able to do so easily. I could also do some networking on myspace in order to bring in more old buddies... I did that with Darrington Academy and I already have 200 survivors on my friends list. Myspace and facebook are good ways to get a hold of old program buddies, I think if we did make this support group I would launch a full flown networking campaign and see how many survivors I could pull into the site.
The only problem is finding the time. lol.
[/size]
I see what you are saying, but I wouldn’t go as far as deleting their posts. If a person (parent or ex staff ,for example) is attacked for no reason then maybe the attacker could be placed on probation or banned for a few days as a lesson or cooling down period. Just outright banning someone or deleting posts I don’t think is right. We should all try to keep the debate healthy, productive and a safe place for people to speak out. Also, it may help if other posters speak out when someone is being aggressive and point out that the behavior is not welcome here.
Well yes, I think it all depends on the severity of the content in the post... and of course it wouldn't just be my decision I figure I'd put it to a vote within the community. It's not my intention to censor anyone, especially the pro-program people because I find that their arguments are often incriminating of their character. That's actually something that SHOULD be available for people to see. We could as well make some sub-forums anonymous and others moderated so people have a choice to participate in the arguments or not. Like I said, I'd leave it up to the group, if they felt more comfortable having those kinds of posts deleted I would oblige, however if they liked the debate and want to make a point to show the way the pro-programmers interact with survivors I would not delete. At this point I would have to leave these kinds of details in limbo and let the community make the decisions for themselves. I personally have no preference either way. I've always believed in giving people the freedom to make their own niche in a situation like this.
-
Well yes, I think it all depends on the severity of the content in the post... and of course it wouldn't just be my decision I figure I'd put it to a vote within the community. It's not my intention to censor anyone, especially the pro-program people because I find that their arguments are often incriminating of their character. That's actually something that SHOULD be available for people to see. We could as well make some sub-forums anonymous and others moderated so people have a choice to participate in the arguments or not. Like I said, I'd leave it up to the group, if they felt more comfortable having those kinds of posts deleted I would oblige, however if they liked the debate and want to make a point to show the way the pro-programmers interact with survivors I would not delete. At this point I would have to leave these kinds of details in limbo and let the community make the decisions for themselves. I personally have no preference either way. I've always believed in giving people the freedom to make their own niche in a situation like this.
I agree with you about arguments bringing out a persons character. I have seen people who seem so composed just lose it totally during the heat of a debate and say things that reveal a different side of them, but a true part of them just the same. These posts are ususally the most telling and a deletion would be a disservice to the readers.
The majority should always have the upper hand in situations like these.
-
and of course it wouldn't just be my decision I figure I'd put it to a vote within the community.
Then you get tyranny of the majority.
Look.. there have been efforts to set up other, moderated forums (there must be 10-15 by now). It doesn't seem to work too well for whatever reason. There is a medium volume of posting for like a week, and then it dies down. Fornits, on the other hand, tends to bounce back. Why this is.... that's up for debate.
Anon posts here, Private lists, PMs here, and IMs are where most people get support, IMO. A forum for the purpose would be sorta pointless.
-
Why is it that 76% of the threads these days end up in a debate about AA?
YMAO (yawning my ass off)
Then STAY OUT OF THEM. Leave it alone for others who WANT to discuss it. If you don't, great. GTFO. :boycott:
Whatever you say, fuckin' forum nazi!!! :fuckoff:
Guess my posting behavior should fall in line with what YOU think, eh? :rofl:
Tell ya what -- I'll make a point to bitch about this sort of thing more, if only to irritate you. :twofinger:
Do whatever you like, it doesn't irritate me. I just don't get why if you find a topic so boring, you'd continually post in the thread. If I find a topic uninteresting I don't usually make a point of going back into it. I just leave it alone for those that DO want to talk about it instead of running in and telling them all how foolish they are and running back out. Seems odd is all. But whatever man. To each his own I guess.
-
My dear anon, you are so occluded I know where to begin. All I ask is why does every thread turn into an AA debate, and I get an un-called-for mouthful from you, like ~days after the fact.... Get a fuckin' life or something.
-
Sorrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeee! I've just seen you throw out comments like that in any thread that AA comes up in. Why not just avoid those threads if you're so bored by them? I don't understand the need for you to run in and tell everyone how boring or overdone their[/u][/i] discussion is. Does it make you feel better or something? Every time? It's like a little kid that keeps running into his parents room where the grownups are talking and yelling "you're boring, you suck!" and running back out.
Whatever blows your skirt up dude.
-
in any thread
A gross exaggeration.
-
Fine, most. At least any you come across. Care to answer now? Why do you feel the need to shit on a thread you find boring? Or comment at all on it?
-
Fine, most. At least any you come across. Care to answer now? Why do you feel the need to shit on a thread you find boring? Or comment at all on it?
What's funny is I think I know who you are, even though you are posting anonymously now. Familiarity and all of that, or maybe I'm more intuitive than I think.. guess you're bored at work and feel like giving ol' Frod a hard time? :D You like a good debate, don't you, being so grown-up and all? :roflmao:
Ask yourself: What do you care if I (froderik) complain now and then? Does it really matter that much? Is policing fornits that important to you? ::)
I know fornits is kind of your life and all, and you would like for people to behave the way you want them to on here, but it just isn't going to happen that way. Hell, if it isn't me, it would just be some other joker tormenting you! :rofl:
-
today's butthurt trophy goes to anon, who strives to preserve the sanctity of an AA discussion. Because lord knows, we haven't had one of those before, and we wouldnt want it sullied.
:moon: congratulations.
-
HAHAHAHA!!!! Right on, Castle!! :roflmao:
In your FACE, anon!!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
What's funny is I think I know who you are, even though you are posting anonymously now. Familiarity and all of that, or maybe I'm more intuitive than I think..
:eek: EEEEK!!! What? Am I supposed to be scared now?? :roflmao:
guess you're bored at work and feel like giving ol' Frod a hard time? :D You like a good debate, don't you, being so grown-up and all? :roflmao:
Actually I've been busy. So far Ive made 6 deliveries and leaving for another 4. How's work going for you?
Ask yourself: What do you care if I (froderik) complain now and then? Does it really matter that much? Is policing fornits that important to you? ::)
You could ask yourself the same question. Why do you care so much if other people want to talk about it?
I know fornits is kind of your life and all,
Bwwahahahahahahahaha!!! Now that's rich!! Pot, meet kettle. :beat: :roflmao: :roflmao:
and you would like for people to behave the way you want them to on here, but it just isn't going to happen that way. Hell, if it isn't me, it would just be some other joker tormenting you! :rofl:
Yeah, that's me alright. I'm constantly trying to get others to behave. Mmmmm hmmm. Wow. Your powers of perception are amazing. ::)
-
today's butthurt trophy goes to anon, who strives to preserve the sanctity of an AA discussion. Because lord knows, we haven't had one of those before, and we wouldnt want it sullied.
:moon: congratulations.
Why thank you Castle! I gratefully accept. I'd like to thank Frod and Castle for the nod and votes. But most of all I'd like to thank Jesus and Our Heavenly Father.
:soapbox:
-
HAHAHAHA!!!! Right on, Castle!! :roflmao:
In your FACE, anon!!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
You guys are cliquing. :jerry:
-
Yeah, that's me alright. I'm constantly trying to get others to behave. Mmmmm hmmm. Wow. Your powers of perception are amazing.
Thank you! Yes, you DO try to get others to not post or say this or that, but seem to always fail miserably. :rofl:
I couldn't begin to name every "debate" I've seen you engaged in. If it isn't one thing bothering you, it's another! :on phone:
-
My dear anon, you are so occluded I know where to begin. All I ask is why does every thread turn into an AA debate, and I get an un-called-for mouthful from you, like ~days after the fact.... Get a fuckin' life or something.
LOL. I totally agree with you about the AA thing, frod. I think AAs ok, but I dont post about that 15 times a day! I think the antis are a little out of hand. Not saying they/you shouldnt post, just that this isnt the 'we hate AA' forum, and some of the accusations about the place and comparing it to program makes programs sound OK, which offends me knowing how program killed my best friend by breaking them through brainwashing, false imprisonment, torture, systematic sexual abuse.
This is why i think that some of the ---particularly rabid guests who post about AA are not survviors
-
OOOOOk... guilty as charged. but to be fair I think some of us mention AA often because is a related subject to our general topic here at Fornits.
I for one have NOT participated in the numerous Anti-AA threads in the past because usually by the 23rd page everything has been said and argued to death already, so I guess this issue is a bit more fresh to me as only recently have I started to do research, read medical journals and talk to my friends (both AA and not AA) about it. I don't mind curbing the AA talk down for the sake of avoiding redundancy but to be fair THIS THREAD kinda is about AA, or at least the OP made a point to bring up the issue. I don't think anyone dwelled on it, and I thought we had moved on before you guys started throwing poo back and fourth but for all intensive purposes I understand why Frod decided to say that. Sometimes its worthwhile to throw a wrench in the process before it gets set on a familiar path and I appreciate that... No need to bash him for it Anon, its not as big a deal as it was made out to be.
-
OOOOOk... guilty as charged. but to be fair I think some of us mention AA often because is a related subject to our general topic here at Fornits.
I for one have NOT participated in the numerous Anti-AA threads in the past because usually by the 23rd page everything has been said and argued to death already, so I guess this issue is a bit more fresh to me as only recently have I started to do research, read medical journals and talk to my friends (both AA and not AA) about it. I don't mind curbing the AA talk down for the sake of avoiding redundancy but to be fair THIS THREAD kinda is about AA, or at least the OP made a point to bring up the issue. I don't think anyone dwelled on it, and I thought we had moved on before you guys started throwing poo back and fourth but for all intensive purposes I understand why Frod decided to say that. Sometimes its worthwhile to throw a wrench in the process before it gets set on a familiar path and I appreciate that... No need to bash him for it Anon, its not as big a deal as it was made out to be.
you are right. i actually intended to quote a nicer* quote by frod to the effect of "shut up, already." So, sorry!
-
My dear anon, you are so occluded I know where to begin. All I ask is why does every thread turn into an AA debate, and I get an un-called-for mouthful from you, like ~days after the fact.... Get a fuckin' life or something.
LOL. I totally agree with you about the AA thing, frod. I think AAs ok, but I dont post about that 15 times a day! I think the antis are a little out of hand. Not saying they/you shouldnt post, just that this isnt the 'we hate AA' forum, and some of the accusations about the place and comparing it to program makes programs sound OK, which offends me knowing how program killed my best friend by breaking them through brainwashing, false imprisonment, torture, systematic sexual abuse.
This is why i think that some of the ---particularly rabid guests who post about AA are not survviors
I don't think anybody is comparing AA to a program. AA is being discussed on it's own. There is nothing comparitive about it. And just FYI, you might be surprised as to who are those "rabid" guests who dislike AA.
-
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.
#1 Mormons are evil
Did you know that Mormons are behind most programs? Yep, it's true. They also hate fags and don't want them to get married. Mormons are EVIL and the world would be bunnies and kisses if they just converted to Catholicism already.
#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.
#3 Alcoholics Anonymous is evil
AA is a CULT that sucks people in and ruins their life and their families life. BEWARE OF THE EVIL AA! (I heard the coffee is poisoned and donuts contain brainwashing drugs that make you come back every week)
#4 Ron Paul isn't insane
Ron Paul, the biggest political supporter of programs that could possibly exist, isn't crazy. No, just because his politics would create more programs and no way to regulate or shut them down, doesn't mean he shouldn't win. Let's take the country back to the stone age and elect the only candidate who appears to have a mental illness. RON PAUL!
#5 If a kid dies from drug addiction any point in their life and went to the program, ITS THE PROGRAM's FAULT
Let's say a kid went to a program when they were 15. If they die of a drug or alcohol overdose in their 20's or 30's, or anytime for the rest of their life, the blame lies solely with the program they attended. If programs worked, then they should of been cured of addiction (which isnt a disease), right? RIGHT!
#6 Nobody is at fault
Program parents were suckered. Staff were kind-hearted, but misguided do-gooders. Owners just want to make a buck. Peer abuse happens because they are brainwashed. Nobody is at fault really, it's the 'system' that's bad.. yeah.. man... that's it.
#7 Having a website will solve the problem
Internets to the rescue! If parents don't find this website then they didn't do enough research.
#8 Child abuse will end when the program I went to is shut down
Since I only care about the abuse that happened to me, when the place I was at is shut down then abuse will no longer happen to any other kid!
#9 All kids in programs are innocent
All the kids in programs are sweet 14 year old, straight A students who were sent away for no reason at all. Which leads into...
#10 All program parents are EVIL
They send their kids away for no reason to the worst place they can find so they can have their kid tortured. They want their kid to be abused in horrible ways and pray every night their kid is away the kid is being beaten into a submissive pulp.
There you go, if you want to one day make it to moderator status these will help you fit in here. They might also help you gain access to the secret forum... oh wait, nobody posts in that forum anymore. Never mind!
And just one more thing...
:moon:
Funny stuff. ALso they like toilets and poop and butt emoticons alot, toilet remarks, poop, diarea, poop poop poop. This is because alot of them were very abused aout poop in there programs! Poor kids.
-
Funny stuff. Poor kids.
Observant. No vent.
-
Potty Humor happens to be very dear to my heart.
Im not sure theres any coorelation between that and the fact that there was often someone watching you while you shat at the programs... then looking in the toliet before you flushed.... You guess you tend to develop some jokes in those situations.
OMG speaking of SHIT
There were these mysterious incidents where one of us would stumble upon the biggest piece of poop known to man. This thing COULD NOT be flushed. It was nick named the "child sized shit" because it was indeed about the size of a baby! It only showed up every few months but every time it was even more amazingly HUGE! I'm telling you this was beyond human butthole capacity, think goatse, then a few inches bigger! It was truly an unbelievable sight to be seen.
on second thought maybe I have been traumatized to poop. just maybe.
-
Funny stuff. Poor kids.
Observant. No vent.
SEE? I'm not the only one who corrects spelling.
We are intellectual anti-intellectuals.
-
My dear anon, you are so occluded I know where to begin. All I ask is why does every thread turn into an AA debate, and I get an un-called-for mouthful from you, like ~days after the fact.... Get a fuckin' life or something.
What bothers me is that if, in fact, you do know who this is then you obviously have heard the damage that I believe AA has done to my family. I've had to deal with those holier than thou, meddling fucks for over 20 years and it has NOT been fun. I'm STILL having to deal with their destructive force on myself and those that I hold very dear to me (namely, my children) almost on a daily basis. I'm seeing a pattern repeating itself and it's probably one of the single most emotionally devastating things to endure and to watch someone else endure. THAT is why I end up feeling a need to understand it. THAT is why I end up being drawn back into the conversation again. THAT is why I want to understand how the devotees can be so devoted and how they can't see what I'm seeing. I would have thought that, if you know who this is, then you'd understand that this subject has effected me in a demoralizing way for a very long time and it just might be something that I need to talk about. A lot. I guess it just got frustrating that if you were so bored with the subject you couldn't just stay out of it and leave those of us who want to talk about it in peace. You felt the need, very often, to run into the thread and tell us (or me) how much you hate the AA posts.
If you know who this is then you know that I get really bored 'elsewhere' with endless and trite Craig'sList/Teen Pig posts etc. BUT.....I don't run into that thread and tell him how boring it is or how redundant or how asinine or 'YAWN'. I don't like him and I think those threads and posts clutter up the board with crap, but I at least respect that for whatever reason, those posts seem to be important to him. They bore me, so I just stay the fuck out of them. I guess I was hoping for the same courtesy. So, yeah. If that makes me a controlling bitch, well I guess I'll have to somehow live with it.
-
Well then, you have my apologies. I can't begin to imagine how aggravating that must be to have to deal with. You have every right to hate AA, as rational or irrational that may seem to outsiders (be that AA patrons, etc) of your particular experience with them. You are 'tired of being tormented to hell,' which I can certainly understand.
But try not to begrudge me too much for the yawns back there, it seemed like a case of yet another thread going down the proverbial AA rabbit-hole. (Also know that I was long done bitching by the time you replied to my yawns; that was like a day later, and I had already shut up about it, fwiw.) The OP was "How to fit in at Fornits.com" and I guess I didn't want to see this thread go down that same old road when there are plenty of other threads about AA to post on.
That being said, I may yawn once in a while, bitch, etc, but -- I will never attempt to tell anyone what to post or where to post it, when all is said and done. In other words, don't mind me, I'm only bitching. Carry on!
-
Well then, you have my apologies. I can't begin to imagine how aggravating that must be to have to deal with. You have every right to hate AA, as rational or irrational that may seem to outsiders (be that AA patrons, etc) of your particular experience with them. You are 'tired of being tormented to hell,' which I can certainly understand.
I hate what it's done to my family and many others, but that's not even why I post about it. I genuinely need to understand how this shit continues to happen. But thanks for the apology. Srsly.
But try not to begrudge me too much for the yawns back there, it seemed like a case of yet another thread going down the proverbial AA rabbit-hole. (Also know that I was long done bitching by the time you replied to my yawns; that was like a day later, and I had already shut up about it, fwiw.) The OP was "How to fit in at Fornits.com" and I guess I didn't want to see this thread go down that same old road when there are plenty of other threads about AA to post on.
Maybe that's because the philosophies are so similar to programthink/groupthink. It's kind of inevitable.
That being said, I may yawn once in a while, bitch, etc, but -- I will never attempt to tell anyone what to post or where to post it, when all is said and done. In other words, don't mind me, I'm only bitching. Carry on!
I wasn't trying to control what you post. Post whatever you want. I just didn't and get the need to shit on a thread that you say you have no interest in (AA was mentioned in the original post) with "YAWN". (and yeu're right, I didn't notice that it was a day or two earlier that you had posted. I reacted. Apologies.)
:peace:
-
I just find personally that AA has a lot of contradictions. Like admitting powerlessness over something you are trying to exhibit control over. I know people will argue its more complex than that....but any type of higher power whether its god or your neighbors dog, is useless if you dont have any real faith.....I think people should learn be their own higher power, Jesus would approve.
Also they teach "drugs are a symptom, not the problem" but then support the idea that addiction is a genetic trait, hence there is no remedy for the problem, hence everyone technically becomes "dry drunks", which is less than favorable.
Too many loopholes for me. Not to mention that I am neither an addict or alcoholic.
-
I just find personally that AA has a lot of contradictions. Like admitting powerlessness over something you are trying to exhibit control over. I know people will argue its more complex than that....but any type of higher power whether its god or your neighbors dog, is useless if you dont have any real faith.....I think people should learn be their own higher power, Jesus would approve.
Also they teach "drugs are a symptom, not the problem" but then support the idea that addiction is a genetic trait, hence there is no remedy for the problem, hence everyone technically becomes "dry drunks", which is less than favorable.
Too many loopholes for me. Not to mention that I am neither an addict or alcoholic.
Agreed. What spikes my interest the most is the shameless idioticracy of the doctrine... (feel the same about religion) and that you would Have to be using mind control in order to get people to believe such nonsense. (again, feel the same way about religion)
Being Religious or Program or AA affiliated really appears to me to be like living in a fantasy world (like LARPing lol) and I tend to have a more "bigger picture" approach to all these kinds of ideologies. Call it logic or disestablishmentarianism.... I'm just not a fan of the "high and mighty" way these people act, especially when they have based their "superior faith" on proverbial fairy tales.
And to be honest, I don't think Jesus could entirely give a fuck less.
-
Unlike many of you, I never ended up attending AA after the program. It seems to me a person can decide to stop drinking without first saying, "I am powerless over alcohol." To say one is powerless seems wrong from the start. If someone likes to drink, and doesn't want to stop, they should continue to do so as long as they are not harming others. If someone drinks and finds that they are physically addicted and cannot stop, or simply finds that they would like to drink less, then they should do something to help themselves stop drinking.
If someone claims AA has helped ~them, I will be the last person to tell them otherwise.
I will also be the last person to recommend the 12 steps as any kind of solution.
-
froderick
you don't get it
you are powerless when it comes to powerly situations
-
powerly begets group assembly
-
you are powerless when it comes to powerly situations
So, I'm a power-drinker? :D
-
it doesn't matter what you are.
the cause is great enough that
if you're not in need
you still need to bow down
and never question.
your reason and autonomy matters not.
-
I see. :rofl:
Why would the chicken cross the road when there ain't no other side? :eek: :timeout:
-
you are a hooker with a penis on ventura boulevard
-
eyeing the chicken
bobbing and weaving through hollywood traffic
keep your eye on the celebrity
not the ambulation of the flightless feathered poultry
-
I would not have ended up in half the places I've been if it weren't for having no place left to go.
-
" I would not belong to any club that would have me"
- Charlie Chaplin
-
" I would not belong to any club that would have me"
- Charlie Chaplin
Wasn't that Groucho Marx who said that.?
-
I stand corrected and grouched.
who names their kid groucho?
fucking octo mom?
-
It only took 100 posts to prove the OP right. :deal:
-
Have fun with your Mormon neighbor babysitting your kids.
You are exemplary.
You are a shining, exemplary of shite.
You wake up in the morning,
You do not think for your self.
Your reality threatens you so you cling to either the democratic or republican party to do the thinking for you.
You wake up each and every day and wonder what you 'leader' (boss or spouse) has decided what you should accomplish today'.
You wake up and you do that.
You do not question that.
You do that.
The only time you strike out, and think for yourself is when you are on ailse 17 of Wal Mart and you purchase environmentally friendly 9mm amuntion.
-
froderick
you don't get it
you are powerless when it comes to powerly situations
I find myself to be at my most powerless when PG&E shuts off my gas and electric.
Speaking of which, I need to call them before that happens. I have eight dollars in my account, and due to the fact that I flaked on my payment plan, since that money went to sallie mae to prevent the ruining of my co-signing parents' credit.
I'm thinking that if I say I'm ready to kill myself they'll have the heart to give me another shot with a payment option.
-
I assume they should be understanding... I think if you stay in contact then they give you an extension.
I'm sorry your having cash flow problems, I was for most of this year the sole provider for my household and it was quite a challenge, my husband was having a hard time finding work despite his immaculate working record and references, thank god he did find another job. He got lucky tho because out of 300 applicants he was chosen for the position. That in itself speaks volumes about the unemployment rate in this country.
Its clearly effecting everyone and its sad to see.
-
#1 Mormons are evil
We would never agree on a definition of "evil". TTI programs found guilty of extreme criminal abuses have been owned by by a disproportionately high number of Mormons/LDS-related interests. In the end it's a judgment call: some might think the fatalities and abuses occurring in Mormons' "Tough Love" treatment are unavoidable and blameless glitches when one looks at the Big Picture with the thousands of teens saved from death or jail by tough Mormon love. One could argue that the Mormons' draconian methods are rooted in their religious beliefs, often misunderstood by outsiders or distorted by individuals zealously biased against the LDS.
People often get Mormons and Quakers confused, which is horrible considering the differences the two faiths have in their attitudes toward the mentally ill and how they should be treated.
In the 19th century, mentally ill relatives were a social embarrassment. Wealthy families shipped their afflicted kin off to asylums and away from the public eye. The practice of having a person declared non compos mentis and locked away was abused, with doctors taking bribes for providing the diagnoses and paperwork. Individuals were dispatched to asylums for being annoying, embarrassing, or unattractive, with no due process and no recourse after being diagnosed "insane". Having your wife declared an incurable lunatic and committed to a "nervous hospital" was much easier than divorce. Conditions for patients in state and private asylums were horrific. "Therapy" in a 19th century asylum consisted of practices involving sadistic hydrotherapy. One treatment involved leading a blindfolded patient into a room with a large hole in the floor. The patient was guided to the hole and allowed to fall down into a tub filled with cold water in the belief a lunatic could be "shocked" back into reality. Being led blindfolded to a sudden free fall into a tub of icy water sounds more traumatic than therapeutic.
The Quakers during that time were operating asylums in-line with their non-violent, compassionate beliefs. The Quakers relied on kindness and empathy in a non-abusive treatment model with a focus on full recovery. The Quakers' treatment philosophy differed from those of medical-run asylums of the day. Patients in Quaker facilities were treated humanely, given respect and their dignity. To the chagrin of the "professional" asylums, the Quakers' compassionate treatment of the mentally ill resulted in dramatic successes. Previously-diagnosed "incurables" made progress, and the percentage of successful recoveries of Quaker asylums dwarfed those of their medical-based contemporaries.
Mormons exploit being confused with Quakers and their compassionate treatment of the mentally ill. Mormons are heavy on not sparing the rod on kids. Consider the size of Mormon families: It's hard to relate to your kids as individuals when you can't even remember all their names, especially those obscure Old Testament names like Uriah and Nicodemus. You ignore them or beat them equally, no exceptions.
I don't like Mormons. But I'm not Fornits.
There should be a "How to fit in on StrugglingTeens.com", but ST won't let anyone in.
-
#1 Mormons are evil
I don't like Mormons. But I'm not Fornits.
Well I don't like the Mormon Religon either, but I highly doubt other fornitcators share my views.
Although I would never go so far as to assume that all Mormons are evil, I do agree that the "draconian methods" that we have experienced in the programs are truly rooted in their religious beliefs. Everything from the "levels" to the judgmental attack therapy and then of course the physical beatings used as coercive punishment and lets not forget the seminars that use thought reform and demand absolute faith and loyalty. It really doesn't surprise me that the Mormon's are capable of setting up such an abusive system and go on to feel absolutely shameless about their actions, because this is EXACTLY how they were raised and exactly how their bible tells them to treat other human beings. Its sick, and its appalling and I really can't believe that Mormonism is even considered a religion, I really couldn't consider it anything besides a cult.
Are all Mormons evil? No, just the same as all the people who have been sucked into the program cult are not evil but the people at the top, calling the shots that destroy peoples lives... yea I'd have to say that's pretty damn evil.
-
For a while, Christianity used the level system by using the "Rings of Hell", especially as told by Dante. Christians generally don't use the concept much anymore.
-
Religion is opiate for the masses. There's nothing good about it. There's evil, and there are sheep.
Bah
-
:jawdrop: