El Stupido Supremo, lying titty primitive, weigh in on alcoholism

[franksolich]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4448926

Oh my.

cwydro  (1000+ posts)      Wed Nov-12-08 07:00 PM
Original message

Poll question: Poll: Your opinion: Alcoholism: addiction or disease

Flamewars in the Lounge today on this subject.

I did not participate, but am just interested in DU opinion.

No discussion needed, just want to know what you think.

Poll result (166 votes) 

Alcoholism is a disease  (85 votes, 51%)

Aloholism is an addiction, not a disease.  (81 votes, 49%)

It's a very big bonfire, the emotions of the primitives running rampant.

TomInTib  (1000+ posts)       Wed Nov-12-08 07:05 PM
Response to Original message
 
12. How about "Other"?

I think alcoholism is a blast.

I consume at least 8 oz (usually a good bit more) of Bombay Sapphire Gin, a couple of bottles of Cabernet, several shots of Chinaco Anejo and some of Humboldt's Finest every evening of my life.

I am just having fun. But I see it as neither an addiction or a disease.

Atman  (1000+ posts)        Wed Nov-12-08 07:10 PM
Response to Original message
 
24. Diseases have cures, or certain pathologies. 

Alcoholism doesn't fit any of the parameters of a "disease." There is no virus which brings it on, no cell mutation, no infection, and no positively identifiable genetic link.

It's an addiction.

Bornaginhooligan  (1000+ posts)      Wed Nov-12-08 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #24
 
27. Yeah. Totally.

Just like Lou Gehrig's Addiction.

Atman  (1000+ posts)        Wed Nov-12-08 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #27
 
36. That's stupid.

I'm sure you thought it sounded pointed and intelligent. But it was just lame.

Bornaginhooligan  (1000+ posts)      Wed Nov-12-08 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #36
 
39. Maybe I had a point. I don't remember.

Maybe I should got to the doctor and get checked for Alzheimer's Addiction.

Atman  (1000+ posts)        Wed Nov-12-08 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #39
 
48. Almost as stupid as you first comment.

Look, dude, just replacing the word "addiction" with "disease" doesn't make your point valid. It's just linguistic games. Back up your crap. I know far, far more about this than you realize. You're not dealing with someone who doesn't know alcohol addiction. Intimately. Look up what "disease" means. Alcoholism simply doesn't fit. It was categorized as a disease by certain factions looking for government grants. No one gives a shit about "addictions." They're for heroine losers and crank heads. But rich people get drunk, too. Having a "disease" is soooo much more acceptable at the country club than admitting you're an addict.

Don't jump at the temptation to claim that I'm saying only rich people are alcoholics. I know you want to. I'm saying people of means, organizers, not the guys sleeping in their own vomit on the street corner, are the ones setting the policy. They do their research. "Addiction" doesn't raise funds. But lots of people will back "diseases." After all, anyone could catch a "disease." Only losers are "addicts."

Bornaginhooligan  (1000+ posts)      Wed Nov-12-08 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #48
 
53. 1. Alzheimer's, Parkinsons, Lou Gehrigs, etc. don't fit your critieria for diseases.

Conclusion: Your criteria for diseases is flawed.

2. "It was categorized as a disease by certain factions looking for government grants."

Ooo, a conspiracy theory. How interesting.

3. "Don't jump at the temptation to claim that I'm saying only rich people are alcoholics."

I'm more interested in your suggestion that heroin and cocaine losers are poor people, despite drug use crossing economic boundaries equaly.

Atman  (1000+ posts)        Wed Nov-12-08 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #53
 
59. "I'm more interested in your suggestion..."

I'm not surprised. You did exactly what I said you'd do.

I'm an NOT saying that the addictions don't cross economic bounderies. I'm saying the ability to re-define and spearhead initiatives generally don't lay with the people who are already too ****ed up to be able to make a decision. I was simply pointing out that, in the so-called "polite society," addiction is a dirty word, reserved for crack heads and meth addicts. "Diseases," though...hell, we all get diseases. Re-defining diminishes the stigma, and makes it okay to be an advocated for all those "sick" people. Advocates for "addicts" are generally underpaid social workers who don't have the economic or political clout.

Oh...and **** you and your "conspiracy theory" crap. I didn't say that. Can't you discuss this without being an asshole?

Bornaginhooligan  (1000+ posts)      Wed Nov-12-08 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #59
 
67. "I'm an NOT saying that the addictions don't cross economic bounderies."

Well then since there are plenty of rich coke heads and heroin addicts then according to your conspiracy theory they'd get listed as diseases too.

Bornaginhooligan  (1000+ posts)      Wed Nov-12-08 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #69
 
72. Sure you did.

You claimed the rich alcoholics, doctors and scientists conspired to get alcoholism considered a disease for grant money.

uppityperson  (1000+ posts)         Wed Nov-12-08 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #48
 
93. You definition of "disease" is too simplified as it doesn't cover many things.

No, you don't need to "catch a disease" and no, there is not always a known etiology. Lou Gehrigs, Multiple Scleroris, Cerebral Palsy, Alzheimers, all fall out of your definition, yet are recognized diseases.

If your point is that playing semantics, calling it a "disease" because it sounds oh so much better than "addiction" is what is going on, I agree only in part. Why are fallen repubs admitted for "addictions" rather than "diseases"? Only losers are "addicts"?

Maybe for you.

uppityperson  (1000+ posts)         Wed Nov-12-08 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #27
 
91. My mother died from Multiple Sclerosis Addiction. Gramps had heart Addiction.

Mental health issues aren't a "disease" either I guess. Or any of those "etiology unknown" things either.

That definition of a "disease" is way too simplistic.

"Alcoholism doesn't fit any of the parameters of a "disease." There is no virus which brings it on, no cell mutation, no infection, and no positively identifiable genetic link."

Atman  (1000+ posts)        Wed Nov-12-08 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #91
 
95. Maybe you'll die of "Ignorance addiction."

Hey, sorry for the harsh tone. I repeat...just replacing "disease" with "addiction" doesn't change the parameters. It's a silly game of language. You want to beat me down by saying every disease could also be an addiction. That is not only a very lame argument, it actually helps underscore what I'm saying. You've trivialized what a disease is, and at the same time, what an addiction is. You've served neither party...you just dismiss BOTH with your line of attack.

We can name lots of REAL diseases. It is small-minded and foolish to think that saying they're "addictions" makes some sort of point for you. In fact, it IGNORES the point being made.

uppityperson  (1000+ posts)         Wed Nov-12-08 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #95
 
97. You insult to a post that you disagree with? Shame on you.

You missed my point, totally. And, I think, the other poster's.

I am calling you on your definition, and saying it is too narrow to be an accurate definition of "disease".

"Alcoholism doesn't fit any of the parameters of a "disease." There is no virus which brings it on, no cell mutation, no infection, and no positively identifiable genetic link."

If you use that as a definition, then there are things that are diseases that don't fit.

YOU are ignoring my point. And insulting me.

Atman  (1000+ posts)        Wed Nov-12-08 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #97
 
122. I'm sorry for insulting you.

I didn't intend to. I just don't like the (for lack of a better term) reverse-over-simplification when I try to state my case -- I state my point about the actual definition of "disease," and while I may not have provided an Oxford linguist's explanation, I, too, am insulted by the people who think they're making an intelligent counter-point by simply tacking "addiction" onto the name of something that killed a loved one.

Heck, I'll play...my dad died of cancer addiction.

Oops...no, maybe the cancer was the disease. The addiction to nicotine caused it.

I guess we disagree.

uppityperson  (1000+ posts)         Thu Nov-13-08 01:14 AM
Response to Reply #122
 
130. In nursing school, we divided into groups to discuss the meaning of "disease" and "health"

YOUR definition of "disease" is too limiting, speaking from 32 yrs experience as a RN.

Your definition: Alcoholism doesn't fit any of the parameters of a "disease." There is no virus which brings it on, no cell mutation, no infection, and no positively identifiable genetic link."

If you use that as a definition, then there are things that are diseases that don't fit.

I disagree with your "actual definition" of disease. Using YOUR definition, then MS, Lou Gehrigs, even arterial sclerosis leading to heart attacks are not diseases.

That is what I disagree with.

YOU are ignoring my point and yes, insulting, which you meant to.

Maybe you'll die of "Ignorance addiction." Hey, sorry for the harsh tone... It is small-minded and foolish.... Not insulting? Not meant? I don't think so.

Man, El Stupido Supremo doesn't get along with anybody, does he?

The bonfire burns on, the operating one joining El Stupido Supremo in a reasonably civil give-and-take, but then El Stupido Supremo gets grouchy again.

Atman  (1000+ posts)        Wed Nov-12-08 08:13 PM
Response to Original message
 
96. Uhm... what was the purpose of this thread again? Why is it in GD?

Just curious...a 50/50 split...this could go on for day, and why? What's the point?

Uh...mods?

uppityperson  (1000+ posts)         Wed Nov-12-08 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #96
 
98. You are happy to post and insult, then when are challenged, you call the mods.
 
Not very atman-ish there.

[Ralph Wiggum]

TomInTib  (1000+ posts)       Wed Nov-12-08 07:05 PM
Response to Original message
 
12. How about "Other"?

I think alcoholism is a blast.

I consume at least 8 oz (usually a good bit more) of Bombay Sapphire Gin, a couple of bottles of Cabernet, several shots of Chinaco Anejo and some of Humboldt's Finest every evening of my life.

Uh huh.    If this idiot did that, he'd be dead by now.  A stretchy if I've ever seen one.

[Carl]

Uh huh.    If this idiot did that, he'd be dead by now.  A stretchy if I've ever seen one.

Yep and working in a trinket store will let one afford that every night too.

[Rebel]

One way to make Tom's story a truth. Replace everything with Schlitz Malt Licka.

[lastparker]

TomInTib  (1000+ posts)       Wed Nov-12-08 07:05 PM
Response to Original message
 
12. How about "Other"?

I think alcoholism is a blast.

I consume at least 8 oz (usually a good bit more) of Bombay Sapphire Gin, a couple of bottles of Cabernet, several shots of Chinaco Anejo and some of Humboldt's Finest every evening of my life.

I am just having fun. But I see it as neither an addiction or a disease.

Great.  WHen do we taxpayers get to pay for your new liver?

[franksolich]

Great.  WHen do we taxpayers get to pay for your new liver?

Not only a new liver, but just as with the Bostonian Drunkard, one suspects the cerebral tissue inside the skull needs considerable replacement too, much of it being corroded and decayed away.

[BlueStateSaint]

Not only a new liver, but just as with the Bostonian Drunkard, one suspects the cerebral tissue inside the skull needs considerable replacement too, much of it being corroded and decayed away.

Okay, Coach, you've got to convince me that the bolded is a bad thing.

[Vagabond]

I usually have a bottle of my favorite beer with supper.  I can just as easily do without it.  My doc says I'm healthy and a bottle of beer a day isnt going to affect me much and might even help.

Alcoholism is like a disease, though.  If a person is really addicted to it, they need professional help to break the need.