Manofmanychars

Originally Posted by Lord_Arkasas

Have fun storming the castle!

Originally Posted by Techbot Alpha

Saying 'The Will will conquer all' and stuff is all well and good. But sometimes it's unbelievably bloody hard.

There are genuine mental conditions that are really hard to combat. Depression is one of them.

Originally Posted by Lord_Arkasas

*uses sniper rifle*

The revolution is starting, so I put a bullet into thine head.

Originally Posted by Pouncer

We're not talking about sugar. We're talking about your position that mentally ill people are weak and deserve to self-destruct so they don't spread their weakness to others.

Your beliefs are pure Social Darwinism.

Originally Posted by Pouncer

I've heard this before.

"When the courage to fight for one's own health is no longer in evidence, then the right to live in this world of struggle also ceases."

Mein Kampf by Adolph Hitler

Originally Posted by Failure to Sense

Wow... kinda scary their guy.

I really want to say something here... but I just don't think it's worth it. I've seen others refute your claims and yet still you cling ferociously to the idea that 'the human spirit can conquer all'. While I don't entirely disagree with your notion, I think it takes a healthy mind and body to have a healthy spirit. When either of these is sick or injured, it is quite common for the spirit to fail. Hence why those with an addiction often do need help.

But it's your ferocious stance on this, and the inability to waver, even slightly on your stance despite the bevy of logical arguments and evidence that have been provided for you that truly astonishes me. We're supposed to live in an age of enlightenment and reason, and yet still an argument like this is allowed to persist. It's almost like... you're mentally addicted to the idea that mental addiction is nonsense.

Originally Posted by Alpha-One

I've read the whole thread. However you've blatantly stated you believe that psychological addictions don't exist. Whereas science has blatantly proven you wrong that they do. Anything that causes a pleasure response in the brain can cause the brain to re-wire itself to seek it and maintain it. Understanding how and why the brain does this allows us to learn how to avoid and repair it. Weakness to addiction, in other words the brain's ease of re-wiring in response to stimulus, is a personal and arguably genetic trait. Calling those people stupid and weak-willed undermines the fact that they are people just the same, with different strengths and weaknesses than you and I.

Originally Posted by Pouncer

The "resolute" person who is not controlled by phobias, anxieties, compulsions, and delusions is not mentally ill to begin with. The ones who can't and who need help, are.

Originally Posted by Alpha-One

I try to be respectful with people when discussing things, but as soon as a person tells me their beliefs outweigh knowledge hard-won by science, they go into the loony-bin. Case in point: an acquaintance is convicted by faith that mental illness and psychological and neural sciences simply don't exist and are outright wrong. This person is also incredibly mentally ill and can't understand why the government has taken away her children and her husband has divorced her. Humans are weak and frail creatures and ignoring the effects of mental illness sends us down a very dangerous path.

Originally Posted by Fleeting Whisper

Addiction is a positive feedback loop; in some cases, there is also negative feedback for trying to quit.

Emotions are basically just chemicals your body produces rushing through your brain, such as endogenous morphine (endorphin). A gambling addict is not addicted to the gambling itself, but to the endorphins produced by his brain when he gambles. This is how some addicts will "quit" one addiction by substituting a different one. You might swap from gambling to running, and still be addicted to the same chemicals produced by your own body.

Originally Posted by Fleeting Whisper

That's basically true as far as the cause for Alzheimer's goes, but how different is that from, for example, a stroke? (And no, alcohol is not required for a stroke.) Both are neurological problems caused by physical changes to the brain, not directly related to the operation of brain cells.

What about, say, apraxia (loss of the ability to perform learned movements -- most commonly caused by brain trauma)? Apraxia can be overcome with physical therapy, just like nicotine addiction can be overcome through nicotine replacement therapy, and something like gambling addiction can be overcome with behavioral therapy. All of them can be overcome, but it's rarely a simple process. (Additionally, all three examples above carry the risk of relapse.)

Originally Posted by Marcian Tobay

Screw this. The Win Train is leaving this thread.



Choo-choo, foo's.

Originally Posted by Fleeting Whisper

Psychopathy and Sociopathy: Together these are "Antisocial Personality Disorder". It does not mean "evil", and in fact many cases are entirely self-destructive. Most commonly, the patient is simply incapable of expressing emotion or empathizing with other individuals.

Bipolar Disorder: Manic episodes are not the same thing as rage. While a manic episode for some patients may be interpreted as rage by others, manic episodes may be things like irritation, loss of proper judgment (like spending sprees they can't afford), delusions of being "chosen" (or similar), and they may begin substance abuse during manic episodes which they don't continue when in a normal or depressed state. A manic episode may even seem to be a simple sugar/caffeine high. A depressive episode doesn't make a patient suicidal, either - it can manifest as shyness, lack of motivation, general depression, and more.

I'm sure you dismiss dyslexia as a fictional disease. However, it's a real neurological dysfunction. (There are also people with trouble actually seeing/hearing the words, and people who were not properly taught the words; that's not dyslexia.) The same applies to dyscalculia, a problem similar to dyslexia but which applies to mathematics.

And what about Alzheimer's disease? I can remember as my grandfather on his bed, when his wife of more than 60 years walked in, he didn't even know who she was.

You might be able to make a convincing argument that medicines for ADD/ADHD are over-prescribed, but that doesn't make them fictional disorders.

There are scores of other neurological conditions which don't fit in your list. Some are genetic or congenital, others are caused by chemicals added to the body or physical damage, and still others are apparently random happenstance as far as our science knows.

Originally Posted by TrueMetal

Enabling attitude?

My point was that your simplistic attitude doesn't matter one bit in court considering that there are plenty of legaly recognised addictions that don't involve drugs. Video game addiction might be considered the same thing.

I personally don't get how you can make the difference concerning substance addiction. Oh, I'm sorry you got addicted to crystal meth and detroyed your life and rotted your teeth out of your mouth, but they were forcing you to take the stuff! What? No? You took the stuff out of your own free will? You're an idiot, go die in the gutter.

It's the exact same thing.

Originally Posted by Fuzzy Kittens

You're entitled to your beliefs. If I may ask, with regard to your argument, what in your background (professional training, degrees, accreditation, etc) would you use to support your argument where it disagrees with the scientific research and data that has been and is being collected and verified (through scientific rigor and discourse) on this particular subject?

Originally Posted by Furio

Doesn't matter if you believe in them...if science is showing that there is something wrong in the wiring of someone that becomes addicted to a behavior...well...science trumps your personal beliefs, imo.

Originally Posted by Fuzzy Kittens

Once considered a character defect, gambling is now known to be a highly addictive disorder with neurological causes. Thanks to new advances in brain imaging, scientists are beginning to identify the neural mechanisms that go awry in the brains of pathological and problem gamblers. What they're learning from such research is also shedding light on how these same mechanisms determine individual risk tolerance - and influence the financial choices we all make throughout our lives.

Full article at the Society for Neuroscience: http://www.sfn.org/index.aspx?pagena...fings_gambling


My claim was that you're unfairly grouping those with pathology in with jerks. Pathology is pathology, regardless of whether or not you, personally, believe it. Again, in the case of the lawsuit that prompted this thread - bogus.

Originally Posted by Fuzzy Kittens

Oh really, so someone with diabetes/cancer/hypertension/bipolar disorder/etc. should just be able to will his/her body/mind to health because, as you so eloquently put it, we all have a choice? If you think that humans can't be slaves to things that they can't control, I sincerely invite you to take a walk through either a mental ward or a hospice ward in your local hospital - tell the patients there that they simply aren't exercising their freedom of choice well enough. My point here (as it has been prior) is not the defense of ******* who are looking for any excuse they can find to justify poor behavior. It's just that you seem to be lumping the ******* in with folks who are genuinely ill and calling them all dregs.

Originally Posted by Fleeting Whisper

That's an extremely naive viewpoint. Sure, there are people who can quit smoking cold turkey. But true addiction creates a physical dependence on the substance or behavior. In some cases, forcibly ceasing the addiction (through willpower or intervention) can actually be hazardous.

Originally Posted by Fuzzy Kittens

What I am saying is that physiological dysfunction is physiological dysfunction. For the record, I think that the lawsuit that prompted this thread is horseshit. The exception I'm taking with your line of reasoning is that you're essentially writing off people who have legitimate maladies, and that's not cool.

Originally Posted by Fuzzy Kittens

While I agree with your sentiments on taking personal responsibility, it's not quite as easy as your argument implies. Neuroscience is is showing us that while the idea of "just say no" may provide a nice (moronic) sound bite, it's what happens internally (generally neurological) that provides the driving force in compulsive/destructive bahavior that is related to but by no means exclusive to substance abuse. That's not being an enabler, that's science. I'm not suggesting that physiology negates responsibility (nor am I suggesting that the twinkie defense is valid). I am, however, suggesting that there are cases where willpower will never be enough - what's required is treatment (be it behavioral, medicinal, or otherwise). Bottom line, if your brain isn't physically operating in a normal or healthy manner (whether your problem is with heroin or gambling), no amount willpower, responsibility taking or forum post bravado will fix it.

Originally Posted by Fleeting Whisper

True. An extremely good example of addiction to a non-psychoactive substance is addiction to pain. It's basically the definition of masochism.

Originally Posted by TrueMetal

It's not as simple as that. Lots of recognised addictions don't involve any 'addictive substances'. Irresponsibility, stupidity, laziness, lack of self-control...