Alcohol - personal choice, environment, or genetics?

[Tom In VA]

I agree that it is a disease, but it is as much if not more a mental disease than a genetic one.

You would be correct in that assessment. The genetic part doesn't come into play until the first drink is consumed.

[Diogenes]

I agree that it is a disease, but it is as much if not more a mental disease than a genetic one.

You would be correct in that assessment. The genetic part doesn't come into play until the first drink is consumed.

INTOLERANT DIPSOPHOBE BASTARDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

STOP THE HATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Leave my lifestyle choice alone, you fucknuts.

[War Wagon]

Personally I see this as a choice. Science hasn't proven that there is in fact a gene that "makes" someone homosexual. Just as they haven't shown there is a gene that "makes" someone an alcoholic. Yes, some people with a certain gene may be more likely to be an alcoholic, but not everyone becomes one.

Ho. Lee. Shit.

Do the rest of us a favor, and stay in Texas...please.

You might want to have some clue about what you're talking about before you start the topic, unless your goal was to amuse others by being a pile-on victim(if so, Rack you....I do that on an occasion, for myself).

While some people just can't let go of their superiority complex, and while some in the scientific community will always cry "foul" about methods and whatsuch, how many physiological differences are researchers going to have to find before you finally admit that it's not a matter of opinion, as you claim, but a matter of FACT? Geebus, the last comprehensive study on this came out less than a month ago(in addition to the Le Vay study), but since the thumpers of the world have stated for generations that it is a "choice," those same narcissistic dumbasses will never admit their mistake.

Sure, one can argue that prolonged sexual stimulation could increase/decrease function in certain parts of the brain, but THAT'S where the "junk science" falls flat on its face. So, where the scientific data that shows that thinking a certain way for a given amount of time can actually affect physical brain function, and the way it send electrical impulses? The naysayers are using unproven, unfounded arguments to argue that those studies were inconclusive. Kettle pot much?

And ponder this -- name ONE reason why someone would CHOOSE to be a fag? So they can hang around snappy dressers and get hints on decorating the living room? Yeah, tht'd be worth the persecution they endure(not to mention the internet ridicule they recieve).

Not one argument that the "it's a choice" side brings holds one drop of water, and is devoid of any and all common sense......:bigshocker: coming from the bible-thumping community.

So, your "opinion" is moot. Th4ere is FACT, and there is myth. Your "opinion" is of zero consequence to either.

And you're also clueless about alcoholism-btw. Alcoholism is a disease, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. You are born with alcoholism, or you're not. While some alcoholics never drink one drop of alcohol in their life, it doesn't change the FACT that they're alcoholics. Period. Your use of the phrase "becomes one" proves your complete lack of knowledge. It's an inability to produce an enzyme, you flaming tard. Just because a specific gene hasn't been pinpointed that causes this physical shortcoming, it doesn't change the physical shortcoming. A non-alcoholic can drink a keg a day, and will never "become one." An alcoholic can go a lifetime without drinking, and that enzyme will never magically appear. They "became one" at conception. Not opinion -- FACT. There's a boatload of information available on the subject(some court-ordered....d'oh!), obviously none of which you ever read before opening your yap.


While holier-than-thous can still make a reasonable argument against the obvious physical nature of homosexuality to make themselves feel somehow superior that they didn't make that "choice," save your retarded fucking self-propping about alcoholism. That one has been proven beyond any and all shodow of doubt(like homosexuality will be someday). Find some other point with which to boost your ego. You don't know enough about these subjects to even attempt it here.

^^^Shore does type plenty of purty words...bet he/she re-reads them to himself/herself quite often.

Dins, before I go KCKALEY on you, an alcholic is defined by their actions.

Nothing more, nothing less.

[Mister Bushice]

The comparison to alcoholism is a neat one as well. This "enzyme".

Usually, this "enzyme" doesn't present a problem until the person that was alcoholic before he or she took a drink .... ends up in front of judges, behind bars, in straight jackets or in a pine box. The unfortunate FACT of alcoholism is that it is destructive. It destroys the drunk, the people around the drunk and sometimes innocent victims, because the drunk needed more booze ... even though he was already drunk ... and the drunk drives drunk and kills people.

The only solution to the genetic disposition towards alcoholism is for the alcoholic to not get drunk. The only way alcoholics don't get drunk is by complete and utter abstinence from drinking alcoholic drinks.

But we fall back again on the definition of an "alcoholic". The medical community draws the lines based on blood tests of the liver, the social community defines it based on actions in public. The familes of those labeled "alcoholics" base it on the actions of the family members whose drinking negatively affects them, but that may not necessarily be associated with violence, irresponsible driving, or emotional/physical neglect.

There are those who can drink 2 drinks and stop 99 times out of 100, but the 1 time they have more than 2 they have 10, and the effects on those around them are bad.

There are those who have 5-6 drinks and are clinically

ALCOHOLICS

, but it doesn't affect anything but their own long term health.

There may be a solid genetic connection, but you cannot deny environmental factors.

The point is. Just because things are "genetic", it doesn't excuse, justify, or somehow make "okay" indulgence. Nor does it nullify the ill effects those indulgences have on society.

Dude that sounds so, so, Hester Prynne puritanical, with a bit of 14th century roman catholic partial (not plenary) indulgence roll in for flavor, cooked at hell raising degrees for about 600 years, or until well done. ;)

For kee-rist sake I'll bet message boards like this have begun to create as much or more ill effects on society than booze, given the obvious loss of daily productivity they create just for starters.

Just sayin.

Label your poison whatever you want, and drink it up. Life is short, and you are what you is.


* Seemed like a good idea to split the topics of booze and love of man meat, but maybe that's just my gene code talking. ;)

[Diogenes]

Seemed like a good idea to split the topics of booze and love of man meat, but maybe that's just my gene code talking. ;)

Either that or you aren't following the subject.

The subject of alcoholism was only brought up as an analogy to the subject in the other thread.

[Variable]

Why wasn't I consulted first?

[Tom In VA]

FROM viewtopic.php?t=5590&start=0

No, the alcoholics biggest problem is that he/she thinks he/she can drink normally while their body progressively tells them they cannot.

Just curious here, Tom.

What do you consider "normal" drinking?

I don't consider anyone elses drinking. Considering my own, it was quite abnormal.

FROM viewtopic.php?t=5590&start=0

IMO, there are different thresholds for different people.

As I stated previously, and good old Bushice in his wisdom must have deleted it, an alchoholic, or problem drinker, is defined by their actions once they start consuming. It really doesn't matter how much or how little they consume, but the trouble that they get into, and the consequences that must be faced, as a result.

You're correct, there are different thresholds for different people. It's up to the individual to determine what that threshold is. Many times this "threshold" is determined by the trouble, consequences, and results of drinking. Things such as DUI, Drunk In Public, fights, marital problems, job problems, physical problems, etc... etc... That's why in the literature I've read on the subject there are varying degrees of "bottoms".

[Dinsdale]

Things such as DUI, Drunk In Public, fights, marital problems, job problems, physical problems, etc... etc... That's why in the literature I've read on the subject there are varying degrees of "bottoms".

SWEET! I'm not married. I guess I haven't hit bottom yet.

Bottoms up! Almost noon here, and I'm going to do some more work today.

[Tom In VA]

Buschice,

I cannot disagree with anything you stated. But I don't necessarily understand the point you're trying to make.


As for my use of the word "indulgence" it was not intended to allude to those paid to the church to excuse sin.

The point I was trying to make is that of all the animals on the planet, the human animal is more disconnected with it's natural instincts than any other. Our instincts are out of whack, ergo, many of the problems we see in the world.

We not eat, sleep, and procreate like the animals. We eat when and what we choose, sleep when we choose, and fuck when we choose....if you're lucky

We are either governed by our out of kilter instincts or some sort of higher standard.

"Label Your Poison" ... exactly.

[Tom In VA]

Things such as DUI, Drunk In Public, fights, marital problems, job problems, physical problems, etc... etc... That's why in the literature I've read on the subject there are varying degrees of "bottoms".

SWEET! I'm not married. I guess I haven't hit bottom yet.

Bottoms up! Almost noon here, and I'm going to do some more work today.

[Dinsdale]

and fuck when we choose

Your OL have a sister?

[Tom In VA]

and fuck when we choose

Your OL have a sister?

Actually, she does, :wink: Cute too. In fact she's in the D&L as we speak.


Picturing Dins as my brother in law.

[Mister Bushice]

Buschice,

I cannot disagree with anything you stated. But I don't necessarily understand the point you're trying to make.

One of the points is: Society has chosen to label individuals "alcoholics" as a stigma, and yet those definitions vary, depending on circumstances and the effect a persons drinking has on them and/or those around them.

A 20 year old college student who drinks every day would qualify as alcoholic, but the circumstances don't dictate that. He just partys hard. However if that activity carries over past college into life, the definition changes and it becomes a stigma.

I realize that is somewhat off topic, but I just think that "alcoholic" is an easily overused term that paints way too broad a brush.

As for my use of the word "indulgence" it was not intended to allude to those paid to the church to excuse sin.

I know. It was late, and I was being monty python goofy. :)

The point I was trying to make is that of all the animals on the planet, the human animal is more disconnected with it's natural instincts than any other. Our instincts are out of whack, ergo, many of the problems we see in the world.

We not eat, sleep, and procreate like the animals. We eat when and what we choose, sleep when we choose, and fuck when we choose....if you're lucky

We are either governed by our out of kilter instincts or some sort of higher standard.

"Label Your Poison" ... exactly.

That merely comes as a package with our higher cognitive abilities, don't you think?

There is one other element we might have left out of the equation, and that is the addictive properties of alcohol. It's certainly not in the realm of heroin, but it has a draw that can pull people in and down without them having much control over it.

Which brings us back to the "enzyme" thing. Certainly that is one avenue, but again I think environment and lifestyle certainly can play a role there, too.

[Tom In VA]

"Higher Cognitive abilities" if that's what YOU call them, but yes.

The addictive qualities of booze and the "enzymes" go hand in hand. The "enzymes" never get a chance to operate if there is no CH2 ... whatever the carbon name of booze is, introduced into the system. So of course environment and lifestyle play a major role. If someone with this "enzyme" leads a lifestyle where introducing this "enzyme" into the system is part of said lifestyle ....we have a varying degree of consequences.

[Mister Bushice]

Has this ever been studied? It's an interesting point. I know people who don't drink at all nor do they have any desire to, almost a revulsion towards it, others who stop at one, and those that are weekend warriors.

It would seem to me that if the enzyme was triggered it would have a uniform response for those who have it, so there have to be other factors involved to allow for such variant response.

[Tom In VA]

Yes, there are plenty of studies. Google away.

Here's one. http://www.indiana.edu/~rcapub/v17n3/p18.html

You have to remember, alcoholism has been accepted as a disease ... a progressive disease. Even your worst bottom drunk didn't start out from day one, drinking Ripple and diving in dumpsters for half eaten burgers and half smoked cigarettes.

[Dinsdale]

http://www.indiana.edu/~rcapub/v17n3/p18.html

Good link.

Of course, obviously none of you read it, since it says the same thing I did originally -- it's an inability to produce an enzyme that is the cause of alcoholism. Not an "enzyme."

Hilarious that the people who brought this up with their "opinion" weren't aware of the basic biological causes of alcoholism(figure out why they call it a "disease" yet?), yet still thought enough of themselves to adress an issue that they were clueless about.......Pretty much the poli forum in a nutshell.

[DrDetroit]

Interesting that Dins should post this:

Hilarious that the people who brought this up with their "opinion" weren't aware of the basic biological causes of alcoholism(figure out why they call it a "disease" yet?), yet still thought enough of themselves to adress an issue that they were clueless about.......Pretty much the poli forum in a nutshell.

Yet...this is the guy who proposes that the federal government make it illegal for private businesses to invest their $$ anywhere but in the US.

[DrDetroit]

Mvscal...you expect a liberal to understand the concept of self-restraint and -control??

[Dinsdale]

Funny stuff. Seems a certain conservative lacks enough self control to not MAKE SHIT UP to try and make his weak points.

Yet...this is the guy who proposes that the federal government make it illegal for private businesses to invest their $$ anywhere but in the US.

Ummmm.....LINK? (Please try, but there isn't one, dumbass. Hopefully, it will keep you occupied for a while, though. I said no such thing, and if that's what you read into that, you're every bit as dumb as you appear).

And you still have that obsessive desire to label everyone who thinks you're an idiot(sup EVERYBODY) as a liberal. What part of "I'm all about state's rights," and "I believe Second Amendment Rights shouldn't be interfered with," and all of that other stuff didn't you understand, retard?

Pathetic.

[DrDetroit]

Looks like Dins has kicked his own ass...such a shame to see him do it. This took me less then three minutes to find.

http://www.theoneboard.com/board/viewto ... c&start=50

Since the big business leaders won't(and by law, essentially can't) do the "right" thing, and keep their money at home, maybe the fed needs to do their job(for once), and control commerce to favor ALL Americans, rather than majority shareholders. By allowing large corporations to send so many of our jobs to Asia, it hurts Americans....but it sure helps to line the pockets of the already-wealthy. How about tariffs and laws keeping jobs/money at home? I realize that it would be an extremely complicated task, what with the global economy being what it is, and being so rapidly expanding. BUT....this is America. We can make it happen. Corporate heads are making China and Taiwan a better place, at the expense of Americans. It's not right. But the board of a public company is bound to maximize profit. The only way to fix this is by making it illegal for them to bolster corporate profits by selling out the US.

Yep, you're finished, hypocrite...you were saying what??

Hilarious that the people who brought this up with their "opinion" weren't aware of the basic biological causes of alcoholism(figure out why they call it a "disease" yet?), yet still thought enough of themselves to adress an issue that they were clueless about.......Pretty much the poli forum in a nutshell.

Bwahahahahahaaaa!!!

[Tom In VA]

http://www.indiana.edu/~rcapub/v17n3/p18.html

Good link.

Of course, obviously none of you read it, since it says the same thing I did originally -- it's an inability to produce an enzyme that is the cause of alcoholism. Not an "enzyme."

Hilarious that the people who brought this up with their "opinion" weren't aware of the basic biological causes of alcoholism(figure out why they call it a "disease" yet?), yet still thought enough of themselves to adress an issue that they were clueless about.......Pretty much the poli forum in a nutshell.

Cut me some slack jack, I'm an alcoholic, not a scientist.



Besides the the main problem of this alcoholic centers in my mind, rather than in my body. If you ask me why I started on that last bender, the chances are I will offer you any one of a hundred alibis. Sometimes these excuses have a certain plausibility, but none of them really makes sense in the light of the havoc this alcoholic's drinking bout creates. They sound like the philosophy of the man who, having a headache, beats himself on the head with a hammer so that he can't feel the ache.


So, like I said, I'm not a scientist, I'm not completely "clueless", but I am alcoholic. So I know a thing or two about that.

[Tom In VA]

Hilarious that the people who brought this up with their "opinion" weren't aware of the basic biological causes of alcoholism(figure out why they call it a "disease" yet?), yet still thought enough of themselves to adress an issue that they were clueless about.......Pretty much the poli forum in a nutshell.

Which does not change the fact that a lush must make several deliberate decisions before getting his drink on.

It is, ultimately, a personal weakness properly deserving of contempt rather than pity.

RACK. Contempt is a bit strong. But sympathy and coddling will kill an alcoholic.

[Diogenes]

Buschice,

I cannot disagree with anything you stated. But I don't necessarily understand the point you're trying to make.

One of the points is: Society has chosen to label individuals "alcoholics" as a stigma, and yet those definitions vary, depending on circumstances and the effect a persons drinking has on them and/or those around them.

Actually the so-called "disease" of "alcoholism" was created to destigmatize drunkards, to remove the moral component from their aberrant lifestyle.

Don't blame ne, I have a disease.

Poor fucking babies.

[Variable]

Don't blame ne, I have a disease.

Poor fucking babies.

I guess you've never known anyone who wanted to quit, but still couldn't escape the compelling urge to drink ridiculous amounts of alcohol, even though he knew it was killing him. Yeah, there's a person who's in complete mental control. Ever seen what someone going into liver failure looks like? Probably isn't a long line of people looking to sign up for that one, idiot.

If you don't like "disease", then pick a different word. How about "affliction?" "Predispostion to addiction?" Whatever, it's all the same. Quit being a douchebag.

[War Wagon]

Actually the so-called "disease" of "alcoholism" was created to destigmatize drunkards...

^^^incredibly, blissfully, ignorant.

"Actually", I'd rather be called a drunkard than an alcoholic.

Has a much nicer ring to it.

Oh, and shove the stigma up your ass, dumbshit.

[Diogenes]

Don't blame ne, I have a disease.

Poor fucking babies.

I guess you've never known anyone who wanted to quit, but still couldn't escape the compelling urge to drink ridiculous amounts of alcohol, even though he knew it was killing him.

You'd be guessing wrong.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Don't blame ne, I have a disease.

Poor fucking babies.

I guess you've never known anyone who wanted to quit, but still couldn't escape the compelling urge to drink ridiculous amounts of alcohol, even though he knew it was killing him.

You'd be guessing wrong.

Did you stick you finger in his face and call him a big baby?
Hopefully he lived long enough to realize it was his own fault, and that if he couldn't pull himself up by his own bootstraps...well...tough shit, LOSER.

The image of you standing over this broken soul, begging for salvation, being told by you, "Get over it, you lost" is priceless.