Sordid clambake
https://mail.theoneboard.com/board/
You would be correct in that assessment. The genetic part doesn't come into play until the first drink is consumed.Left Seater wrote:I agree that it is a disease, but it is as much if not more a mental disease than a genetic one.
INTOLERANT DIPSOPHOBE BASTARDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Tom In VA wrote:You would be correct in that assessment. The genetic part doesn't come into play until the first drink is consumed.Left Seater wrote:I agree that it is a disease, but it is as much if not more a mental disease than a genetic one.
^^^Shore does type plenty of purty words...bet he/she re-reads them to himself/herself quite often.Dinsdale wrote:Ho. Lee. Shit.Left Seater wrote: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.
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.
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.Tom in VA wrote: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 it doesn't affect anything but their own long term health.ALCOHOLICS
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. ;)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.
Either that or you aren't following the subject.Mister Bushice wrote: 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 wrote:Why wasn't I consulted first?
I don't consider anyone elses drinking. Considering my own, it was quite abnormal.War Wagon wrote:Just curious here, Tom.Tom In VA wrote:
No, the alcoholics biggest problem is that he/she thinks he/she can drink normally while their body progressively tells them they cannot.
What do you consider "normal" drinking?
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".War Wagon wrote: 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.
SWEET! I'm not married. I guess I haven't hit bottom yet.Tom In VA wrote: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 wrote:SWEET! I'm not married. I guess I haven't hit bottom yet.Tom In VA wrote: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".
Bottoms up! Almost noon here, and I'm going to do some more work today.
Your OL have a sister?Tom In VA wrote:and fuck when we choose
Actually, she does, :wink: Cute too. In fact she's in the D&L as we speak.Dinsdale wrote:Your OL have a sister?Tom In VA wrote:and fuck when we choose
Picturing Dins as my brother in law.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.Tom In VA wrote:Buschice,
I cannot disagree with anything you stated. But I don't necessarily understand the point you're trying to make.
I know. It was late, and I was being monty python goofy. :)As for my use of the word "indulgence" it was not intended to allude to those paid to the church to excuse sin.
That merely comes as a package with our higher cognitive abilities, don't you think?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.
if that's what YOU call them, but yes. Good link.Tom In VA wrote:http://www.indiana.edu/~rcapub/v17n3/p18.html
Yet...this is the guy who proposes that the federal government make it illegal for private businesses to invest their $$ anywhere but in the US.Hilarious that the people who brought this up with their "opinion" weren't aware of the basic biological causes of alcoholism(figure out why they call it a "disease" yet?), yet still thought enough of themselves to adress an issue that they were clueless about.......Pretty much the poli forum in a nutshell.
Ummmm.....LINK? (Please try, but there isn't one, dumbass. Hopefully, it will keep you occupied for a while, though. I said no such thing, and if that's what you read into that, you're every bit as dumb as you appear).DrDetroit wrote:Yet...this is the guy who proposes that the federal government make it illegal for private businesses to invest their $$ anywhere but in the US.
Yep, you're finished, hypocrite...you were saying what??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.
Bwahahahahahaaaa!!!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.Dinsdale wrote:Good link.Tom In VA wrote:http://www.indiana.edu/~rcapub/v17n3/p18.html
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.
RACK. Contempt is a bit strong. But sympathy and coddling will kill an alcoholic.mvscal wrote:Which does not change the fact that a lush must make several deliberate decisions before getting his drink on.Dinsdale wrote: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.
It is, ultimately, a personal weakness properly deserving of contempt rather than pity.
Actually the so-called "disease" of "alcoholism" was created to destigmatize drunkards, to remove the moral component from their aberrant lifestyle.Mister Bushice wrote: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.Tom In VA wrote:Buschice,
I cannot disagree with anything you stated. But I don't necessarily understand the point you're trying to make.
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.Don't blame ne, I have a disease.
Poor fucking babies.
^^^incredibly, blissfully, ignorant.Diogenes wrote:
Actually the so-called "disease" of "alcoholism" was created to destigmatize drunkards...
You'd be guessing wrong.Variable wrote: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.Don't blame ne, I have a disease.
Poor fucking babies.
Did you stick you finger in his face and call him a big baby?Diogenes wrote:You'd be guessing wrong.Variable wrote: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.Don't blame ne, I have a disease.
Poor fucking babies.