Post Your Random Thoughts Thread!

[nobody]

It seems a bit pessimistic to me

It's actually optimistic in a sence because society accept it as a condition, so they can seperate it from their being and just treat it like a condition.

Put it in the past imo

[hubb]

Because nicotine addiction isnt classified as a disease afaik

in a way.. I'd say that it's because with alcoholism the emotional depency is as big of a problem for society as the physical addiction side is, whereas with sicker rats you can't take people seriously if they had an emotional reaction as strong as the physical reaction.

[hubb]

It seems a bit pessimistic to me

It's actually optimistic in a sence because society accept it as a condition, so they can seperate it from their being and just treat it like a condition.

Put it in the past imo

By they I mean the individual, so that would be the way they actually put it in the past...

[nobody]

I don't understand, they put it in the past by referring to themselves as an alcoholic, even if they haven't had a drink in a few years? That sounds to me like not putting it in the past.

[Forum]

Not for everyone but in some cases it only takes a few drinks to set them off again, even if they've been sober for years

[hubb]

Because nicotine addiction isnt classified as a disease afaik

Obesity is, should fatties who lose weight refer to themselves as blobs?

Being an alcoholic is a psychological condition though, I'm sure there's a comparable word for serial eaters

I went to kindergarden with this kid who later died from eating a whole frozen chicken, because he had a condition where he wasn't able to distinguish between being full and not... all the bakeries and little shops in the area had a picture of him behind the desks.. super grim

[hubb]

I don't understand, they put it in the past by referring to themselves as an alcoholic, even if they haven't had a drink in a few years? That sounds to me like not putting it in the past.

they get to blame a condition (alcoholism) instead of their own behaviour (guy who happens to drinks too much)

but the condition might still carry on because of something wrong with their system

[magma]

Addicts and AA type people generally refer to addiction as disease, don't they?

[hubb]

yes but aa is sketchy as a measure for alcoholism treatment on the whole because they came about founded in the silly kind of christianity that shouts too much and goes against masturbation etc

so because they had a positive effect, society has let it slide that most of what they say is semi-cultish and highly self-referntial in both technical terms (like semi- monopolisation) and in a morale sence.

It's funny the recent liam neeson flick had this whole 12 step moral breakdown in the end so fucking cringe... ok film still

[magma]

I just meant the addiction =/ disease bit from rayman really. Most people who treat addiction, whether AA or otherwise, do actually classify it as a disease.

I've no idea about the 12-step programme... not sure I even know the other 11 steps apart from the weird "higher power" bit that everyone always bangs on about whenever AA is shown on TV. Whatever works, I guess. Is being a member of a loose cult worse than being a smackhead? Probably not. There's a lot of people living clean lives because of it... that's hard to knock.

[Harkat]

How kosher is it to just hit up producers on twitter for dubs? Obviously you won't ever get the next medi plate or whatever but has anyone had any luck with established producers?

[hubb]

I just meant the addiction =/ disease bit from rayman really. Most people who treat addiction, whether AA or otherwise, do actually classify it as a disease.

I've no idea about the 12-step programme... not sure I even know the other 11 steps apart from the weird "higher power" bit that everyone always bangs on about whenever AA is shown on TV. Whatever works, I guess. Is being a member of a loose cult worse than being a smackhead? Probably not. There's a lot of people living clean lives because of it... that's hard to knock.

i mean aa functions in that very libertarian way where everything they do will empower them, so they can do bad stuff and still get the positive response from within american society because its so 'disenfranchised' in general

not unlike peta

it's the thing about america or having a two team system, hard libertarianism or whatever, that is so hard to understand for the rest of us, that for example it's republicans that want to save forests in california, when to us it seems like such a progressive idea that democrats or the ones closest to a green party ought to have as part of their program

so the question becomes goal > means instead of means > goal

dont know if clean is the right word maybe sterile

[nowaysj]

It seems a bit pessimistic to me

It's actually optimistic in a sence because society accept it as a condition, so they can seperate it from their being and just treat it like a condition.

Put it in the past imo

It is ongoing. It doesn't stop. It is not in the past, it is there every day.

[nobody]

It seems a bit pessimistic to me

It's actually optimistic in a sence because society accept it as a condition, so they can seperate it from their being and just treat it like a condition.

Put it in the past imo

It is ongoing. It doesn't stop. It is not in the past, it is there every day.

Why is it only really drinkers then? People who stop smoking don't call themselves smokers, fatties who get thin don't call themselves fatties

[sixs]

AA is all about finding god now

[nowaysj]

How kosher is it to just hit up producers on twitter for dubs? Obviously you won't ever get the next medi plate or whatever but has anyone had any luck with established producers?

You posted in the middle of an erudite discussion of berries and fruit, there is no chance for your question.

[hubb]

it's all a bit like this repost imo

http://mentalfloss.com/article/32042/co ... on-crusade

[hubb]

^

[hubb]

hark

i would do it on sc seems more down to earth ?

[nowaysj]

It seems a bit pessimistic to me

It's actually optimistic in a sence because society accept it as a condition, so they can seperate it from their being and just treat it like a condition.

Put it in the past imo

It is ongoing. It doesn't stop. It is not in the past, it is there every day.

Why is it only really drinkers then? People who stop smoking don't call themselves smokers, fatties who get thin don't call themselves fatties

This is a dumb semantic argument. A smoker is defined as one who smokes. When one stops smoking, they cease to be a smoker. When an alcoholic stops drinking they do not cease being an alcoholic, they'll always be an alcoholic. But, and you'll love this point, they do stop being a drinker, as they (hopefully) do not engage in the act of drinking.

Did you need help putting your Legos together?