[Meridian]

Originally Posted by philovan ↗

Since you show yourself incapable of engaging in a disagreement without hurling standard, canned insults around, I shall not waste my time by affording you a substantive response. That will be reserved for those capable of civil discourse.

Actually nothing he said qualifies as an insult. He attacked the argument you posed, not you personally, therefore it isn't an insult.

As for not "wasting your time" with a response, THAT qualifies as a standard canned response from someone who has in fact no decent argument to offer.

[philovan]

Originally Posted by Meridian ↗

Actually nothing he said qualifies as an insult. He attacked the argument you posed, not you personally, therefore it isn't an insult.

As for not "wasting your time" with a response, THAT qualifies as a standard canned response from someone who has in fact no decent argument to offer.

I would like to see anybody attempt to seriously defend the thesis that calling someone "ignorant" "arrogant" and "pompous" is not insulting that person. These are attributes which apply to persons, not to arguments. Do you really expect anybody to take your remarks in this vein seriously? Surely you can do better than this.

Furthermore, his attempts to respond to my arguments were so obviously flawed and/or irrelevant as to not be worthy of serious engagement. (e.g. the utterly nonsensical and irrelevant reference to disabled people, folks who are generally not responsible for bringing about their own disabilities). Ironically, I am one of them, with a documented and compensated 50 percent disability from the Veteran's Administration.

[piepants]

Originally Posted by philovan ↗

This is, indeed, a circular discussion which eventually goes back to a conflict in overarching
worldviews. The DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) is as political a document as you could ever hope to find, as anyone who has traced its evolution up to the current #5 can see for himself. It's classification of what is and what is not a "disease" slavishly follows the social currents of the times. Scientific pretensions here are laughable. Just to cite an illustration. Homosexuality was diagnosed as a mental illness until the gay lobby got strong enough to overturn this attitude. You are correct in that I don't understand the mind of an addict, and have no desire to do so as theirs is a self inflicted condition. The protest that they are "pushed" to drugs in the wake of some trauma or other, need to "obliterate the emotional pain", etc. are whining excuses for destructive behavior which in turn imposes costs on others when they cease being productive members of society. Many people experience various sorts of pain and trauma without resorting to drugs. As I said, it is a worldview difference here. JUDGING is what responsible people do.

You use the same "political document" to discredit its current edition. I agree to a large extent that a lot of the dsm is sadly politicized, but the same political correctness that made gender dysphoria into that transgender bs is the other side of the same coin that had homosexuality as a disorder.

The prejudice/discrimination against homosexuality caused it to be listed as a disorder when its not. Disorders cause quality of life issues; while most gays are happy with their sexuality.

On the other hand majority of those who identify as 'transgender' are markedly distressed with their situation regardless of how supportive their family/community/country is. So I can at least appreciate you not believing in addicts(I know I don't) or the shit science behind it.

[Meridian]

Originally Posted by philovan ↗

I would like to see anybody attempt to seriously defend the thesis that calling someone "ignorant" "arrogant" and "pompous" is not insulting that person. These are attributes which apply to persons, not to arguments. Do you really expect anybody to take your remarks in this vein seriously? Surely you can do better than this.

Furthermore, his attempts to respond to my arguments were so obviously flawed and/or irrelevant as to not be worthy of serious engagement. (e.g. the utterly nonsensical and irrelevant reference to disabled people, folks who are generally not responsible for bringing about their own disabilities). Ironically, I am one of them, with a documented and compensated 50 percent disability from the Veteran's Administration.

Ok, how about this? Your assertion that drug addiction is self inflicted therefore not worthy of the label of disease or epidemic is over simplifying and flawed.

There is an element of personal responsibility and culpability that can be applied to many accepted conditions - disabilities included - the smoker who gets lung cancer, the speed freak who crashes and puts himself in a wheelchair to state a couple of simple examples.

The pursuit of pleasure in all its forms is part of the human condition. Whatever your vice, be it food, alcohol, porn, drugs, smoking, adrenaline rushes, addiction is a very easy step onwards from any one of these pursuits. For most, these can be managed without it impacting on life or health but for many it isn't that simple, and to dismiss all these as deserving of their fate and not worth consideration or concern is short sighted.

So while calling your views pompous and ignorant may seem like an insult, unfortunately there is an element of truth to that argument. Unless you are the perfect human specimen with no vices whatsoever, your argument here is flawed.

[Budd Dwyer]

Walls of texts over an idiot who ended up here as a picture

philovan is a holier than thou smart ass, almost as annoying as wickedlara

[philovan]

Originally Posted by Budd Dwyer ↗

Walls of texts over an idiot who ended up here as a picture

philovan is a holier than thou smart ass, almost as annoying as wickedlara

Thanks for the compliment. I shall endeavor to close the gap with WL.

[philovan]

Originally Posted by Meridian ↗

Ok, how about this? Your assertion that drug addiction is self inflicted therefore not worthy of the label of disease or epidemic is over simplifying and flawed.

There is an element of personal responsibility and culpability that can be applied to many accepted conditions - disabilities included - the smoker who gets lung cancer, the speed freak who crashes and puts himself in a wheelchair to state a couple of simple examples.

The pursuit of pleasure in all its forms is part of the human condition. Whatever your vice, be it food, alcohol, porn, drugs, smoking, adrenaline rushes, addiction is a very easy step onwards from any one of these pursuits. For most, these can be managed without it impacting on life or health but for many it isn't that simple, and to dismiss all these as deserving of their fate and not worth consideration or concern is short sighted.

So while calling your views pompous and ignorant may seem like an insult, unfortunately there is an element of truth to that argument. Unless you are the perfect human specimen with no vices whatsoever, your argument here is flawed.

First, I would like to acknowledge that it is a pleasure to engage in debate with someone who is capable of engaging is civil discourse, an attribute that is noticeably absent on the part of some others here.

A review of the bidding is in order for the purpose of drawing the distinction between what I have advocated and those positions that have been falsely attributed to me. I have consistently argued for the thesis that self destructive behaviors are not properly classified as "diseases". Or, in other words, that the existence of a clinically determinable pathology is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for classifying a condition as a "disease". When the condition is self inflicted we are dealing with a moral dimension of the behavior, one that should not be obscured with the "disease" label. Nothing I have said either states or implies that persons engaging in such behaviors are not worthy of consideration or concern, or that they "deserve" their fate. On the contrary, I believe that openly addressing the moral dimension is a proper place to begin in assessing what can be done for such folks. There is no element of self righteousness in this stance; should I engage in similar behaviors I will be just as subject to appropriate blame. My position does not depend on any religious viewpoint, as if follows on straightforward utilitarian grounds. When someone becomes a drain on society as a result of self destructive behavior then others typically become involved, whether directly or indirectly, often whether they would choose to or not. In some cases this is via self sacrificial actions by family and/or friends; in other cases through voluntary financial contributions. Where these avenues are unavailing (and often, even when they are), tax dollars come into the picture. In sum, self destructive behaviors have negative social consequences and are blameworthy as such. Again, to be absolutely clear, blaming someone for a given behavior is not the same as characterizing them as worthless, undeserving of consideration or concern, etc. The consideration and concern does need to be exercised in a manner that is cognizant of the moral dimension, however. I recognize that not all cases of self indulgent abuse lead to the extreme consequences of utter dependency upon the drug and upon others, in order to get through the tasks of daily living. Most of them have the potential to do so, however.

A bit of personal background will be helpful in explaining why I so strongly advocate my views on the above matters. I have been on daily doses of oxycodone for more than 6 years as a result of back pain resulting from permanent nerve damage. This is the basis for my disability classification with the Veterans Administration. Does this regime have side effects, commonly referred to as a "buzz" or a "high"? You bet it does. Have I been tempted to take more of the drug than is strictly necessary for pain relief as a result? You bet I have. However, I have resisted that temptation and so have gotten the pain relief benefits without becoming a drug addict. The abusers of this and other opiod drugs constitute a potential personal threat to me since doctors are coming under increasing pressure to refuse to prescribe opiods for long term relief of chronic pain due the "opiod epidemic" propaganda. Fortunately, I have a doctor who refuses to yield to this pressure. However, the VA periodically changes primary care physicians, and I cannot be assured that the present situation will continue with the next rotation.

[panugato]

Originally Posted by philovan ↗

First, I would like to acknowledge that it is a pleasure to engage in debate with someone who is capable of engaging is civil discourse, an attribute that is noticeably absent on the part of some others here.

A review of the bidding is in order for the purpose of drawing the distinction between what I have advocated and those positions that have been falsely attributed to me. I have consistently argued for the thesis that self destructive behaviors are not properly classified as "diseases". Or, in other words, that the existence of a clinically determinable pathology is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for classifying a condition as a "disease". When the condition is self inflicted we are dealing with a moral dimension of the behavior, one that should not be obscured with the "disease" label. Nothing I have said either states or implies that persons engaging in such behaviors are not worthy of consideration or concern, or that they "deserve" their fate. On the contrary, I believe that openly addressing the moral dimension is a proper place to begin in assessing what can be done for such folks. There is no element of self righteousness in this stance; should I engage in similar behaviors I will be just as subject to appropriate blame. My position does not depend on any religious viewpoint, as if follows on straightforward utilitarian grounds. When someone becomes a drain on society as a result of self destructive behavior then others typically become involved, whether directly or indirectly, often whether they would choose to or not. In some cases this is via self sacrificial actions by family and/or friends; in other cases through voluntary financial contributions. Where these avenues are unavailing (and often, even when they are), tax dollars come into the picture. In sum, self destructive behaviors have negative social consequences and are blameworthy as such. Again, to be absolutely clear, blaming someone for a given behavior is not the same as characterizing them as worthless, undeserving of consideration or concern, etc. The consideration and concern does need to be exercised in a manner that is cognizant of the moral dimension, however. I recognize that not all cases of self indulgent abuse lead to the extreme consequences of utter dependency upon the drug and upon others, in order to get through the tasks of daily living. Most of them have the potential to do so, however.

A bit of personal background will be helpful in explaining why I so strongly advocate my views on the above matters. I have been on daily doses of oxycodone for more than 6 years as a result of back pain resulting from permanent nerve damage. This is the basis for my disability classification with the Veterans Administration. Does this regime have side effects, commonly referred to as a "buzz" or a "high"? You bet it does. Have I been tempted to take more of the drug than is strictly necessary for pain relief as a result? You bet I have. However, I have resisted that temptation and so have gotten the pain relief benefits without becoming a drug addict. The abusers of this and other opiod drugs constitute a potential personal threat to me since doctors are coming under increasing pressure to refuse to prescribe opiods for long term relief of chronic pain due the "opiod epidemic" propaganda. Fortunately, I have a doctor who refuses to yield to this pressure. However, the VA periodically changes primary care physicians, and I cannot be assured that the present situation will continue with the next rotation.

Firstly, thank you for your service. I FEEL that you, sir, have been blessed with not having an addictive personality. As they say in AA there are people out there that are able to have a good time but not go over board with drinking. This being said, not EVERYONE is so blessed with the ability to put the alcoholic drink, junk food, drug, casino slot machine handle down and porn .....They do not operate with the SUPREME will that you have to not become said addict. Please, my argument stands. Go to your nearest VA and find an addict to talk to. Allow them to tell their story to you. Hopefully, this vet is in recovery and can explain to you why, etc.

It is an every day struggle to not use for some addicts. I FEEL that drug replacement programs do NOT work for addicts. It just prolongs the agony. Behavioral therapy with support groups, solid support systems (family, friends), perhaps AA/NA sponsors with constant meetings) and strict abstinence from the drug of choice (or whatever) shall assist the addict/alcoholic maintain recovery.

I can attest that some programs (AA) will not co sign an addict or alcoholics bull shit. I believe in KEEPING MY SIDE OF THE STREET CLEAN. Perhaps that may help you not stress over the fact that the government has swooped in to change policy from doctors handing out scripts to everyone.

Finally, I am sorry that you are having to jump through hoops because of an addicted population. However, there must be action taken to stop the drain on health care resources.

Therefore, behavioral assistance that is billable to insurance and strict DEA guidelines are in place to keep people from dying and putting a strain on YOU.

[panugato]

You don't have to sympathize but PERHAPS understand that this dude that died will no longer stress his family out wondering the worst - it's over for him. Unfortunately, he succumbed and to me that is sad. Another life that could have had meaning to others is gone.

[Susan]

I didn't read it all, I've read your comments before and they bore me. Yes, that's an insult.