The disease of alcoholism... - Page 6 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

MikeWaters · 01-30-2007, 10:35 PM

Check out the OED definitions of disease. It's hard to argue that the things we have talked about don't fit.

http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/...ilite=50065658

UtahDan · 01-30-2007, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Check out the OED definitions of disease. It's hard to argue that the things we have talked about don't fit.

http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/...ilite=50065658

I'm enjoying your stream of consciousness approach to posting.

OhioBlue · 01-30-2007, 10:49 PM

Mike, I'd love to have a dialogue with you about this but honestly you've thrown out so many blatant mischaracterizations of what I'm saying, and blatant mischaracterizations of what I do in my work, that I don't even know where to begin. Maybe for starters you could find me one place in this entire thread where I said "Alcoholism isn't a disease," or "Anorexia isn't a disease." Good luck.

If you need evidence of your mischaracterizations of me, look back at your last several posts and read anyting that follows the phrases "OhioBlue thinks," "OhioBlue is," "OhioBlue will," and "people like OhioBlue."

It seriously pisses me off that you have me so wrong and that apparently there is nothing I can get you to do to actually just freaking LISTEN to me. I've rarely felt so misjudged on an internet forum, and can only hope that others reading this...uh...exchange understand what I'm trying to say more than do you.

So you tell me, where should I start? Which of the slew of arrows you just blindly shot my direction should I address first? Funny you mention not wanting to hear about my perception that you think yourself never wrong, nor does it appear to me that anyone could ever get you to change your mind about anything save perhaps Farrah, yet at the same time your flurry of accusations and judgments strongly evinces a position that seems to me to be confirming in behavior that very thing.

Seriously, that was so much pure horseshit you just flung my direction, I have no idea what to respond to other than to say 99% of what you just presumed to know about me is patently false.

Please enlighten me, O bearer of all indisputable truth. And forgive me if I don't find the energy to respond to you point by point.

MikeWaters · 01-30-2007, 10:54 PM

Your reply is sufficient. You are deeply skeptical of associating the word "disease" with substance abuse and mental illness.

You're just wrong to think that you are anywhere near the mainstream.

MikeWaters · 01-30-2007, 11:49 PM

Apologies to OhioBlue for using such strident language.

I'm sure in person we would laugh over a game of Settlers of Cataan. Of course I would win 80% of the games, but that is neither here nor there.

I think what he would like to say (if I can further make assumptions about him) is that "the disease model" isn't always useful or helpful. It's hard to know what exactly one means about "the disease model" but I would guess he would say that it implies a lack of choice, that in some way it ignores the human spirit.

I would say I agree. But I would also point out that I don't agree that that is what the disease model is. I would argue that it encompasses his viewpoint already.

creekster · 01-31-2007, 12:13 AM

At this rate, and with all due respect, MW will soon have no need of other posters after a topic has been started.

SeattleUte · 01-31-2007, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by creekster

At this rate, and with all due respect, MW will soon have no need of other posters after a topic has been started.

Smarty smarty had a party and nobody came but big fat smarty.

MikeWaters · 01-31-2007, 06:43 PM

some people just don't like to tangle.

I was and am interested in the subject. He made it clear that the question was not important to him (whether it is a disease or not).

So I continue the conversation without him.

Very simple.

MikeWaters · 02-01-2007, 02:54 PM

I went to a presentation yesterday from a visiting Psychoanalyst. His specialty is in very young children and developmental disorders.

Anyway, he made the comment "I've been around for a long time. I've seen the era of the hubris of Psychoanalysis. And I've seen it humbed. We are now in the era of the hubris of Biological Psychiatry. And it will be humbled too."

Fair enough.

But then he says "Everything will come around again."

I took that to mean that he believed Psychoanalysis will come to ascendacy again.

Now that is *true* hubris.

01-30-2007, 10:49 PM	#53
OhioBlue Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Ames, IA Posts: 469	Mike, I'd love to have a dialogue with you about this but honestly you've thrown out so many blatant mischaracterizations of what I'm saying, and blatant mischaracterizations of what I do in my work, that I don't even know where to begin. Maybe for starters you could find me one place in this entire thread where I said "Alcoholism isn't a disease," or "Anorexia isn't a disease." Good luck. If you need evidence of your mischaracterizations of me, look back at your last several posts and read anyting that follows the phrases "OhioBlue thinks," "OhioBlue is," "OhioBlue will," and "people like OhioBlue." It seriously pisses me off that you have me so wrong and that apparently there is nothing I can get you to do to actually just freaking LISTEN to me. I've rarely felt so misjudged on an internet forum, and can only hope that others reading this...uh...exchange understand what I'm trying to say more than do you. So you tell me, where should I start? Which of the slew of arrows you just blindly shot my direction should I address first? Funny you mention not wanting to hear about my perception that you think yourself never wrong, nor does it appear to me that anyone could ever get you to change your mind about anything save perhaps Farrah, yet at the same time your flurry of accusations and judgments strongly evinces a position that seems to me to be confirming in behavior that very thing. Seriously, that was so much pure horseshit you just flung my direction, I have no idea what to respond to other than to say 99% of what you just presumed to know about me is patently false. Please enlighten me, O bearer of all indisputable truth. And forgive me if I don't find the energy to respond to you point by point. __________________ On the other hand, you have different fingers. -- Steven Wright Last edited by OhioBlue; 01-30-2007 at 10:54 PM.

01-31-2007, 12:13 AM	#56
creekster Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: the far corner of my mind Posts: 8,711	At this rate, and with all due respect, MW will soon have no need of other posters after a topic has been started. __________________ Sorry for th e tpyos.

01-30-2007, 10:35 PM	#51
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	Check out the OED definitions of disease. It's hard to argue that the things we have talked about don't fit. http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/...ilite=50065658

01-30-2007, 10:54 PM	#54
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	Your reply is sufficient. You are deeply skeptical of associating the word "disease" with substance abuse and mental illness. You're just wrong to think that you are anywhere near the mainstream.

01-30-2007, 11:49 PM	#55
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	Apologies to OhioBlue for using such strident language. I'm sure in person we would laugh over a game of Settlers of Cataan. Of course I would win 80% of the games, but that is neither here nor there. I think what he would like to say (if I can further make assumptions about him) is that "the disease model" isn't always useful or helpful. It's hard to know what exactly one means about "the disease model" but I would guess he would say that it implies a lack of choice, that in some way it ignores the human spirit. I would say I agree. But I would also point out that I don't agree that that is what the disease model is. I would argue that it encompasses his viewpoint already.

01-31-2007, 06:43 PM	#58
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	some people just don't like to tangle. I was and am interested in the subject. He made it clear that the question was not important to him (whether it is a disease or not). So I continue the conversation without him. Very simple.

02-01-2007, 02:54 PM	#59
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	I went to a presentation yesterday from a visiting Psychoanalyst. His specialty is in very young children and developmental disorders. Anyway, he made the comment "I've been around for a long time. I've seen the era of the hubris of Psychoanalysis. And I've seen it humbed. We are now in the era of the hubris of Biological Psychiatry. And it will be humbled too." Fair enough. But then he says "Everything will come around again." I took that to mean that he believed Psychoanalysis will come to ascendacy again. Now that is true hubris.