Spirituality
27 Sep 16
19 Oct 16
Originally posted by apathistDSM-IV is so yesterday.
From nih
http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh27-1/5-17.htm
DSM–IV and ICD–10 define two alcohol use disorders—dependence and abuse.
DSM 5, as I reported earlier in this thread, now classifies these two as ONE disorder, called Alcohol Use Disorder.
19 Oct 16
Originally posted by SuzianneYes, I had seen your post and was glad you made it. Here though I was squashing tw's claim that I was lying and using distraction.
DSM-IV is so yesterday.
DSM 5, as I reported earlier in this thread, now classifies these two as ONE disorder, called Alcohol Use Disorder.
19 Oct 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadWe know we've been clear how? When we are understood. A clue that we've been unclear happens when we feel the urge to invent motives and actions for the others.
I have been very clear from the very beginning of the thread. You simply refuse to actually read my posts.
What was not clear? Ask away and I will answer in detail.
19 Oct 16
Originally posted by apathistSo, not in support of your claim. I want an actual reference that says that the cdc agrees that addiction is not a disease.
From cdc.
Here's a list of diseases. Note the lack of addiction or alcoholism.
http://www.cdc.gov/DiseasesConditions/az/a.html
From nih
http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh27-1/5-17.htm
DSM–IV and ICD–10 define two alcohol use disorders—dependence and abuse.
So, contradicting your claim.
19 Oct 16
Originally posted by apathistNo, when people deliberately ignore posts and try as hard as they can to not understand, then we know that they have no desire to understand. It has nothing to do with me not being clear. I note you haven't actually asked for clarification on anything, instead you are insisting on the charge of vagueness with a trumped up motive.
We know we've been clear how? When we are understood. A clue that we've been unclear happens when we feel the urge to invent motives and actions for the others.
What is not clear?
Do you understand the definitions of 'disease' and 'addiction'?
A disease is a set of symptoms.
Addiction is the urge to repeat a given behaviour.
A disease is not the causative agent.
Addiction is not the behaviour.
Is there anything unclear about those sentences?
19 Oct 16
originally posted by twhitehead
No <a diagnosis that we have a 'disease'> does not <mean that medical intervention is indicated>.
Its hard to remain unconvinced in the face of such facts and reasoning!
Fail.
The fact that you deliberately sidestepped demonstrates you believe you cannot meet the challenge.
Or, it means the claim is so obviously true that we needn't take the objection seriously. Like if someone says no! Rain is not wet!
http://www.asam.org/quality-practice/definition-of-addiction
Addiction is a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry. Dysfunction in these circuits leads to characteristic biological, psychological, social and spiritual manifestations. This is reflected in an individual pathologically pursuing reward and/or relief by substance use and other behaviors.
Addiction is characterized by inability to consistently abstain, impairment in behavioral control, craving, diminished recognition of significant problems with one’s behaviors and interpersonal relationships, and a dysfunctional emotional response. Like other chronic diseases, addiction often involves cycles of relapse and remission. Without treatment or engagement in recovery activities, addiction is progressive and can result in disability or premature death.
Specifically, they claim that addiction is disease and the diagnosis indicates medical intervention.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_diagnosis
A diagnosis, in the sense of diagnostic procedure, can be regarded as an attempt at classification of an individual's condition into separate and distinct categories that allow medical decisions about treatment and prognosis to be made. ...
A diagnostic procedure (as well as the opinion reached thereby) does not necessarily involve elucidation of the etiology of the diseases or conditions of interest, that is, what caused the disease or condition.
Generally speaking then, the diagnosis of disease indicates medical intervention.
Could do this all day long, as I said.
I indicated that I was more than happy to go through the whole article step by step on condition you agree to read my posts and actually listen for a change. You have not agreed to do so.
I asked you to read it with an open mind. Pretty sure that ship has sailed. You intend a hanging and are graciously offering a trial first, then the hanging.
But hey prove me wrong! Read with open mind, make relevant comments, and we'll take it from there. That's my counter offer.
Originally posted by apathistGood to know that you are convinced.
Its hard to remain unconvinced in the face of such facts and reasoning!
Or, it means the claim is so obviously true that we needn't take the objection seriously. Like if someone says no! Rain is not wet!
Well, I take it that you have no interest in serious discussion then.
If you change your mind, let me know.
19 Oct 16
Originally posted by apathist
[b]I admit this is a subject where standard definitions can lead us astray.
I was lucid dreaming before the dictionaries acknowledged that it was possible. Now it is known as fact.
This situation isn't as drastic. Plenty of dictionaries, and especially technical dictionaries, get it right.
If we suffer from disease, all the willpower in the world wi ...[text shortened]... nd also addictive if someone starts to enjoy being in a nonsense fantasy world that is harming them.
19 Oct 16
Originally posted by apathistthe reason you wanted to disagree with ocd being a disease is that the culture in the western medicine projects that disease in out of peoples control or they are not responsible for it's occurance and have to rely on only medical organisations for it's removal. it also projects there are many incurable diseases when nothing is impossible.
I admit this is a subject where standard definitions can lead us astray.
I was lucid dreaming before the dictionaries acknowledged that it was possible. Now it is known as fact.
This situation isn't as drastic. Plenty of dictionaries, and especially technical dictionaries, get it right.
If we suffer from disease, all the willpower in the world will not help. Contrast that fact with addiction.
The most powerful thing in the body is the soul, if that is right then the rest will become better and anything is possible so it may even become it's best depending on the destiny of that individuals whole life.
someone above wrote that if you use dictonary deinitions of disease which we are saying is disease then everything like even wanting to eat becomes an addiction.
technically eating is a disease if it is done and causes you harm, everything that causes harm is disease even being a little angry will cause bad effects in the body.
it's only if things cause harm though,
it is said that eating is not evil, only gluttony,
so all human bodily stuff like eating sleeping mating and defending is not evil unless they become gluttony, greed, laziness, lust, anger and violence.
all these things are disease, even believing lies is disease and also addictive if someone starts to enjoy being in a nonsense fantasy world that is harming them.
21 Oct 16
Originally posted by twhitehead...tw declines to engage further. I figured the requirement that he exhibit an open mind would be a deal breaker for him. That, plus the fact that he's been losing point after point. Toward the end he tried pouring on the ad homs and other distraction and evasion techniques and showed a lot of projection.
If you change your mind, let me know.
I suppose in his own mind he just rescued his dignity, and I wish him well. To bad he didn't ask me about the vulcans, though.
21 Oct 16
Originally posted by tutachess...How about enjoying a fascinating fantasy world that harms no one and is beneficial to the dreamer?
all these things are disease, even believing lies is disease and also addictive if someone starts to enjoy being in a nonsense fantasy world that is harming them.[/b]
21 Oct 16
Originally posted by apathistWhy are you suddenly posting and using the third person tense, like duchess64. Are you actually duchess64 and just slipped up here?
tw declines to engage further. I figured the requirement that he exhibit an open mind would be a deal breaker for him. That, plus the fact that he's been losing point after point. Toward the end he tried pouring on the ad homs and other distraction and evasion techniques and showed a lot of projection.
I suppose in his own mind he just rescued his dignity, and I wish him well. To bad he didn't ask me about the vulcans, though.