141–150 of 201 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a pretty broad brush to paint all of religion with. There are plenty of rational arguments for Christianity for those willing to do due diligence: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/countering-a-dist...
Doesn't look like you've provided any in that link?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that was the point of OP's comment, since you cut the rest of the statement > You drink too much for a reason, not because you're a bad person. the reason here being predisposition, environmental factors, genetics, and/or current illness
So those factors listed essentially encompass your personality and dictate why a person does any action. In that case, how do we hold anyone personally responsible for anything considering that the reason a person does any action is a result of their genetics and the environment they grow in? Not criticizing, just wondering how others reconcile this.
After years and years of struggling with alcoholism and AA, I got sober with naltrexone using the "Sinclair Method". I followed the treatment plan for a few weeks and at the end quitting drinking was easy and obvious. That was just over ten years ago and I haven't had a drink or gone to any meetings since. I'm only one person and I'm fully aware that the plural of anecdote isn't data. However, the experience was so d…
Anyone know if there is something similar to quit smoking? Tried to quit cold turkey 20 times at least, usually can’t get past the first day.
For something supposedly so good on it's own, religion really does try it's best to target vulnerable people. Naive children, desperate people, people who have lost someone, people sick with addiction (referencing the submitting to the higher power step). Whatever helps during trying times I guess. It just seems to me if religion was so great on its own, it would be approached in a calm rational manner targeted at ma…
As a person of Christian faith willing to share my faith, I'm not sure I "target" vulnerable people. I don't discriminate for who receives my sharing. I'm spoiled to live in a society and social circle that doesn't have a lot of suffering. Even when people pass away, those still living are often rational and emotionally mature enough to understand that their grief is temporary, and that they can move on with life aft…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ingesting too large amounts of caffeine is almost certainly bad for you. It's a stimulant that increases your blood pressure and heart rate. You don't want to overdo that. It's also diuretic, if you substitute water for coffee (which some people do) it can actually lead to dehydration. But yes, I agree to your larger point that coffee is less dangerous than alcohol.
>It's a stimulant that increases your blood pressure and heart rate. Does it do that to a significant extent to regular users, though? I thought the stimulant effects mostly went away once you build up a tolerance. Similarly, there is little diuretic effect for regular coffee drinkers: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140402-are-coffee-and-tea-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It used to be much more ingrained. Factory or construction workers used to drink during work, and if those old movies are to believe men would pour themselves drinks all the times. These days it is mostly acceptable to decline alcohol.
It's interesting that you cite factory or construction workers. I'm a first-generation college graduate, who grew up around skilled (and unskilled) labor. I've never heard of this being prevalent, even from old-timers discussing how things used to be way back when. Quitting time is one thing... but the last environment on earth in which you'd want to drink alcohol is around power tools or heavy machinery! My own firs…
Before there were any special taxes on liquer in Denmark, it wasn't uncommon to buy a bottle before work, and finish it through the day (this would be just after the Victorian age, so those workers probably needed) and of course the Gin Wagons in the UK are legendary for a reason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that was the point of OP's comment, since you cut the rest of the statement > You drink too much for a reason, not because you're a bad person. the reason here being predisposition, environmental factors, genetics, and/or current illness
So those factors listed essentially encompass your personality and dictate why a person does any action. In that case, how do we hold anyone personally responsible for anything considering that the reason a person does any action is a result of their genetics and the environment they grow in? Not criticizing, just wondering how others reconcile this.
I think he drank to suppress the nightmares from serving in the front lines of two wars. I think he began tapering off when he left the army when I was three. I think he did so with no conscious plan. He just didn't need as much alcohol to push away his personal demons so he could sleep and he probably just naturally reduced it over time without really thinking about it.
I've got a serious medical condition. I used to take a lot of prescription medication. I've gotten off all the drugs. It's really normal for me to stop doing X slowly over time and not really notice it until later. It's common for me to only really notice a change precisely because I talk a lot about my medical stuff with my adult sons, so we periodically go over "Oh, yeah, you used to do X, Y and Z and you don't anymore."
I also spoke once with someone who had a lot of shame surrounding a DUI on their record. One of the stories they told me: They had surgery for something and when the doctors opened them up, they found one of the organs necrotic. This was unexpected and they expressed surprise that this individual was still alive. They removed the organ in the process of doing this other surgery. The individual quit drinking after that, but still saw themselves as a bad person and an alcoholic rather than someone who was managing a terrible and life threatening medical condition with alcohol until surgery happened to resolve it.
I'm convinced that this type of thing is much more common than is generally recognized.
I want to see data driven novel approaches to addiction management. The 12-step model has dismal success rates [0]. Virtually all of the novel programs and facilities either do not report a success rate or their reported rate is highly suspicious. There are some exceptions [1]. The global addiction market is $4 billion and growing [2]. Any company working in the addiction space should keep accurate records of their s…
Very few studies have proper control groups. https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/10/26/alcoholics-anonymous-m... > In conclusion, as best I can tell – and it is not very well, because the studies that could really prove anything robustly haven’t been done – most alcoholics get better on their own. All treatments for alcoholism, including Alcoholics Anonymous, psychotherapy, and just a few minutes with a doctor explaining…
These statements and studies show how little the average person, even a doctor, understands about alcoholics. Anyone who's attended an AA meeting or worked with alcoholics can easily tell you what's so crazy about these types of studies:
AA is full of people who, by definition, cannot quit on their own. Other than some court-ordered cases, every single person in AA has already tried and failed to quit on their own. It's a nonsense comparison.
You are comparing a group of people who have never tried quitting before, with those who have already spent years failing to quit on their own. Of course the first group does better! The second group is filled with more serious conditions. If they were able to quit on their own they would have never tried AA.
* It's free * It's decentralized * It works
Is it the absolute best and most efficient method for treating addiction? Maybe not, but unless you have another method that works, which also does 1 and 2, it probably won't become as pervasive and long-lasting as AA.
How does this apply to programmers? Look at every dumb project that ever tried to "disrupt" email. That's a field littered with dead bodies. Email survives. Why? See above.
If you consider addiction as a psychological and physical dependence on a chemical what healthcare professional would design a program like AA? Seven of the 12 steps involve God. It also reinforces the 'moral failure' stigma attached to the person. You drink too much for a reason, not because you are a bad person. It's likely due to genetic and environmental factors. ohh and you can die from withdrawal (unlike most o…
The AA steps were constructed in a culturally-Christian environment, for people who are also culturally-Christian, even if they’re atheists. (I.e., they are people who were taught Christian messages and then maybe rejected them, and who also have a mostly-Christian community around them.) Thus, they have to be read through this lens. Basically, if you want to “translate” the AA steps for the modern era where things a…
I've read the origin story. It was constructed by a group of people who had been terrible, hard core alcoholics for decades who had failed all efforts to get off the alcohol and were still drinking even though it was literally killing them. "Giving it up to God" helped these folks get sober when nothing else had.
Now, we call every college kid who goes on a bender an alcoholic, blame every personal problem they have on the alcohol and refer them to AA. Reality: Most people naturally drink less over time without any intervention whatsoever. Generally speaking, young people drink a lot more than old people, and not because all young people go to AA and get "cured."
One guy explained it thusly: "When I was young, it felt great to get drunk. I had fun for hours and then the hangover wasn't too bad. Now, I get a short term pleasant feeling, followed by a terrible hangover. It's just not fun like it used to be. It's simply not worth it anymore."