Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

jserif t1_ix8wz9x wrote

Reply to comment by coyote-1 in Tifu by ruining my relationship and a special night by Freerz

That’s not how alcohol addiction works; none of the science on it agrees with your take. Assigning your weird ideologies to addicts might make you feel very smart but don’t use them to try and shame people, let alone someone who says they were drugged.

2

coyote-1 t1_ix9566h wrote

What does the science say about why hundreds of millions can consume alcohol with no craving for it again? If the alcohol itself is the cause of addiction, how do we explain this?

By a “prone to alcoholism” gene? How does such a gene expand through the gene pool, when it would have to be a gene that reduces one‘s survivability? How does it even surface to begin with? It’s not like ethyl alcohol has been a ’thing’ for all that long historically, it only ever existed in trace amounts in fruits where particular yeasts happened to have landed. In any concentration, it’s only the past many thousand years that it has surfaced.

Even if such a gene exists, it remains true that the substance itself is not the problem.

−1

jserif t1_ix96op7 wrote

Millions of people don’t have depression so by your subpar logic, depression isn’t a real problem and suicide is just something selfish people do. Which honestly isn’t really a “gotcha” response because your posts read the way one of those people would speak.

And the length of ethyl’s existence is a weird tangential response to the discussion of how addiction works. Substance abuse doesn’t rely on evolutionary response to each individual substance, but I think you know that. It’s just weird false philosophical points that “hint” at an incorrect answer, one that makes you feel very smart over your peers that drink.

Not sure why anyone would want to drink you, hopefully you’ve kept these shitty thoughts in your head while you’re out judging people who drink.

2

coyote-1 t1_ix9bhay wrote

Nowhere did I claim alcoholism is not real. Your reply is one of non-thinking, just knee jerk reaction.

There are millions of people who have a problem with alcohol. I never said otherwise. What I said is that the alcohol is not the cause. That’s a totally different thing than what you are attempting to insinuate here.

And I personally contend that “how addiction works” is widely misunderstood. There are people who are quite literally addicted to hand-washing. They do it tens or hundreds of times daily, when there is no rational need to do so. if addiction is always dependent upon a chemically interactive substance that modifies the brain or nervous system, as you seem to be implying here, what substance is involved in hand-washing that makes some people do it hundreds of times daily?

Millions of people are addicted to gambling. Millions of others can buy a lotto ticket today, and forget they have it in their wallet for months. Is Lotto the problem?

Millions of people can’t stop texting. They do it while walking, while driving. Millions of others don’t bother except when needed for business. Is the text app the problem?

The alcohol is not the issue. Else everyone who ever had a beer would be an alcoholic. The real issue is who the person really is, deep down under the mask they wear in public, and how alcohol allows them to get back to that person. Who would not want to be who they really are whenever possible? If de-inhibitor alcohol helps you get there, who in that scenario would not get addicted to it?

1

jserif t1_ix9d681 wrote

It is widely misunderstood, but that doesn’t give you license to use it to justify your own superiority. You call my response a non-thinking reaction, even though what I said was coherent. However, you then use many paragraphs to say that, incorrectly, I implied all addictive things are addictive due to the substance. You reached as far as you could and, surprise, you interpreted it in such a way that makes everyone who did get addicted sound much worse than those who did not. Your responses take some facts and filter them down until they lack any nuance of what the behaviors address in the addict, and finally, argue once again that a drunk person is just the “real” person. I’ll refer to your prior argument then, no doubt something you pulled out of your ass haphazardly; if we haven’t seen alcohol around for a good chunk of human history, then there never would have been any true human behavior before then.

You pretend as if removing inhibition is all alcohol does, you then use that to diagnose why alcoholics are addicted, and are pulling dramatic examples that don’t fit the discussion to bash your way to a perceived win instead of learning anything about yourself. Which… again, if you put yourself around drunk people because it’s fun to see who they truly are, then none of this is surprising so much as it’s just sad.

1

coyote-1 t1_ix9ihio wrote

I’m putting out a different paradigm. To date, virtually all paradigms start from the conclusion that the substance is the issue.

AGAIN: if the substance were the issue, everyone who touches it should become addicted... or like folks who’ve taken opiates to alleviate the pain of surgery, struggle a bit to emerge from that.

But alcohol is not like that. Hundreds of millions of people happily enjoy it, with no hint whatsoever of anything like addiction.

So by process of deduction: ALCOHOL ITSELF IS NOT THE ISSUE.

Issue not the substance. issue is the consumer.

1

jserif t1_ix9knrk wrote

That’s not a new paradigm though, it’s a staple in the issue that is talked about frequently. Saying that the consumer is the issue doesn’t make them bad people worthy of judgment. There’s a whole slew of variables as to why some people are more prone to addiction or what circumstances lead to behavioral addiction.

To that end, it’s not true that “virtually all” paradigms start at the substance. There’s been a huge shift towards mental health and community involvement as treatment for addiction.

This paradigm you’re putting out, however, is derailment from the original point. You believe that this individual who says he was drugged, having memory loss after drinking a routine amount of alcohol, was actually showing his true colors with the alcohol. The drugs didn’t seem to factor in your initial statement. My disagreement is that being drugged is a real problem, secondarily that alcohol abuse isn’t as simple as showing one’s true nature. Watching drunk friends or putting out different paradigms or talking about addiction, while interesting conversations, keeps shifting the fact that you ignored the crux of the incident to tie it into anecdotal experiences you have while others drink, and your philosophy behind this activity.

Getting drugged or getting drunk are two different things, and if you think OP is lying to hide his own mistakes of showing his true self (mostly due to your observations of drunk people, something you enjoy doing) then this argument becomes a matter of opinion and we can leave it at that.

1