This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
How many drinks a day is average?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Addiction is not the act, it's the feeling or whatever that causes the act.
Um no it's not. You break an addiction by stopping the action. Most of the time you'll never get right of the feeling or attraction.
Just because you break the act doesn't remove the fact that you're still an addict. His example was correct; an alcoholic who no longer drinks remains an alcoholic, even though they no longer drink.
I don't understand why you put "Um no it's not"; it sounds like in your next sentence, you're agreeing.
What's there not to understand?
Addiction = Acting
Breaking addiction = stopping the action
It's the opposite of what he said...
addiction =/= acting
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
So you're saying that an alcoholic who no longer drinks is not an alcoholic?
Yes.
Unless you go and define alcoholic as something apart from addiction.
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
366611
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Recovering = in the process of recovering =/= recovered.
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
There is no such thing as a Recovered Alcoholic.
I'm going to call bull.
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
366611
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
There is no such thing as a Recovered Alcoholic.
I'm going to call bull.
So shall I. Where does that put us? Find me some evidence on a
recovered
alcoholic. Alcoholics do not recover, they are always alcoholics whether or not they're drinking.
Although many people assume otherwise, alcoholism is a treatable disease.
Treatment programs have varying success rates, but many people with alcohol dependency make a full recovery.
Just two quotes that took 5 minutes to find. Besides that, I know a former alcoholic, who is just fine. He drinks a beer or two with the guys every once in a while, but hasn't been drunk in years.
Post by
122776
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
366611
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Full recovery =/= recovered alcoholic. It simply means that they have stopped drinking. I can treat herpes but it doesn't remove the fact that the person has herpes.
That's the lamest analogy I have heard in a while...
If a person person makes a full recovery from herpes, guess what? He doesn't have herpes anymore!
I stand by my point, there is no such thing as a recovered alcoholic. I don't mean to be arrogant here, but I expected better from you Hyperspacerebel.
And you have provided absolutely no evidence to support your absolute conclusion.
Post by
Squishalot
Did a butterfly flap its wings?
This is because most researchers in the field believe that since the potential for alcoholism is still part of the individual's biological and psychological makeup, one can never fully recover from alcoholism.
If 'the potential for alcoholism' is what makes a person a 'recovering alcoholic', as opposed to a 'recovered alcoholic', then hell, we're all recovering, even those of us who were never alcoholic to begin with, since we all have the potential for alcoholism.
Sorry, but I'm with Hyper on this one. AA or other addiction groups might encourage members to think of themselves as recovering (because it encourages them to take a zero-tolerance policy, rather than a "I can have a drink with a mate" policy), but as far as any definition of addiction is concerned, if they no longer meet the psychological criteria of addiction (of which there are several), then they're not addicts anymore.
The reason why people might always be 'recovering' is because it's rare that people meet
none
of the psychological criteria of addiction. But that doesn't make them in any worse a position than someone who was never addicted, but tick the same boxes.
Edit: If you're going to look up your psychology textbooks to prove Xoriouz wrong, can you also look up the definition of 'addiction' and the tests used to see if someone has an addiction problem?
Post by
393249
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
if I fell back into my old habits and regained the weight
Yes, so would everyone else in the world. You eat too much of the wrong stuff, you get fat.
You can't base diagnoses on ifs.
Post by
Squishalot
"Recovered" implies that they are no longer affected by the condition in any way ... which is not true. It is still right there for them to fall right back into with a few missteps.
Can you recover from a cold / flu? Or are you only ever 'recovering', since you can be affected by the condition again in future?
In a similar way, any alcholic who must stay away from the stuff all together to avoid falling back into the cycle of alcholism would be a "recovering alcoholic". If they are completely over it, they would be able to go out and have a drink now and again without getting addicted again or having any desire to fall back into those habits.
This is the thing. If they are completely over it, then how can they still be 'recovering'?
Hyper's point is that most people don't make it that far. But some people do, meaning that it's not impossible to be a 'recovered alcoholic'.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.