mick_towe

The divide between the left and the right in the US are all based on issues that do not effect the power of the state. I believe it is engineered to be this way. A few examples would be racial and sexual discrimination, religion, abortion, and tax policies. Although important, none of these issues effect the agenda enough to change it's course in any significant manner. I think dividing people on these issues also serves to use up their "moral energy", thus giving a diffusing outlet to those who are actually concerned with justice, and giving those who need to feel like they are "moral" some "non state threating" issues to fill that gap with. I want to be clear, the above issues ARE important, but they have been selected and put forward because they don't pose any danger to the powers that be. The romans were aware of this tactic as a political means. Especially pitting cultural groups within the empire against each other, and I would assume the bringing together of the groups could also be taken advantage of as well. It would be naive to assume that it does not happen now.

Nice nice nice!

Nice! Thank you all!

I was in a discussion in another forum and came across the dreaded "social contract" argument. I was just curious if anyone had any whoppers for this particular argument. In case you are not familiar what I am speaking of, it goes like this: "By living here you agree to a social contract which means you have a responsibility to the rest of us bla bla, and if you don't like it you can leave." I think the social contract argument has SOME validity in that there are some things (like common law) that are generally accepted by the population that are justified by that acceptance. This is why I am finding difficulty in rebutting it. I am aware of Stef's "Zoo metaphor" and it is a valid argument, but not super strong in my opinion. I was just wondering if anyone had anything better or different. I have been racking my brain about it, and have not come up with anything that satisfies me yet. Thanks!

I will watch the video, maybe I will learn something new. I am not saying there is not a psychological aspect to addiction and that it should not be treated. I was just pointing out that with alcoholism there is a hereditary physiological difference that has been found in alcoholics compared to "normal people". They have been able to discover this by autopsy. In other words, you are born with the potential to be an alcoholic or not, and it is genetic. So regardless of how much "self knowledge" I attain, I still have the body of an alcoholic. It is somewhat like diabetes in that before you consume alcohol there isn't a problem, but once you tip past "activating" it you have the disease. The alcoholics body actually metabolizes alcohol in a different way than most people, and begins to look for it as an energy source prioritizing it before food. Once this change is activated there is no known way to go back. Approximately 10% of the population has this condition. High tolerance and blackouts are the symptoms. It is most common in Asian and Native American populations. This has been known since the 70's. The book I linked to goes into all of this. It is a cross spectrum analysis of alcoholism and the psychological effects AND the physiological effects. Did I have problems that sent me seeking refuge in drink? For sure. But that is not the whole story. For example, a few years ago I was unknowingly given a probiotic drink that contained a small amount of alcohol in it. It was one of those weird drinks people grow in jars on top of their fridges. After the first drink I said out loud "This is the best tasting drink I have ever had!". It is interesting that I said that. It is almost as if my body recognized the alcohol immediately. The second drink was a gulp, and so was the third. I started to feel a rush and then my friend was like "Oh my god I am so sorry I think there might be alcohol in that!". I then put it down and felt funny for a few hours. Point is, my body responded to it immediately and was affecting my conscious thought. Without me realizing it. "Not touching the stuff ever again" is EXACTLY what an addict should do. If that is letting the drug run your life, then what is continuing to do it? I feel bad for hijacking the thread. I just felt as an addict I felt it was dangerous to tell another addict that "this will be over someday". It will be better some day for sure, better than you could ever imagine, but not over. Maybe this is not true for other drugs? I couldn't know. I will watch the video. It's been awhile since I have done any "work" in that area. Oops, I have seen that video. I don't totally agree with Stef on this one. There is a point where the substance takes over, and the cause is irrelevant.

I myself am an alcoholic. I have not had a drink since 2006, but I know that if I were to have one, it would start up again, just like before, and in a matter of weeks my life would start to fall apart. This is what people mean by "once an addict, always an addict". In my opinion it is dangerous and naive to suggest an addict think otherwise. And as far as "dealing with the issues that make you an addict", for a lot of people that is not enough. True alcoholism (not be confused with problem drinking) has a physiological (as well as psycological) cause that has to do with the enzymes the individual has in their liver. In an alcoholic the body actually breaks down alcohol in a different way than "a normal person", resulting in addiction. I do not know if this is the case with other narcotics, but this has been shown to be the case with alcoholics. http://www.robertalonso.net/2009/05/07/under-the-influence-james-r-milan-ph-d-katherine-ketcham/

I have always had this view that American politics for quite some time now has been based around creating moral conflicts in the population that are emotionally moving, but do not effect the power of the state. I view this fiasco in AZ, and the overwhelming reaction to it (which is an extremely hypocritical reaction to say the least), as another exercise in America wasting it's "moral energy" on the trivial. Should the one type of slaves be forced to do business with other slaves that they don't like? All the while ignoring the fact that we are all slaves, and the oppression being dolled out us collectivlely is 1000 times worse than all private bigotry rolled into one, on it's worst day. No here in America we don't go after the guys who tell lies that start wars, and murder millions of brown people, on the other side of the planet, that's not our style. We don't go after people who spy on us, breaking the highest laws in the land, who get caught spying, and then tell us to get stuffed. Here in America we go after bakers, who refuse to make cakes, because cake denial is a real problem her in the US. A citizen should not be inconvienienced by the moral dilema, and bigoted abuse of having to buy a cake somewhere else. We are a "moral" people, and we will not tolerate such bigotry.