Nope, there's a difference between alcoholism and binge drinking. Many alcoholics do not drink until black out. Many young people drink until blackout but are not deemed alcoholics because their drinking is not out of control, negatively impacting the rest of their lives and most importantly they're not addicted to the stuff.
Just the facts, then you won't mind presenting the actual facts and figures rather than just saying so. You know like adults do when in a debate.
They do have little to do with violence, there is no evidence that mental illness causes people to be violent, there's a whole lot that the use and abuse of drugs, typically alcohol however does increase someone's chances of being violent and is a major factor with up to 50% of crimes featuring an intoxicated perpetrator.
Yeah, again we come back to the fact that you have demonstrated you have no knowledge or understanding of mental illness and thus can't form any argument around it because you know jack squat about it or about the shades of normal that mean a lot of things that are considered symptoms of mental illness when they are disruptive, distressing or out of control are also present in the "normal" population to some extend. Cos hey the fact that anxiety based diagnosis exists doesn't mean "normal" people don't get anxious.
I am fully aware that there is a difference between alcoholism and binge drinking (but thanks for talking down to me! You're so good at that!) but drinking to the point of blacking out is alcoholism, pure and simple. Whether or not it cripples you for the rest of your life, it is a symptom of the mental disorder alcoholism. Drinking to get drunk might be an example of a behavior that an alcoholic might do that "normal" people might also, but drinking to the point of blacking out is drastically different.
But the point here is that alcoholism (all of the ways it manifests) is a mental disorder.
It's hard to take you seriously when you're so adamant that your clearly erroneous beliefs are right and yet can't be bothered to actually write a decent debate response.
No, it is not a mental disorder. It is a physical addiction that can cause mental illness as a secondary result or that can have it's roots in mental illness. But it is not a mental disorder, you would know this if you knew anything about mental illness which you keep proving you don't.
That said, your little footstamping is quite irrelevant, my evidence shows clear correlation between substance abuse and violence, and that mentally ill people are no more likely to be violent simply because they're mentally ill. There is no proof that the many intoxicated perpetrators of violence are also alcoholics. Indeed it is more likely they are not since abuse and alcoholism are not the same thing and there aren't enough alcoholics to account for all that violence.
If you had actual evidence to support any of your claims, you would have posted it, since you have not and I know it doesn't exist because your claims are wrong, I think we can safely declare that you're done unless you actually want to write something more substantial than your usual footstamping insistence that you are right in the face of evidence to the contrary.
If you want to submit some evidence to support your claims, or actually debate a point that you have an argument with some basis for? I'll be happy to discuss it with you, if however you intend to continue to bring nothing of worth to the table than a insistence you are right without evidence to prove it and rampant mental illness stigma, then I decline to tolerate your puerile posturing further.
Like I mentioned earlier, though, what about your demonizing of antisocial personality disorder? Or are you going to just ignore that hypocrisy because it is inconvenient?
You are doing every bit as much foot stamping, but since you are right, then it's ok, right?
You need to READ the links before you post them and understand the difference between causes/can be caused by and something being a mental illness.
The Bettyford link is not only incorrect, it also contradicts itself, the second one does not say what you think it says.
Alcoholism isn't a mental illness. It is a physical dependency on alcohol that has a negative impact on someone's life and which can be CAUSED by or CAUSE mental illness.
Much like suicide isn't a mental illness. The mental illness is what can cause suicide or suicide attempts can cause mental illness. The ground is not a tree just because the tree might grow in it.
I'm ignoring it because your failure to understand is not an objective measure of anything that's happened. You can say "X" until you're blue in the face, it does not make X true, it just makes you look silly.
So, let me get this straight. You can accuse me of debating poorly and call me names, etc. and that is all fine and good. But as soon as I realize that talking with you is like talking to a wall ("NO I'M RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG AND I WILL NOT HEAR OTHERWISE") and I realize that it's pointless to debate with you (and you have proven that it's not just with me, but with at least 4-5 other people just in this post!) and therefore declining into calling you names is just as viable of an option as any other response, I'm a jerk? I refuse to attempt to spend my time and energy on the likes of you.
I dunno. It seems to me like lilenth was just asking you to back up what you were saying, or respond to their actual points. I guess in their position, I might have used a more dialectical approach, such as asking "what about this makes you think that?" ...But that's just me. That sad, I still see your responses as being more "wall-like", if you will.
"This is right because I feel like it is", is not a valid argument. I'm not saying your arguments are at that point yet, but honestly, trying to be as objective as possible, I find the other person more convincing.
Of course, it's hard to be objective, considering I'm just so tired of people perpetuating the stigma associated with the mentally ill. Meh, and besides, isn't arguing about whether or not alcoholism is "a mental disorder" kind of beside the point?
It seemed that when you referred to "mentally ill people" , you were referring in particular to people you would consider deranged/psychotic. Whether or not they are alcoholics had nothing to do with that for you, so trying to say "well alcoholics ARE mentally ill" seems like a derailment.
Plus, as was stated, you can abuse alcohol without being alcoholic. They did not say there is a strong correlation between alcoholism and violence, but between alcohol use/abuse and violence. And you CAN abuse alcohol without being an alcoholic, to an extent.
Anyway, alcohol cannot MAKE anyone do anything, that's correct. It can only lower ones inhibitions, making them more likely to do something they already were capable of. At least with something extreme like shooting up a theatre. But the same goes for mental illness, for the most part. I think there would be some psychiatric conditions that you could argue would possibly "make" someone do something like that, on a very rare occasion. But being that mentally ill is not a requirement before shooting up a theater. I think you realize this, so I'm not trying to be condescending. But it seems to me the main point of the argument is this:
There are things that are higher indicators of potential violence than mental illness, alcohol abuse IS one of them, so blaming the "mentally ill" is just not helpful. In fact it is harmful.
Now I am curious why it is you disagree. I promise I won't shoot you down (not that I necessarily think lilenth was, but I want to reassure you about that. I think it's a very important topic).
Also, that all said, I'm not necessarily convinced that there is a high correlation between substance abuse and extreme acts of violence, like this one. I am pretty sure that most mass shootings have not been committed by people who were under the influence of alcohol or drugs. At least not at the time of the shooting.
Just the facts, then you won't mind presenting the actual facts and figures rather than just saying so. You know like adults do when in a debate.
They do have little to do with violence, there is no evidence that mental illness causes people to be violent, there's a whole lot that the use and abuse of drugs, typically alcohol however does increase someone's chances of being violent and is a major factor with up to 50% of crimes featuring an intoxicated perpetrator.
Yeah, again we come back to the fact that you have demonstrated you have no knowledge or understanding of mental illness and thus can't form any argument around it because you know jack squat about it or about the shades of normal that mean a lot of things that are considered symptoms of mental illness when they are disruptive, distressing or out of control are also present in the "normal" population to some extend. Cos hey the fact that anxiety based diagnosis exists doesn't mean "normal" people don't get anxious.
Reply
But the point here is that alcoholism (all of the ways it manifests) is a mental disorder.
Reply
No, it is not a mental disorder. It is a physical addiction that can cause mental illness as a secondary result or that can have it's roots in mental illness. But it is not a mental disorder, you would know this if you knew anything about mental illness which you keep proving you don't.
That said, your little footstamping is quite irrelevant, my evidence shows clear correlation between substance abuse and violence, and that mentally ill people are no more likely to be violent simply because they're mentally ill. There is no proof that the many intoxicated perpetrators of violence are also alcoholics. Indeed it is more likely they are not since abuse and alcoholism are not the same thing and there aren't enough alcoholics to account for all that violence.
If you had actual evidence to support any of your claims, you would have posted it, since you have not and I know it doesn't exist because your claims are wrong, I think we can safely declare that you're done unless you actually want to write something more substantial than your usual footstamping insistence that you are right in the face of evidence to the contrary.
If you want to submit some evidence to support your claims, or actually debate a point that you have an argument with some basis for? I'll be happy to discuss it with you, if however you intend to continue to bring nothing of worth to the table than a insistence you are right without evidence to prove it and rampant mental illness stigma, then I decline to tolerate your puerile posturing further.
Reply
Here's one link and here's another one that backs up my claim, and that was just from less than 30 seconds of Googling.
Like I mentioned earlier, though, what about your demonizing of antisocial personality disorder? Or are you going to just ignore that hypocrisy because it is inconvenient?
You are doing every bit as much foot stamping, but since you are right, then it's ok, right?
Reply
The Bettyford link is not only incorrect, it also contradicts itself, the second one does not say what you think it says.
Alcoholism isn't a mental illness. It is a physical dependency on alcohol that has a negative impact on someone's life and which can be CAUSED by or CAUSE mental illness.
Much like suicide isn't a mental illness. The mental illness is what can cause suicide or suicide attempts can cause mental illness. The ground is not a tree just because the tree might grow in it.
I'm ignoring it because your failure to understand is not an objective measure of anything that's happened. You can say "X" until you're blue in the face, it does not make X true, it just makes you look silly.
Reply
This is sound advice. You should heed it.
Reply
Reply
In other words: "NO U".
Reply
Reply
"This is right because I feel like it is", is not a valid argument. I'm not saying your arguments are at that point yet, but honestly, trying to be as objective as possible, I find the other person more convincing.
Of course, it's hard to be objective, considering I'm just so tired of people perpetuating the stigma associated with the mentally ill. Meh, and besides, isn't arguing about whether or not alcoholism is "a mental disorder" kind of beside the point?
It seemed that when you referred to "mentally ill people" , you were referring in particular to people you would consider deranged/psychotic. Whether or not they are alcoholics had nothing to do with that for you, so trying to say "well alcoholics ARE mentally ill" seems like a derailment.
Plus, as was stated, you can abuse alcohol without being alcoholic. They did not say there is a strong correlation between alcoholism and violence, but between alcohol use/abuse and violence. And you CAN abuse alcohol without being an alcoholic, to an extent.
Anyway, alcohol cannot MAKE anyone do anything, that's correct. It can only lower ones inhibitions, making them more likely to do something they already were capable of. At least with something extreme like shooting up a theatre. But the same goes for mental illness, for the most part. I think there would be some psychiatric conditions that you could argue would possibly "make" someone do something like that, on a very rare occasion. But being that mentally ill is not a requirement before shooting up a theater. I think you realize this, so I'm not trying to be condescending. But it seems to me the main point of the argument is this:
There are things that are higher indicators of potential violence than mental illness, alcohol abuse IS one of them, so blaming the "mentally ill" is just not helpful. In fact it is harmful.
Now I am curious why it is you disagree. I promise I won't shoot you down (not that I necessarily think lilenth was, but I want to reassure you about that. I think it's a very important topic).
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment