Bengals' Thurman, Bucs' Cox file discrimination claims against NFL

[Pujo]

Alcoholism is a disease only to the weak minded. Cancer is a disease - you can't "decide" not to have cancer. You can decide to stop drinking.

Some people will say you can decide not to have cancer, if you're in control of your body enough. Others will tell you it's very hard to stop drinking alcohol when you become addicted, it's not just a matter of weak-mindedness. There are degrees of self-control, but disease isn't defined like that.

 

[BelichickFan]

Some people will say you can decide not to have cancer, if you're in control of your body enough. Others will tell you it's very hard to stop drinking alcohol when you become addicted, it's not just a matter of weak-mindedness. There are degrees of self-control, but disease isn't defined like that.

They may say that but they're wrong

 

[Pujo]

They may say that but they're wrong

Well, it would be stupid of me not to listen to a guy on a messageboard...

 

[DaBruinz]

Regardless of whether drinking is a disease or not, it sure as hell doesn't fall under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

 

[BelichickFan]

Well, it would be stupid of me not to listen to a guy on a messageboard...

It's just not reasonable to compare the two. Even if you bear some responsibility for getting cancer (and I'm not talking about lung cancer from smoking), you're still stuck and can't decide to stop having it.

I'll probably die from it - my uncle died from cancer in his 60s, my mother has ovarian cancer that she'll die from - and I seem to have inherited mostly from that side. Too bad for me - but there's nothing I can do except wait, hope and get tested early. Once I have it I have it - unlike if I became an alcoholic and I could just man up and quit drinking. It's really quite silly to compare the two.

 

[Fixit]

Some people will say you can decide not to have cancer, if you're in control of your body enough.

Who the hell's saying that? L. Ron Hubbard? Shaolin monks? That argument is laughable.

Others will tell you it's very hard to stop drinking alcohol when you become addicted, it's not just a matter of weak-mindedness.

I already said it's not easy, but it is simple.

Quitting drinking (or any other behavior) is, in fact, based solely on willpower. If you can't do it yourself, get help. But it is as simple as just refusing to drink alcohol.

 

[Oswlek]

Quitting drinking (or any other behavior) is, in fact, based solely on willpower. If you can't do it yourself, get help. But it is as simple as just refusing to drink alcohol.

Have you ever been addicted to anything? Had parents that were addicted to anything? Friends?

There is a lot more involved than a simple "no thanks" once the bottle gets a hold of you.

Edited to say that most "diseases" that Americans are afflicted with are based on willpower. The FDA likes to perpetuate the myth that humans are weak, faulty machines that need magic pills to feel better, when in fact most "diseases" are symptoms of a dietary issue or activity that the sufferer has control over. Even the word "dis-ease" means that your body is informing you of its lack of ease. You are correct that once something like cancer comes along the envelope has been pushed too far for simple changes to correct - but isn't that the same as the alcoholic needing help to say "no"?

 

[BelichickFan]

Have you ever been addicted to anything? Had parents that were addicted to anything? Friends?

There is a lot more involved than a simple "no thanks" once the bottle gets a hold of you.

Still doesn't make it a disease.

 

[Pujo]

Quitting drinking (or any other behavior) is, in fact, based solely on willpower. If you can't do it yourself, get help. But it is as simple as just refusing to drink alcohol.

If your brain is wrecked by drinking, or certain kinds of drug addiction, you need medical (chemical) help. Going cold-turkey on drinking is actually dangerous to some people (the DT's), it leads to heart arrhythmias and seizures, and these people actually need drugs like phenytoin, Clonidine, and Benzodiazepines to even contemplate quitting. You might say it's just a matter of willpower, but the fact is that most people who really try to quit without chemical intervention fail. I don't know whether you can ontologically define it as a disease, but in a public health sense it has the effects of a disease, with the same social costs, and the same method of treatment. You can define "disease" for yourself, but I'm going to stick with the medical establishment's definition.

 

[Pujo]

Still doesn't make it a disease.

No, but the people who define the word disease, medical professionals, say it is. It's just a word definition game we're playing. As Bill Belichick would say, it is what it is.

 

[Fixit]

If your brain is wrecked by drinking, or certain kinds of drug addiction, you need medical (chemical) help. Going cold-turkey on drinking is actually dangerous to some people (the DT's), it leads to heart arrhythmias and seizures, and these people actually need drugs like phenytoin, Clonidine, and Benzodiazepines to even contemplate quitting. You might say it's just a matter of willpower, but the fact is that most people who really try to quit without chemical intervention fail. I don't know whether you can ontologically define it as a disease, but in a public health sense it has the effects of a disease, with the same social costs, and the same method of treatment. You can define "disease" for yourself, but I'm going to stick with the medical establishment's definition.

Yes, I know. Alcoholism = cancer.

Interesting definition. I know which one I'd rather have.

 

[Oswlek]

Still doesn't make it a disease.

Why? What stipulates a disease? A biochemical alteration of the body that creates a negative effect?

Just because no drug company has created an anti-alcoholism pill doesn't mean that there isn't plenty of dis-ease in that state.

 

[Oswlek]

Yes, I know. Alcoholism = cancer.

Interesting definition. I know which one I'd rather have.

Give me a F*in break. Why don't you address the actual discussion instead of throwing that crap out there.

Think a little man!

 

[BelichickFan]

No, but the people who define the word disease, medical professionals, say it is. It's just a word definition game we're playing. As Bill Belichick would say, it is what it is.

Well excuse me if I don't give a crap about what medical professionals say - I know they're wrong based on my attempts to lose weight (I couldn't do it their way, I easily did it the opposite way).

You shouldn't get any benefits, etc, of having a disease if it's your choice. Again, to use the cancer example. If my mother was an alcoholic I could choose not to drink alcohol and I would never become an alcoholic. End of story. My mother has cancer, I can't choose not to get cancer. Sure there's some stuff which people claim will help but short of not smoking there's no 1-1 correlation. You can't become an alcoholic without choosing to drink alcohol. You can get a real disease without choosing to get it.

Anyone who calls alcoholism a disease is just a weak, excuse maker. Just like when I was fat. It wasn't a disease, it was a choice. I made another choice and I'm not fat. Can't make that choice with a real disease.

 

[BelichickFan]

Why? What stipulates a disease? A biochemical alteration of the body that creates a negative effect.

Not a disease. A choice.

 

[Fixit]

Give me a F*in break. Why don't you address the actual discussion instead of throwing that crap out there.

Think a little man!

Chill. That's exactly the correlation Pujo's made.

 

[Pujo]

Yes, I know. Alcoholism = cancer.

Interesting definition. I know which one I'd rather have.

I'd rather have chronic bronchitis than cancer, too, but that doesn't make chronic bronchitis a non-disease.

The problem isn't that we see alcoholism differently, I know how it's different from cancer and how it's similar. It's that you want a word, disease, to have a specific definition that it doesn't have. Disease is a wider category in the medical field than how you see it, it's just what it is.

 

[Fixit]

Interestingly enough, I just asked a guy in rehab for alcoholism whether he thought it's a disease, and he said, "Not really."

 

[Pujo]

Well excuse me if I don't give a crap about what medical professionals say - I know they're wrong based on my attempts to lose weight (I couldn't do it their way, I easily did it the opposite way).

You shouldn't get any benefits, etc, of having a disease if it's your choice. Again, to use the cancer example. If my mother was an alcoholic I could choose not to drink alcohol and I would never become an alcoholic. End of story. My mother has cancer, I can't choose not to get cancer. Sure there's some stuff which people claim will help but short of not smoking there's no 1-1 correlation. You can't become an alcoholic without choosing to drink alcohol. You can get a real disease without choosing to get it.

Anyone who calls alcoholism a disease is just a weak, excuse maker. Just like when I was fat. It wasn't a disease, it was a choice. I made another choice and I'm not fat. Can't make that choice with a real disease.

So you need to find another word to describe that, because disease has already been taken to mean something else. It's not a matter of right or wrong, it's a matter of convention. Disease can be whatever people agree it is, and people in the field are going to have a bit more sway over some people on a football forum.

 

[BelichickFan]

So if I cut off my hand is that a disease ?