OK, I'll try this again: Tony Ortega does NOT have a "beef" with Anonymous. He is a proven ALLY. If I didn't know better, I'd say you were trying to start shit. Don't continue down this path. Friendly warning, first and last. This is Anonymous-Chanology. We don't engage in this activism for publicity. That we get some is a by-product of what we do. You're still new to this, so I'd recommend you lurk moar (inform yourself better) before posting in a way that shows off your lack of experience. If you continue to post in a willfully ignorant fashion after having been told (as above), your ass will be handed to you, maybe in this very thread, and ultimately you may get banned if there are enough complaints. Just sayin'.
Cuz NONE of those people read TonyO's column, right? Get a brain, moran. EVERYBODY reads Runnin Scared. Everybody. Hence "Readers of the VV." Geddit?
And even if we did, who is gonna run to mommy with a mention of "anonymous?" Silly chanologists are silly.
NO U. Tony Ortega is a reporter. He's in for himself. It's his job. We mention his glorious ass all the time. He could at least mention us after he mentions Marty the scumbag. We are Chanology. We need good PR like others who are doing good things. I await your threat against me nao.
"We need good PR" LMAO We are Chanology, as you point out. We are opposed to Scientology. We don't need any additional "good PR" You sound like a fucking scilon saying that.
i am sick of the rich bankers. The Federal Reserve, and the enslavement of the american people. I think America has become a fascist aggressor to the world, as well as to it's own people. I used to write a blog, but stopped due to my real name being attached to it. The American people need to wake up!
Why don't you calm the fuck down and have some respect for other WWP users? It's not like you have much to offer, the whole "badass bitch from hell" thing is like a bad Meatloaf promo from like 1987. Chill the fuck out, your tag-team drama is fagging the thread up.
sorry for that irs post wasn't me it was mal =_+ he needs to use his head more before blindly accusing
Been there, kicked it, never went back. It was a horrible experience. Why the fuck should I weep over po' little Barrett? Addiction is not a disease. It's a choice.
Most people DO go back so you're not exactly an expert on addiction fucktard. You're also not a doctor I'm betting.
I'm not a scientologist either, dumbass, but I know a lot more about it than most scientologists. "Most people go back," that's bullshit, my friend. Dox or GTFO.
Bullshit. You get addicted by making a conscious choice to take the first hit/drink/etc. Addiction is more a disorder than disease because it has more psychological components than biological. Also: You don't wake up one day and come down with an addiction like you do the flu nor does it spread like it. Calling it a disease is a way for these people to dodge the personal responsibilities and accountability for starting an addiction to begin with. As for compassion: Euthanasia would be the best form of compassion.
Giving this further thought, you've produced a delightful example of "thought-stopping process" as also used by Scientologists. Your cute little answer is one of these. It means nothing and backhandedly insults those who disagree by labeling them "dry drunks" whether they drink or not. You don't get to state "It's a disease" without offering some sort of citations to back up this assertion, which is nothing more than a catchy little 12 step slogan. Again, fail. Show me proof that it's a disease and not just a series of bad choices. You do know the difference, right?
Yeah, so addiction is a lifestyle choice, like homosexuality I suppose? Your position is eerily similar to Scientology and Thomas Szasz's position on the "hoax" of mental illness. Szasz said that since there were not brain lesions evident in people with Schizophrenia, etc, that mental illness was a hoax, not a disease that could be treated medically. Not sure why you are so adamant on rejecting the disease theory of addiction. Not to say it is not a choice to begin to use drugs, but it can become a disease nevertheless. If I refuse to get immunized, I am also making a (stupid) choice that may lead to contracting a disease. Doesn't make Whooping Cough any less a disease. Or, if you do get whooping cough after refusing immunization, does that make whooping cough a symptom of a mental illness? I understand that the reasons for rejecting the disease model of addiction. At one time, the disease model was a positive step to removing the social stigma of addiction - 50 years ago and addict was thought of as selfish person of low morals and self will. The disease model gave offered addicts and their friends and families hope and focused on treating the behaviors rather than condemning the person. Today we see a shift toward treating addiction as a set of behaviors that are most likely symptoms of mental illness or distress. It can be valuable to treat addiction as a compulsive disorder. But isn't a compulsive disorder a disease? So whether you see the addiction as the disease, or rather as a symptom of a disease, the end result should still be some kind of behavioral treatment. On another front, we should consider the incident of Alcoholism in certain ethnic groups and see evidence that there is a genetic component involved. Some groups (Irish, Native Americans,) to be more inclined to become Alcoholic. The exact genetic mechanism for this has yet to be explained but there is good evidence that the tendency for alcoholism is hereditary. Also, not sure this is is the right thread for this debate.
I think the debate comes down to one simple and logical statement: Don't do it. Don't get addicted. You have a choice whether you start or not. The whole rub about Disease vs. Condition is that while addiction does have a lot of disease like qualities, it has one element that has been the very core of the debate: Diseases are caused by involuntary actions and may not be able to be fully avoided. Meanwhile addictions to drugs, alcohol, etc. have a lot of psychological elements tied to it (ie: a person starts because they chose to because they think their life sucks) and are contributory to the person getting addicted. In other words: You can't chose to get influenza or the cold. You can chose to drink, do drugs, etc. and risk getting addicted. Another problem with addiction is that it plays heavily in psychological effect. An addicted person repeats the action (does coke, drink, etc.) because it has a perceived positive effect (they 'feel great', 'forget bad memories', 'feel a rush', etc.) that overrides acceptable behavior or various other negative consequences (DUI, crime, risky behavior that results in contracting a disease).
Ibogaine is the only all natural cure for the disease of addiction, it has been used successfully used for thousands of years.
If you want to discuss if Addiction is a disease or a Disorder, go and do so with professionals, they can't await your input: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/addicted-brains/201205/addiction-disease-or-not Can we now go BTT?
Does the term "dry drunks" have any more scientific research basis than "suppressive persons"? Cults sure do like their own private languages.
