Calling alcoholism a disease takes personal responsibility out of the equation though. Drinking to the point you can't control it and it has adverse effects on your life shouldn't be classified as a disease, you chose to do all those things. Admitting you're an alcoholic is acknowledging that you can't control those things, so you're doing your best to avoid them. Certain diseases can lead to that, but the condition itself is behavioral. The person just loves the feeling they gut when under the influence for whatever reason, so replicating that feeling becomes their number 1 priority. They absolutely had the choice not to do it the entire time, something someone stricken with a real disease can't say.
Nope, already too late. Just like if an alcoholic stops drinking after getting liver disease, he still has liver disease. Not being able to control your drinking is behavioral, just like not being able to walk away from an activity that's causing you TBI is behavioral. The results of those poor choices can be detrimental, but the path to those choices aren't the disease. The potential results are.
So we are to believe that any behavior that leads to a negative change in a person's body is now a disease? Alcoholism can lead to liver disease, so alcoholism is a disease because it negatively impacted the liver enzymes in a person's body? Sorry, I don't buy that. Also, alcoholism isn't the change in the person's body anyway, the liver disease is and as you said "How one got the condition is irrelevant". So while alcoholics may be prone to numerous conditions and diseases due to their poor lifestyle choices, that lifestyle isn't the disease. The results are. Take CTE for example. CTE is a very serious disease/condition, which football can lead to. Can we classify football as a disease because prolonged exposure to it can change your brain to the point where you get CTE? That would be absurd. A person gets CTE (in some cases) from choosing to play football after numerous concussions, just like a person can get liver disease/pancreas disease..etc from abusing alcohol. The change is the disease, the alcohol abuse was the road you took to get it.
What pathology? Maybe I'm naïve, but what lasting effects does alcoholism have on a person's body that would qualify it as a disease even after they stop drinking? I know it can effect the liver and pancreas, but those are their own diseases that are brought on by alcoholism similar to lung cancer being brought on by heavy smoking. Alcohol abuse triggering a disease isn't the same as being a disease in itself.
No, I wouldn't argue that. I'd counter your point with the fact that a person can get lung cancer without ever smoking, but a person can not get alcoholism without ever drinking. Some diseases are sped up or made more prevalent by behavior, but behavior is not the sole cause in any of their cases. Alcoholism is a mental state that is caused by one's behavior. Each case is obviously different, and I'd argue that all of them involve some other underlying issue but the alcoholism itself is brought on by behavior and behavior alone. The same can't be said about Cancer or Diabetes or really any other disease.
Oh, they aren't reputable in your opinion? How about the NCBI and the National Institute of Health? Do they qualify as reputable? Or are they also a "fringe company"? How about The National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Kensington? Is that classified as some hack organization too in your mind?
To expound the argument that alcoholism (or "problem drinking") is not best regarded as a disease.
Excessive drinking can cause physical disease and involve physical dependence without therefore being a disease itself. The "disease concept" of alcoholism is not needed to justify medical intervention or a caring approach to those who are dependent on alcohol. There is a specific and a general version of the disease concept of alcoholism. The specific disease concept, associated mainly with the Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous, is contradicted by empirical evidence and unhelpful for preventive and treatment responses to problem drinking, especially for the effort to detect and modify problem drinking at an early stage. The more general disease concept shares these disadvantages and is also ineffective in engendering sympathetic attitudes towards problem drinkers among the general public. It is more useful to view problem drinking as the result of the interaction between the individual's personality and the social context in which he or she has learned how to drink.
For an effective and compassionate societal response to problem drinking, the disease model of alcoholism should be replaced by a social learning perspective.
Took your advice and did 2 min of research, found this:
In conclusion, after reviewing the available research from both sides of the debate, the belief in the disease of alcoholism (addiction), causes the disease. Organizations and institutions that promote the disease theory are, in many cases, doing irreparable harm to the individual and performing a disservice to the population as a whole. Geneticists are aware that a predisposition does not dictate subsequent behavior, and treatment professionals are aware that the programs they offer, fail. It is an outright injustice when faced with the facts. Stripping human beings of their ability to choose is damaging, whereas giving them back the power of their own volition is essential for recovery. Alcoholism is a choice, not a disease. - See more at: http://www.baldwinresearch.com/alcoholism.cfm#sthash.Q0FZCQ4O.dpuf
Seems that 90% of the treatment of alcoholism centers on behavior, I can't think of any disease you can say that about. There is no behavior treatment than can beat AIDS, Cancer, Leukemia, Diabetes..... etc. You can say Alcoholism is a disorder, it def is, but it alone isn't a disease.
We are last, which isn't surprising when you run a 3-4 and your LB's are the weakest group on the team. All 4 LB spots could be upgraded, hopefully that's a major effort in the offseason. Gipson being out isn't helping our Secondary too, and Justin Gilbert is looing like an epic bust so far. When healthy though, our secondary can be lights out. If we can add some pass rushing OLB's (cough....Noah Spence........cough) then they will be stellar imo. Doesn't help this year sadly....
The D isn't as bad as it looks, we just need LB's BADLY. Priority of the offseason should be MLB, OLB, RT and WR. Was hoping they'd trade Manziel to Dallas after he beat the Titans, then we can get an actual QB prospect in here.
Do they still hang the plaque for the alternates in the lady's room?
I only heard the takes from Alex Boone and the WR from Stanford who went to Seattle (forget his name), neither were positive. What accounts came out that showed he was well liked?
Would be hilarious if it happened, but in order for it to happen both Jimmy and Ross would have to accept complete disassociation with their alma mater. Neither would be welcome back there in any capacity after a stunt like this. Well maybe Ross' checkbook could fix that for him I guess.
Jimmy's national reputation would be fine if he left, can't see anyone faulting him for returning to the NFL. In Ann Arbor though, they'd all be women scorned for the rest of his life.
This can't be said enough. The holding our DL and LB's have to deal with is ridiculous and the non-calls our opponents get is criminal. Either B1G officials are worse than I give them credit for (scary thought because I think they are downright horrendous) or there's a sympathy mandate given to our opponents because we out recruit them so badly and the B1G wants to help them out. Maybe its both.
Did you hear he flunked?
What a dumb shit.
Who knows if they cheated in the SuperBowl, or if they cheated on top of doctoring the footballs in the AFC CG. All we know for sure is they have a history of breaking the rules, so their "accomplishments" should be taken with a grain of salt.
No they didn't, they lost in 2007.
Pats got caught cheating in 2007, then didn't win a SuperBowl until 2015 when they were again caught cheating. I don't put much stock into anything that franchise "accomplishes".
Talked to the GF about it last night, she said someone definitely got fired for that. Tried to get her to find out who it was but she doesn't know anyone in that department of ESPN.
Not a fan of Johnny, but that last TD play was a thing of beauty.
How can we be sure Seau and Belcher's issues weren't influenced by anything other than CTE though? There are way more examples of players living fulfilling lives after leaving the game than there are Belcher's/Seau's. A ratio that makes those two outliers, not the norm.
Injuries have always been a reason for concern with football, not sure this changes anything. The study certainly doesn't because it really proves nothing other than repeatedly hitting your head can, not will, lead to long term ill effects. Not really anything groundbreaking there. It really just highlights the importance of the fundamentals of the game, which have sadly been underdeveloped by an abundance of poor coaching at the lower levels. Football is dangerous, always has been and if you're doing it wrong you're way more likely to get hurt and/or hurt someone else.
So 96% of the brains they collected, in a collection of brains of football players showing signs of CTE, showed evidence of CTE.
Well that certainly is shocking........
Anyone remember Andre Johnson going HAM on Cortland Finnegan's head? That cost Johnson $25k, so $35k seems relatively high in this case. Finnegan was fined also for his role in that fight, something that should have happened to Cooper here imo.
Why would contract incentives for team championships entice anyone to take the UT job?
Show is based on a false pretense anyway. None of them could ever be the first ever American Ninja, we've had one of those since 1985: