Heh Heh Heh… but… but… but… your post is your cite!
[QUOTE=DianaG]
Boo Boo Foo, how do you feel about depression? Last I checked it’s not viral, bacterial, or cancerously mutated.
[/QUOTE]
Strawman # 1.
[QUOTE=Living Well Is Best Revenge]
I guess diabetes isn’t a “disease” either.
[/QUOTE]
Strawman # 2.
[QUOTE=Living Well Is Best Revenge]
@Boo Boo Foo, there are addictions where going cold turkey can kill you. Alcohol, for instance.
[/QUOTE]
Bullshit. I challenge you or anyone to provide one empirical fact which proves this. Note: Opinion disguised as fact doesn’t cut it.
[QUOTE=Swallowed My Cellphone]
Boo seems to think the disease is only because “withdrawl sucks”, but that is only physical dependence. What he is failing to acknowledge is the genetic predisposition some people have to psychological dependence — which is the reason they get physically addicted in the first place. Basically, it’s the same type of mechanism related to gambling addictions, cutting, and hoarding — compulsions that have no physically addictive properties and can’t be remedied by cold turkey.
[/QUOTE]
Strawman # 3: I did not, at any time, express a view on why certain persons have a prediliction to substance abuse. Quite disingenuously, you are arguing that position on my behalf.
[QUOTE=Swallowed My Cellphone]
A significant contributing factor to Winehouse’s addiction is that she was bipolar (refused treatment and medication) and there is a very strong link between bipolar disorder and substance abuse. Until more recently it’s been primarily believed to be linked to “self-medicating” but given that bipolar disorder and OCD are often co-morbid, there is newer speculation that there may be more to it than that.
[/QUOTE]
A diagnosis of ‘bipolar’ is an opinion, an opinion that you are repeating, seemingly, because it serves your position well at this time. An opinion is not fact, and given that you never met Winehouse, it’s an opinion which can neither be substantiated nor confirmed by any of us here personally, and it’s an opinion you’re propagating because it serves your particular projection on the subject. “A very strong link” again is not a fact, merely yet another opinion, as evidenced by your final comment that there is “newer speculation”.
In closing, let us concern ourselves with the facts… a young woman, aged 27 died last Saturday. At this point in time, the official post mortem verdict is that the cause of death remains undetermined. A toxicology forensic report is being drawn up.
Deliberately mixing the words “science” with “newer speculation”, informed opinion, and “strong links” merely confirms that you would like to think that your position is empirical science - but it’s not - it’s speculation and conjecture, and in the absence of empirical facts, opinion is often confused with fact.
Now, to be fair, you have a position on addiction (the generic you who disagree with my view on cold turkey) and I have a position. Arguing about opinions on the internet is a waste of time, and I doubt any of us are going to change our opinions if we do so. However, I take pride in being able to stand corrected when confronted with inarguable empirical fact, and I invite anyone here who disagrees with my position to provide same. But be warned: if all you come up with is yet more opinion and speculation disguised as fact, it won’t sway me.