I once had a psychology teacher who said that all laughter was an expression of cruelty. The only exception he made was an infant who laughed when ticked. I disagreed with him at the time, but as I grow older and (I hope) wiser I see the truth in his statement.
It is human nature to dislike (hate) and hence make fun of people who are different then ourselves. Until we can get past it public forums like that radio station will continue to do such things and people will listen to them.
Ultimately it does not matter why the person is different; the fact of it is enough. Obesity is one of the last publicly acceptable prejudices, so it is getting better, but we still have along way to go.
My wife’s grandfather was one of the leading medical authorities in the world on substance abuse before his death, with a large number of publications on the subject, and I can state categorically and authoritatively that you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.
Of course, y’all realize that if skateboarder comes up with a cite that supports his side, that cite would be an exception which by his argument would prove the rule and by my argument not prove anything. Confusing, ain’t it?
I’m trying to discover if skateboarder believes that a psysiological element is sufficient to create a disease, or if any condition that affects the mind and behavior is being “weak-minded.” If he says that depression is also weak-mindedness and not disease, I’m going to ask about Tourette’s syndrome - if he believes the sufferers thereof can be “strong-minded” and stop their twitching, corprolalia, and echolalia. And if they are also weak-minded, then I’m going to ask about sufferers of brain tumors that undergo behavioral changes.
And if THEY are also weak-minded, then I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Assuming he doesn’t take that ridiculous a stance, I’m then going to ask at what point a physical problem becomes great enough to remove it from the realm of “weak-mindedness” and into the realm of genuine disease.
Well, I think we’re all familiar with the World outside the Web, and some of us might even visit a library from time to time! Don’t know why you didn’t just tell us his name (Ebbe C Hoff), though to be fair, this is available from the above link if followed.
Well, the question isn’t so much his expertise, rather the fact that you are hoping we’ll take your report entirely on trust, when we have no idea whether you are speaking with any authority. At least we now have a way of chasing up his work, if we feel the need.
Now, I’m no expert in this area, but it seems that at least some researchers do not agree with the ‘disease’ model of addition,. E.g., Bride & Nackerud (2002) [J Sociology and Social Welfare 29: 125-141], judging by the following abstracted from their abstract:
“Notes that the disease model and the related treatment goal of abstinence continue to overwhelmingly dominate the treatment of alcoholism in the US. Critics have suggested that financial and political motives have served to maintain the dominance of the disease model, despite findings that violate its basic tenets. This article presents an alternative explanation of the reluctance of the alcoholism treatment community to relinquish the disease model by utilizing T. S. Kuhn’s (1996) model of scientific progress in an historical analysis of the disease model. (…)”
I can’t believe Cecil (and so many people here, apparently) don’t seem to grasp the phrase “The exception proves the rule.”
Maybe the word “proves” is what is causing the hang-up in all of your logic-obsessed minds? The “proof” is only proof in the loosest sense. The saying should probably be “The exception gives pretty strong evidence of the rule” but that just doesn’t flow as nicely.
Kyle Gann’s response in Cecil’s article explained the phrase perfectly, but Cecil shrugged it off as a “farfetched interpretation”. I’ve lost faith in Cecil!
Well, since an exception cannot ‘prove’ a rule, it’s a sensible sort of hangup! After all, an exception will weaken a rule, if anything. Jeff Olson pointed out the crux of the matter earlier in this thread - ‘prove’ originally meant something quite different, and should really be replaced with ‘test’ in the modern context.
Bricker, just to turn your argument around on you, what actions would you agree are just “weak-minded” as opposed to a “disease”? Gambling? Smoking? Excessive coffee drinking? Not washing your hands after going to the toilet? Where do you draw the line? It’s an important point if you want to disprove the idea that overeaters are “weak-minded”.
Cervaise, can you tell us anything about your wife’s grandfather’s findings outside of a one sentence summary (Alcoholism is a disease, period)? What kind of experiments did he do? Exactly what was his conclusion? Do you have any reason to take his word as gospel? It’s not that I doubt your grandfather-in-law, but how do I know you are accurately summarizing/remembering correctly? (BTW, I don’t doubt it, I’m just trying to make a point)
Gambling - I think it’s fair to say that excessive gambling, while “addictive” in a sense, is “weak-minded” in the sense we’re using the phrase here.
Smoking - while anyone who chose to start smoking since the Surgeon General’s warning is foolish, it’s also true that there is a physical addiction component to nicotine - and that the original Surgeon General’s warning didn’t say a thing about addiction or nicotine. I’d say people that have trouble quitting smoking are fighting something more than mere “weak-mindedness”.
Coffee drinking and poor hygiene - even if caffeine is physically addicitve, I’m inclined to say it’s weak-mindedness.
