[FlameRobot]

> This is an incredibly ignorant take on addiction. It's never a choice - by definition.

It isn't that clear cut either way IME.

I had a big drinking problem. I was the one that choose to start drinking. I was the one chose to stop drinking. Nobody forced me to go to the bar or the off-licence.

I accept for other people it isn't that simple.

> Hey, do you want to chat about how when I tried to quit nicotine, I went through 2 weeks of physical and mental hell, how exhausted I felt not being able to sleep more than an hour without waking up, still feeling exhausted, with mental fog so severe that made quitting feel impossible?

I had similar issues when I quit drink. Sleep was irregular, I went hot and cold for the first month. I had this like weird wave feeling go through me one night (it the only way I can describe it). I think that took like a month or two.

[dns_snek]

> Nobody forced me to go to the bar or the off-licence.

Of course, but that doesn't mean that you had a real choice. What would've happened if you didn't go - physically, psychologically, emotionally? I'm not looking for an answer, it's just worth thinking about.

Are you being forced to eat, drink, breathe? Can you choose not to, and for how long before you can't take it anymore and relent?

It's so easy for people to cast swift moral judgement over other people's "choices", simply because they happen to enjoy a mixture of brain chemicals that is more conducive to behavior that they see as morally righteous, and they assume that everyone else has it as easy as they do - physiologically speaking. You should be careful not to internalize that.

[FlameRobot]

> Of course, but that doesn't mean that you had a real choice.

Yes I did. I actually find it very insulting that you would deny me my own agency.

I cured my addiction by simply not buying alcohol and abstaining. That was a choice I could have made at any point in the past.

There are people that can drink responsibly. I am not one of those people. I made the responsible choice as an adult, to abstain from it. I don't miss it either BTW. I feel actually free.

> What would've happened if you didn't go - physically, psychologically, emotionally? I'm not looking for an answer, it's just worth thinking about.

I would have a lot more money, I wouldn't have got into stupid situations, some which I almost got myself killed, I wouldn't have had to spend 5 years rebuilding my career.

> Are you being forced to eat, drink, breathe? Can you choose not to, and for how long before you can't take it anymore and relent?

The comparison you are making here is asinine.

> It's so easy for people to cast swift moral judgement over other people's "choices", simply because they happen to enjoy a mixture of brain chemicals that is more conducive to behavior that they see as morally righteous, and they assume that everyone else has it as easy as they do - physiologically speaking. You should be careful not to internalize that.

The moral judgement is often painted by some as subjective. A lot of the times it can be, but very often it simply isn't. There are good reasons it is correct for people to judge someone poorly because they abuse drugs or alcohol.

It isn't just the fact that they are making different choice that they disapprove of, it is the behaviour and consequences of that behaviour. This behaviour is frequently at best makes the person difficult to deal with, and at worst anti-social and dangerous and can often have dire consequences. That is simply a fact. Those people are correct to judge those people poorly.

I am certainty not dyed in the wool conservative either.

You just don't know what you are talking about tbh.

[cyberpunk]

There seems to be a strong culture towards removing agency from people and allowing them to escape any form of judgement on the consequences of their actions.

Sure, maybe some people really do have thyroid problems; but this idea that overweight people are somehow not responsible for their own condition is ridiculous and dangerous.

I had drug and alcohol problems in the past, it was my own choice, and my own choice to get out of that situation.

I smoked, I chose to stop.

I was unfit due to laziness, and I fixed that too.

None of those situations were the result of anything other than personal choice.

[alexanderdmitri]

19.7% of children and adolescents are obese in the United States[0]. These are definitely forces outside their control during critical years of development. It's like blaming someone for being impoverished when they grew up in an impoverished atmosphere (also a popular view in the States).

Sure they could beat the odds on either issue when get older, but it's tough when you live in a system that works against you. It's good to say individuals should hold themselves accountable and not give up in the face of adversity, but from a macro-level it doesn't help fix the problem. I'd argue the your fault / deal with it attitude on these trends make those problems worse for a population.

[0] https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/childhood-obesity-facts/childhoo...

[ileonichwiesz]

> Sure, maybe some people really do have thyroid problems; but this idea that overweight people are somehow not responsible for their own condition is ridiculous and dangerous.

You’re not wrong, but I think you’re missing the bigger picture. These are systemic issues, and solving them on an individual level can only go so far.

People are responsible for their own health, but we also live in a world where billions of dollars are spent on marketing and lobbying to get them addicted to junk food and make it the easiest choice. It’s still a choice, but the game is rigged.

“Just decide to stop” may have worked for you - it worked for me, too! - but on a societal level you need societal change. A lot fewer people smoke today than just a couple decades ago - not because everyone has individually somehow built up stronger willpower, but because of legislation that made tobacco harder to market, more expensive, and forbidden in many public spaces.

[viraptor]

It doesn't have to be one extreme or another. But we already learned that there's a decent chemical component to addictions of many kinds. GLP1 significantly lowers drugs, alcohol, tobacco and other cravings in many people with addictive behaviours. So it's neither completely a choice nor completely body driven.

[immibis]

Suppose that I discover a chemical combination that causes people to eat more. I arrange with all the biggest food manufacturers to put this in all their food. People eat lots and get fat. Whose fault is it?

[cyberpunk]

Depends on how much information the people have. If they are aware this chemical is present and its effects, the consumers. If they are not, the criminals who poisoned the food secretly.

Although I think that if people notice themselves getting fat they should probably take action for their own sakes anyway, it falls down a bit here with this idea no one has agency..

[zwnow]

Regulators fault for not picking up on it. Also the peoples fault for voting these kinda regulators into their position. Happened decades ago with all the teflon thats now in all of our bloodstreams and will continue in the future.

[dns_snek]

> Yes I did. I actually find it very insulting that you would deny me my own agency.

I am not denying you anything. If you choose to believe in mind-body dualism you're free to do so, but this belief that you have agency which is completely independent of your physiology goes against everything we know about our brains and addiction.

Dualism is what's behind harmful attitudes towards addiction and every other psychological disorder. People use the same exact reasoning to delegitimize depression, ADHD, anxiety, or whatever else they can use to feel superior.

> I am certainty not dyed in the wool conservative either. You just don't know what you are talking about tbh.

Yeah, sure, whatever you say.

[FlameRobot]

> I am not denying you anything.

You are. No ifs, not buts.

> If you choose to believe in mind-body dualism you're free to do so, but this belief that you have agency which is completely independent of your physiology goes against everything we know about our brains and addiction.

This is classic over-intellectualising that often done by people, often to "win" an argument.

I never denied that the body itself can become dependant on substances and affect choices. That is obvious. The point is that people have their own agency. I had to accept I had an issue and decided to face up reality, everything after that was relatively straight forward IME.

This process took a year, so it wasn't like I woke up one morning and my mind was changed.

> Yeah, sure, whatever you say.

You are trying to latch onto anything to invalidate my point of view on the matter, based on an incorrect preconceptions of my beliefs. Which is unfortunate.

The fact is that moral judgements made by people are often for very good reasons. Even if they can't verbalise them effectively. Rather than dismissing them because you politically disagree with them, it is often worth finding out why they exist.

https://theknowledge.io/chestertons-fence-explained/

[dns_snek]

> This is classic over-intellectualising that often done by people, often to "win" an argument.

No, this is well-established scientific understanding of how our body and brain work. Our bodies/brains have extremely strong control over our minds. If they didn't, the entire field of psychiatry couldn't exist to treat them.

> I never denied that the body itself can become dependant on substances and affect choices.

This applies to many behaviors that have nothing to do with substance abuse, physical dependence or withdrawals, e.g. those resulting from depression and ADHD.

[FlameRobot]

> No, this is well-established scientific understanding of how our body and brain work. Our bodies/brains have extremely strong control over our minds.

Yes you are. Ultimately you have to want to quit. That is a decision made by me. That requires my own agency.

From your jab earlier about my apparent "conservationism" (like that would matter at all), you've lost any good will I may of had with you in this discussion.

> Our bodies/brains have extremely strong control over our minds.

Brain / Mind are synonyms for the most. I don't even think you know what you are saying.

> If they didn't, the entire field of psychiatry couldn't exist to treat them.

I think psychiatry can help some people. However it isn't the be all and end all of how deal with addiction or the human condition in general.

> This applies to many behaviors that have nothing to do with substance abuse, physical dependence or withdrawals, e.g. those resulting from depression and ADHD.

Obviously. That doesn't mean that addicts don't have agency.

[cyberpunk]

So your argument is that smokers and obese people have literally no control over their consumption because of non-duality? I mean, I’m a buddhist, I probably have a stronger sense of non-duality than most and that’s just horseshit unless I misunderstood you.

edit: this is like saying rapists aren’t responsible for their crimes because they had a physiological response to seeing someone they found attractive.

Urges of all kinds (never wanted to slap someone and didn’t?) can be overcome with an only a little discipline.

[dns_snek]

No, I'm saying that, to a very significant degree, our behavior is driven by physiological processes inside of our brains, and overcoming these can be extremely difficult. If people could just choose not to eat then they wouldn't be obese to begin with.

You would know if you ever experienced depression, ADHD, or any other disorder takes away your executive function. I take it you don't consider these to be real disorders?

> Urges of all kinds (never wanted to slap someone and didn’t?) can be overcome with an only a little discipline.

Re: Discipline: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45702667

[cyberpunk]

Oh no I think they’re real, but I also I think the proportion of people who genuinely have no control over these parameters is vanishingly small.

In all things, generalisation is probably too blunt, but removing the agency from everyone, turning them into victims of their own brain chemistry and advancing the narrative that they can’t possibly change their situation does them far more harm than good.

Even depression, there are things which you can do to overcome it. I’m not saying it’s easy, but you seem to be arguing it’s impossible.

[ileonichwiesz]

> Urges of all kinds (never wanted to slap someone and didn’t?) can be overcome with an only a little discipline.

Okay, but where do you think that discipline comes from? Is it an inherent quality that a person is born with? I’d argue that it’s not, and it’s something that needs to be learned and exercised. Many people didn’t get the opportunity to learn it (yet?), and I don’t believe it makes them somehow inferior.

[cyberpunk]

I don’t think it’s in inherent quality either. Why do some people decide to put the cake down and hit the weights and others don’t? I don’t know, all i’m saying is the option existed for both and in the end it’s a choice.

[pajamasam]

> I was the one who chose to start drinking.

Alcohol doesn’t affect me much personally, so I’ve never understood why anyone would start drinking in the first place. But that’s where I would argue that addictions are less of a choice and more circumstantial.

[huimang]

Social pressure, and enjoying the taste of the drink.

[FlameRobot]

You know what is the funniest thing. I used to drink all these different Ales and artisan beers.

After I quit drinking alcohol. I used to have a 4 pack of these 0% Ales/Larger that was supposed to taste similar. The packaging differs from the regular beer in that it has a silver top instead of dark blue on this particular. I picked up the alcoholic ones inadvertently as they were in the wrong place on the shelf.

When I took a sip, I thought it had gone off. It tasted terrible, like poison! Obviously once I checked the can, I realised my mistake. I gave them to my rest of the pack to one of my neighbours I think.