[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.

[dns_snek]

> I was an addict. I know what I am talking about.

You know what your lived experience was, that doesn't make you an expert on how addiction works on a physiological level.

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

You're just repeating truisms. Yes of course people have to want to quit, but out of the people who want to quit, most are unable to follow through. They relapse despite fighting like hell inside their own minds.

> From your jab earlier about my apparent "conservationism"

You mean the thing that didn't even cross my mind until you brought it up, unprompted, after repeating the exact ideas I would expect from the group you claimed that you weren't apart of? And then in the same breath accusing me of not understanding anything about addiction?

That was slightly amusing, yes. I'm sorry you found that offensive.

P.S. I don't know why you accept that you were in full control of your addiction, nor do I care because I'm not trying to take away from your own personal experience. If that makes it easier for you to move forward, I'm genuinely happy for you, but you don't get to use it to lift yourself up and put others down the way you've been doing.

[FlameRobot]

> You know what your lived experience was, that doesn't make you an expert on how addiction works on a physiological level.

I actually edited out that from my reply because I knew that this would be used this way. Also "lived experience" is such a stupid phrase. Obviously I was alive when this happened.

I am not claiming to be an expert. I am claiming you are over-intellectualising something. This is something that people constantly try to do, with almost everything now. Everything is a condition, every failing someone has can be scientifically explained. I find it nauseating tbh.

> You mean the thing that didn't even cross my mind until you brought it up, unprompted, after repeating the exact ideas I would expect from the group you claimed that you weren't apart of? And then in the same breath accusing me of not understanding anything about addiction?

1) You brought this up by talking moral judgements of others. So it did cross your mind. So that is a lie. Also I feel extremely guilty about what I did. I should do.

2) I am not part of that group. I specifically said so. What I was trying to explain is that "While I am not one of these and do dogmatically believe it, there some rationale and value behind it".

> And then in the same breath accusing me of not understanding anything about addiction?

I said you didn't know what you was talking with regards to moral judgements. I specifically quoted the piece of text I was responding to. What you wrote was kinda tripe tbh.

> That was slightly amusing, yes. I'm sorry you found that offensive.

What you did was make a jab at me because you assumed I was dogmatically believed in a set of ideas. You seem to be attempting to retcon this now. I don't find it offensive. I find it tiresome. I am not an American, and I am not a conservative.

> I don't know why you accept that you were in full control of your addiction, nor do I care because I'm not trying to take away from your own personal experience.

I am not saying I was in full control of addiction.

I did make a choice to drink. Every-time I bought the alcohol (often while sober) I made a choice, full cognisant of the consequences. It was my own hubris to stopped me from taking the correct course of action sooner. There doesn't need to be a more complex explanation because it is the truth. I don't need to intellectualise it further.

I have seen other people do exactly the same thing as I did.

> but you don't get to use it to lift yourself up and put others down the way you've been doing.

I am not doing either. I have throughout this thread said "this was my mistake, I take full responsibility". I am specifically telling you that I am not better than anyone else and in fact people were correct in judging me poorly due to my own behaviour at the time.

[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.

[dns_snek]

Stop painting everything so black & white. I am not arguing that it's impossible, nor that people have "no control" over anything. I am arguing that it's difficult and that it's ignorant and harmful to paint their problems as just "lack of discipline".

The problem is that dualists (like the person I originally responded to) assume that willpower is separate from physiology, therefore what's easy for them should be easy for others, and therefore if others can't achieve the same things they are achieving then they must be lazy, lack discipline, and don't deserve additional help or compassion.

These sorts of ignorant beliefs then shape policy and make it harder for people to get help to deal with their problems, perpetuating the cycle, for example the rather famous failure of "the war on drugs". That's the only thing I'm arguing - that people need to accept that addiction is a complex and individual health problem and to start treating it as such, it's the only way we're going to move forward.

[cyberpunk]

Of course it’s difficult. Do you think having drive enough to overcome an addiction, or fight to change your situation is simply “easy” if you have discipline? What kind of argument is that? You need discipline precisely because things are difficult, I don’t really see where we disagree on this.

[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.