[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.