minnie

Hubba.

Whatever I think of his opinions and attitude, he still does it for me in that film.

equus

You're gonna have to work on that picker minnie......

Just out of interest.... (hoping Five won't mind?) Don, Do you think of annorexia nervosa as a disease/medical problem? Mania? or Aspergers? If you do where do you see the line between 'things' diagnosed on the basis of behaviour or it's effect?

best

Per who's standard?

When drinking and with my friends who were drinking, none of the above applied.

doorknob

The full quote:

cmc

Hi,
btw James Garner was Maverick!!!!

best

Originally Posted by FIVE

I believe there are immoral, nasty, vicious alcoholics, but I also believe that is just at the extreme and that the moral compuss is just a complex with alkys than it is with sober people.



Still per who's standards?
What I will tolerate vs others I associate with is very different then the group conscious of the whole. Some I would even call prudes and others would call me a prude. So... To who's standard?

doorknob

I could be wrong, but what I interpreted FIVE as saying, is that alcoholics vary in terms of morality, just as much as the general population, from one end of the spectrum to the other.

Autumn

.

Autumn

This is kind of funny, because I assumed Five picked up the original question and answer he posted from somewhere else - not as something he actually wrote. I hope not.

Guess we just wait to hear what he says.

Don S

I actually know very little about those conditions. I have no direct experience with them (unlike alcohol!), and have certainly not done any reading about them.
I assume that anorexia is mostly behavioral. I always thought Asperger's was similar to autism, and not very well understood.
So any answer I give to your question would really just reflect the terms as I first heard them stated by someone I considered sufficiently authoritative at the time: anorexia disorder, manic disorder, Asperger's syndrome.
I assume that all can cause medical problems, but don't know if I'd call any of them diseases.

equus

Don, it's never been your understanding of alcohol addiction that I've questioned - rather your understand of what makes something a disease.

If you are trying to learn what is or isn't a dog it's the things that different types of dogs have in common that matter not the study of a single breed. While looking closely at the attributes of a chihauhau and comparing it to a mental image of a old english sheep dog one might quite rightly argue they are not the same. Why are they grouped together? What makes them both dogs? What would make it NOT a dog?

And may also be disease/medical....

It's in the understanding of disease, diagnostics and medicine that the confusions have arisen.

It's easy to suggest that this is nit picking - but no way, to be happy with inaccuracy doesn't help understanding, and to reproduce it doesn't help in sharing understanding.

The above 'conditions' are worth a look to anyone wishing to understand the relationship between brain, mind and free will. Another disorder which should fascinate anyone wishing to understand behaviour in a clinical way is prader willie syndrome (sp??).

Understanding the shape of a chihauhau while guessing at what makes a dog a dog means that the 'dogness' of a chihauhau becomes irrelevant and unusable.

Have a look at some of the other disorders, there's no mind without brain and our brains are just body organs unfortunately in no way sacred or protected.

Or just ignore me rambling.....

equus

Don - on disease, syndrome, disorder etc....

If I find a regular group of symptoms I think mean something then (given a bigger brain) I'm free to submit articles to journals or (with a somewhat smaller brain) produce my own articles and text books. I can call it what I want and speak about it freely. No-one will lock me up!!

BUT will I gain any recognition? In other words will people recognise what I'm suggesting, agree that it's both valid and reliable and add that recognition formally? No organisation, individual or governing body wants to mess that process up! None of them want to lay the wrong bet.

In the mean time I'm still free to spread my theory at will - it may never get into a journal but if I have a Phd I'll still be able to persuade small charities, sell seminar tickets and even diagnose folk - because I said so. I might along the way confuse a few GP's, one or two acedemics and perhaps a journal so new on the market it has sod all to loose. Chances are my syndrome/disorder got it's name from the best vague description and the sound of the words put together - syndrome from birth, disorder coming later and some other stuff.

I'm still a long way off having the interest of those who write the DSM IV Tr, WHO have never even heard of me and there's no module on my discovery at med school.

Cancer isn't called cancer disease, Parkinson's disease is often refered to as Parkinsonism, Bi-Polar comes under the umbrella of mood DISORDERS. All are researched as diseases, all are recognised across a variety of countries, all have been found to be recognisable as valid and reliable descriptions which come under the umbrella of disease.

It's what disease means - and most importantly what it DOESN'T mean that allows a decision to be well founded as to what is or isn't disease.

Five

Best, your right. I do not believe there is an objective moral code - I believe each individual has their own individual one - inside them! So that kind of invalidates my original observation!