There are currently 0 users online.
First-Things-First (not verified)
Tue, 07/10/2012 - 23:43
Sat, 07/07/2012 - 09:01
Yeah, typical 12 stepper response. I was not a drunk.
How can you make that judgment, FTF, when you know nothing about my situation?
Alcoholics Anonymous: MyNotGodHasItCovered®http://www.expaa.org/http://bereanresearch.com/http://badrecovery.blogspot.com/NOT AA:
Rational Recovery, SOS, HAMShttp://alcoholabusesolutions.com/
Sat, 07/07/2012 - 10:05
I love when Steppers (especially alcoholics) say things like "you must not be an addict, then."
That's my favorite. I love the arrogance, the way that Steppers think they can take an English word and change the definition to suit their needs.
I also loved the drunkalogue battles about who was more hardcore. I was an IV heroin addict running around in one of the scariest places in Miami, but they think they've somehow earned their stripes for getting arrested pissing on the sidewalk.
It's so pathetic it is almost funny.
Sat, 07/07/2012 - 10:06
But, wait, Ironic. Those weren't steppers that were on OPF telling me that I am not an alcoholic. Why is there a double standard here? You said it to me yourself.
Remember Christopher Stevens when you vote.
Sat, 07/07/2012 - 19:57
No double standard at all. The people in AA using the "you stopped on your own? You must not be a alcoholic." line presume to comment on an addiction they know nothing about. People here commenting on your specific alcoholism did so after you shared your six beers story.
I know you may be tempted to say that I haven't stopped for very long, but I'll remind you that I've managed much longer (like ten times) stretches off dope staying away from Steppism completely than while attending meetings and having a sponsor.
Sat, 07/07/2012 - 20:22
I'm not tempted at all. I am grateful you can stay stopped any way that you can. I also never said that 6 drinks was all I drank. 6 beers NOW would be a binge. It amazes me how people can just take something an run with it, thinking they are just being oh so clever, and it takes a life of its own. Just like the soup. It's been years and people used that mercilessly. I never dated the incident, and was using it as an example as to how the woman in my presence reacted.
But if proves a point. That I can have a bowl of soup with condiment sherry and NOT lead to relapse is great. Maybe I am cured! It isn't as if I am doing it to prevent one.
Sat, 07/07/2012 - 20:29
"But if proves a point. That I can have a bowl of soup with condiment sherry and NOT lead to relapse is great. Maybe I am cured!"
It also proves our point that AA's allergy of the body theory is nonsense.
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
Sat, 07/07/2012 - 20:32
I know people that truly are, Penny. I think it is possible that alcoholics metabolize alcohol differently than other people because it just never affected me the same way. I've never really come to a conclusion either way.
I know there is an explanation in the archive about the "allergy" and how that came about. I think it was more about acceptability than fact. A twist as it were!
Sat, 07/07/2012 - 20:38
As I understand it there are people who are allergic to alcohol. Those people get very sick when they drink; they don't become overpowered by an insatiable craving to drink until oblivion. The idea that alcoholics have some allergy that causes them to finish the whole bottle if they have one drink is Silkworthless Billshit.
Sat, 07/07/2012 - 20:46
I know people that continue to eat foods they are allergic to despite the reactions they suffer. I think people can relate more to the word allergy, though.
Sat, 07/07/2012 - 22:07
The allergy that the BB talks about is one that causes the alcoholic to develop an overpowering craving to continue to drink to oblivion whenever any alcohol is ingested. It is not really talking about metabolism at all. Anyway, if you are an alcoholic and Dr. Silkworth were correct, your consumption of sherry, even a little bit, should have sent you over the edge. But amazingly it was no problem for you at all. You did not experience the allergic reaction the BB says you would.
Sat, 07/07/2012 - 22:12
Could be, but I think that could also be preventative thinking as well.
If I sit down and have a meal that include condiment sherry or red wine in French Onion Soup or Coq au vin, that doesn't trigger me. But if I sat down to have A drink, I wouldn't do that. I never was that kind of drinker. But use peppermint mouthwash... I can close my eyes and smell smoke and feel the darts in my hands. I literally get transported.
Sat, 07/07/2012 - 22:18
What you are talking about is psychological, not some allergic reaction of the body. If you were describing a true allergy and not a mere psychological trigger, it would not matter what form the liquor was in. After all, someone with a peanut allergy will have a reaction regardless of whether he eats peanuts straight or consumes a dish that uses peanuts as an ingredient.
Sat, 07/07/2012 - 22:20
Could be, but I still think there is something to it. I never drank like other more normal drinkers did, Penny. There is something that happens when I sit down to drink that surely doesn't when I sit down to eat. Ie at my meal and mosey on about life. I really don't even need any explanation. What I needed was help in staying away from a drinking life. I found it in AA.
Sat, 07/07/2012 - 22:24
Ok, Clara. But again, you are describing something psychological, as distinguished from an actual physical allergy. If it were a physical allergy, it would not matter if you sit down to eat or sit down to drink. Can't you see this?
Persephone In Exile
Sat, 07/07/2012 - 22:30
I always found this line of thinking a bit on the insulting side. There are plenty of people with real diseases who face some pretty severe physical consequences if they consume alcohol. While I do, on one level (most levels, really) have the utmost sympathy for people whose problem with any substance is on the compulsion and loss of control side, the idea of equating it with other medical conditions is just too rankling for me.
Sat, 07/07/2012 - 22:45
Take an alcoholic and put a drink in front of him along with the whole bottle. Then put a gun to his head and tell him to take one drink and no more, or else you will shoot him.
Then take a man with a peanut allergy and put him in front of a peanut jar. Put a gun to his head and tell him to eat a handful of peanuts. Then, after he eats the peanuts, tell him you will shoot him if he has an allergic reaction. See what happens.
Sat, 07/07/2012 - 22:49
If he's a good AA, he won't take the first drink because that is the one that gets you drunk.
I have a feeling there would be cases where you would shoot both. The alcoholic isn't going to believe you. LOL!
Sat, 07/07/2012 - 23:07
Penny there was a study done and I can't remember the name of the researcher right now. Anyway they took four groups of alcoholics and told them they were taste testing a beverage. The beverage had a strong flavor that could hide the taste of alcohol.
The first group was told they were drinking an non-alcoholic drink but were given alcohol.
The second was told they were drinking a non-alcoholic drink and were given no alcohol.
The third was told they were drinking alcohol and were given alcohol.
The fourth was told they were drinking alcohol, but they weren't.
The expectation was that those who were told their drink was non-alcoholic when it actually was would guzzle it down, but that didn't happen at all. They drank no more than the group who had non-alcoholic drinks and were told so. They only had a few sips of the alcoholic beverage. Only the ones who believed there was alcohol in the drinks guzzled it whether there was alcohol in it or not.
Troll free AA critical forumhttp://www.expaa.org/
"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
Sat, 07/07/2012 - 23:11
That is very interesting, C&E! It does not suprise me, but it is nevertheless very interesting. No doubt AA would want to suppress this study.
Sat, 07/07/2012 - 23:17
But not every alcoholic guzzle drinks.
Why would anyone care to supress this study?
Sat, 07/07/2012 - 23:27
AA would want to superss the study because apparently it refutes the AA belief that an alcoholic cannot have a few sips and then stop.
Sat, 07/07/2012 - 23:55
I think one can. We often hear in meetings how someone picked up the wrong drink, drank some and put it down upon realization. For some, it triggered cravings and off they went. For others, it was a wake up call perhaps, but not detrimental.
Sat, 07/07/2012 - 23:30
Was this "study" conducted at a cocktail party?
I have extreme trouble believing a drunk would not be able to tell if alcohol was in his drink, I don't care if they put it in an anisette milkshake or an antifreeze slush.
“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian
Sat, 07/07/2012 - 22:44
I can see your point, Penny. I always have. I am describing something for me. But I also remember that someplace in the archives, the word "allergy" was chosen for a certain mental twist and there was a paper on it. I'll look for it when I get back.
I think the BB was written in a special way. When I look back and can see some real crazy behavior, I don't think I was insane by clinical standards, but I certainly wasn't rational or reasonable in my approach to alcohol. To keep living that way despite everything that happened to me certainly seems and looks like insanity now. But I doubt I would have met the legal standards for crazy or mental defect. I don't think that people parse to death anything or it was ever meant to. I don't just toss something out because it doesn't meet the true definition of "allergy" or anything else.
Sat, 07/07/2012 - 22:58
I respect that answer, Clara.
Sat, 07/07/2012 - 20:49
Yeah Penny, I never thought it was rocket science that not all people metabolize and react to alcohol the same. Didn't everyone learn this in high school? That doesn't mean it's not horrible for people at that particular end of the spectrum, but it does seem to span a great variety of reactions.
Sat, 07/07/2012 - 13:38
"That's my favorite. I love the arrogance, the way that Steppers think they can take an English word and change the definition to suit their needs."
Have you failed to notice the overwhelming co-opting of language that appears on this board, as if Bill Wilson "changed the definition to suit [his] needs"? Resentment, freedom, malady, sobriety, alcoholic, terminally unique, even God/god - it's all within this forum, as a target for jeering mockery. The Orange Papers Forum posters have no room to talk when it comes to reinventing definitions of words and using them to try to diminish others.
Sat, 07/07/2012 - 19:52
Your arguments are usually well-formed, but this one isn't.
We here on the OPF certainly enjoy making light of the AA versions of our English words, but it's satire, plain and simple. Unlike AA, we are not creating new meanings to replace old ones. It is just a little fun between kindred spirits.
Sat, 07/07/2012 - 23:12
"We here on the OPF certainly enjoy making light of the AA versions of our English words, but it's satire, plain and simple."
Until it's not. I have not particularly enjoyed being flogged for using the word resentment - correctly, and without the baggage attached. I haven't really found it funny when I've used the word spiritual and JR Harris comes crashing down like the hammer of Daniel Webster. Yeah, it's funny and game to you until someone who does not share your opinion on something uses the word to describe a situation or a person. Then the shit starts to fly, and the fun flies out the window.
There is an extremely disturbing double standard on this board among those who are so protective of their hatred toward AA. There are many things that are always a target for ridicule and denigration - all in fun, you say - until someone challenges the premise. Then you're all business as you circle the wagons: put it on Massive's radio show and blog!! write up letters to congressmen!! go to the schools and educate the kids!! think, run, do!!! My argument is as well formed as any I've written. I think you just don't see how the principles you embrace are so unfairly applied here.
Sat, 07/07/2012 - 08:17
FTF said: “It's a self help program. Key words being "self help". Neither A.A. nor any other self help program is going to work if you don't do the proper amount of input into it. It's just that simple, end of story.”
I thought to work a successful 12 step program you need a sponsor?
In addition, isn’t the cornerstone of the 12 step theology that god helps? If god is required to “help” with a “character defect cleaning” how is 12 steps a “self-help?
Tue, 07/10/2012 - 23:44
Sat, 07/07/2012 - 08:31
So AA/12 steps is not a self-help program? What part does "god" play in keeping people off the drink?
Sat, 07/07/2012 - 08:47
"God either is, or He isn't." ~ BB p.53
How do you square the above statement with the idea that you can pick whatever HP you want and expect that it exists in the capacity to perform the supernatural miracles for you that are required in Steps 6 and 7?
Sat, 07/07/2012 - 08:56
Also, in AA we turn our lives and wills over to God, and then seek to maintain conscious contact with this God. If God is whatever we will Him to be, how is that turning over our will? Moreover, wouldn't having the ability to will different Gods into existence be the ultimate manifestation of willpower? If I can "fire" my HP at will and pick a new one, can such an HP be truly "higher" than me in the first place? If so, in what sense?
Sat, 07/07/2012 - 09:07
Exists as an entity which is a power greater than our helpless cravings, that can be anything we make it to be. A better term is power greater than yourself. The God you refer to is the religion God. Different altogether. Hope this helps. Thanks.
Sat, 07/07/2012 - 09:21
It doesn't, but I appreciate you trying. Not trying to be snotty here. Anyway, you say God "exists as an entity..."
Lets me ask you this: do you think human beings have the power to create real entities just by thinking about them?
Sat, 07/07/2012 - 09:25
You look there are religions and cult, many of which contradict. Many or all are wrong. But yet, very real - at least to those who believe. We have to power to make them real even if they aren't true manifestations.
Like my minor in philosophy?
Sat, 07/07/2012 - 10:20
OK, we are talking two different things here. You seem to say that if one believes God is real, then God is real to that person. I disagree with this, and so does Bill Wilson when he wrote "God either is, or He isn't." Now logically it is possible for two gods to exist. But as you probably learned in your philosophy studies, it is impossible for two contradictory state of affairs to truly exist at the same time. You say "[w]e have to power to make them real even if they aren't true manifestations." I don't understand this. What is the difference between something being "real" and something being a "true manifestation"? In your eyes, if a child wholeheartedly believes that Santa exists, does that mean that Santa really does exist in the veridical sense? Or when the rubber hits the road (or the sleigh hits the snow), is the child just plain wrong on an ontological level? Put another way, do you think there is any objectivity when analyzing the nature of existence?
Sat, 07/07/2012 - 10:26
pennyW asked: "do you think there is any objectivity when analyzing the nature of existence?"
Uh-oh. Its time for me to go. I got a C in my philosophy class. : )
Sat, 07/07/2012 - 10:29
I personally wouldn't want Santa as represented to be sold to a child. I do believe in God and His Son's birth and that is what Christmas as a holiday is about, IMO. Amazing how many atheists I know with trees in their front rooms and packages on the floor. I have friends whose daughter converted to Judiasm, and there was a problem about if Alex should get presents for Grandma's holiday, too. I mean, Grandma did give her gifts for Chan. But she's a child! They handled it by taken her to dinner with Grandma and giving her gifts for her holiday with none in return.
All this represents is a willingness to let others believe as they choose to for their life. I think that is fine.
Tue, 07/10/2012 - 23:45
Sat, 07/07/2012 - 11:09
Ok, but I am not arguing against the existence of God, as I can't prove that God does not exist. HOWEVER, I can prove, using simple logic, that it is impossible for the Gods of every person's understanding to all actually exist at the same time. Consider the following:
1) Stepper "A" says "the God of Jesus is my higher power. As I understand this higher power, no other god other than the Christian God exists."
2) Stepper "B" says "Zeus is my higher power. As I understand this higher power, no other God other than Zeus exists."
Accordingly, the respective higher powers of Stepper "A" and Stepper "B" are mutually exclusive (the Christian God cannot be the only true god if Zeus is the only true god and vice-versa). Stepper "A" might be right, Stepper "B" might be right, or they both might be wrong. But because the respective understanding of each contradicts the understanding of the other, it is logically impossible for both understandings to be correct. Therefore, at least one of them HAS to be wrong. This analysis seems to refute the AA idea that everyone can make up their own higher powers and logically expect that each person's understanding will be the case.
Sat, 07/07/2012 - 11:11
What is real? That which we perceive. It's real enough for people to go to war and die with. Can't get any more real than that.
According to this logic, pretty much any delusion that anyone makes up on a whim can be "real." I don't think the universe works that way. Specifically, I think there is a fundamental difference between believing that something is real and that thing actually being real. You seem to think the belief and the reality are one and the same. I disagree, but there are many intelligent thinkers who would agree with you.
Sat, 07/07/2012 - 13:43
Do you contend that one's personal reality and delusion are one and the same, through and through? In that case, everyone on earth is delusional.
Sat, 07/07/2012 - 14:31
Becket, I'm not sure I understand the question. However, I am not so sure there is a such thing as "personal reality." I am more inclined to think that there is one objective reality, with some peoples' perceptions of that reality being more accurate than others. In other words, I tend to think that reality (at least as it applies to whether something actually exists) is objective, whereas peoples' perceptions of that reality are subjective, with some subjective perceptions corresponding to the actual state of affairs more accurately than others.
Sat, 07/07/2012 - 19:59
Penny, this post makes me NEED some maui wowie.
Maybe Santa Claus can bring me some.
Sat, 07/07/2012 - 20:18
Not Maui Wowie but I have some of my dog's MM left over.
Sun, 07/08/2012 - 00:13
There may be some objectivity when analyzing the nature of existence, because if we're smart we try to understand the other guy's point of view. But ultimately our theories gel and the window to objectivity closes, giving us our subjective interpretations of the world around us. Objectivity is like an exercise in working without a net. When new knowledge is desired we can decide to entertain others' ideas, some of which we will incorporate into our own personal philosophies and the rest of which we will reject. Ultimately, our operating systems are comprised of what we have accepted. This is the reason there can be billions of Gods, not just two who oppose each other for space and time.
When Bill Wilson said about God, "Either He is or He isn't", could he not have meant that if He is, then the AA member has a critical tool for working his program; and if He isn't, then that person will be lacking the instrument to work the program with complete success? To me, it's just another built-in loophole for atheists and agnostics: "you can work this program without a higher power, but you're going to have to be imaginative and creative about it in order to enjoy any success with it." And, of course, if a higher power never develops, the predictable sometimes happens: disenfranchisement, anger, indignation, departure.