-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your WyoNation.com experience today!
Eustachy has to be drinking.......again
- Thread starter wyocowboy2014
- Start date
True alcoholism isn't a choice. It's not a lack of self-discipline, and it affects more people than just the afflicted alcoholic, much the same as any other uncontrollable condition. It's classless and in extremely poor taste to use it as smack fodder, especially in a public place where there are likely many alcoholics (recovering and otherwise) present. You're free to do it, but if you're criticized or confronted for it, you have little in the way of justifying it.Wyolie Coyote said:
Wyolie Coyote
Well-known member
Aren't we self-righteous. Alcoholism is a choice. Alcoholism is like any addiction, you make the choice to indulge and overdo it to the point that you can't quit. If it wasn't by choice, how else would you have a recovering alcoholic? I have never heard of a recovering autistic person. Big difference.Wyovanian said:
Perhaps you should go back and re-read what I wrote- I didn't compare it to autism, but to someone who has an autistic child. It can't be controlled or cured, only overcome. I don't feel sorry for alcoholics who blame their behavior on their problem, but I don't think it's right to mock the condition. I wouldn't mock someone who lost there leg in a car accident they caused as a cripple.Wyolie Coyote said:
And since when is calling out boorish behavior "self-righteous"?
Cosmic Cowboy
Well-known member
The fact is Eustachy kinda acted like a dick last night and got beat. The fact is that video above is fucking hilarious and totally AWESOME! The rest is just all internet bullshit fun for some kicks, unless he is of course an actual alcoholic. That would be kinda sad.
ItSucksToBeACSURam
Well-known member
I personally like the rare yet effect "the red beats his meat" chantlaxwyo said:
BeaverPoke
Well-known member
Wyolie Coyote said:
You must not know anyone who is an alcoholic or addict.
No one wakes up and decides to become an addict. They don't choose to have their lives come crumbling down around them. They don't choose to hurt themselves and everyone around them. They don't choose to have mental, psychological, physical, and social problems. They may choose to drink a beer or do their drug of choice but they didn't choose to be addicted to it to the point it causes immense problems.
WestWYOPoke
Well-known member
But at some point in their life they made a conscious choice to take a drink, smoke a bowl, snort a line, etc. No child or parent made a conscious decision that led to said child being autistic. Not to say addiction isn't a serious problem, but when comparing the two I have a lot less Compassion for an alcoholic or drug addict.
ItSucksToBeACSURam
Well-known member
No one makes me them take the first drink. Humans aren't born addicted to anything. Their own actions influence their later addictions. Coach Eustachy is a POS coach and his antics on the court and his comments after the game defy logic and he opens himself to any and all criticism, as do all coaches.BeaverPoke said:
BeaverPoke
Well-known member
ItSucksToBeACSURam said:
Don't take my comment on addiction/alcoholism as defending Eustachy.
He is a dick, he lost his composure and maybe lost the game for his team.
And don't take my comment on addiction/alcoholism as comparing it to autism.
Wyonavian never compared it to autism. He compared the chants from the fans.
I just think there are certain things that are personal, cross the line, and shouldn't be chanted.
My thing is, sure we as Americans have the right to say things. But that doesn't mean it is okay. Often times people want to say it to be funny, when in reality if their own mother or father was around watching them, they wouldn't dare say it. Just because a rival coach has a genetic disposition, and his life actions enhanced his personal problems, and we have a right to say something, doesn't mean we should. Sometimes we as fans need to shut the fuck up (definitely myself included) and not press a serious issue that is a taunt to tons of people. Let's keep it good natured and fun. We don't need make a lot of people feel bad simply because one ass-hole coach for a team we hate.
Wyolie Coyote
Well-known member
Nope, just a grandfather who was an alcoholic and died from it. He chose to start drinking, keep drinking and become inebriated. His choice to become and stay an addict. People aren't born addicts, they make conscious choices before they become addicted and help is always available if you so desire. Drinking a beer doesn't lead to alcoholism, lack,of self control and over indulgence does.BeaverPoke said:
BeaverPoke
Well-known member
Wyolie Coyote said:
Lack of self control and over-indulgence don't lead to it, it's a symptom of it.
Sorry about your grandfather, that's never a good thing to hear. Do you know any recovering addicts/alcoholics?
AfiPoke
Well-known member
Had to watch a 'crack baby' be delivered once. Worse than all the shit in war and elsewhere I've ever seen.
Not trying to throw gas on this fire, but neuroscience seems to coalesce around 50% genetic, 50% environmental. For those of us who are children of parents who conceived during the 50's, 60's, and early 70's...we are likely f'kd and nobody really knows how the smorgasbord of drugs which were administered freely during that time has affected us? I don't think there's much debate about prenatal/natal drug use causing severe withdrawal. I haven't seen anything definitive that indicates a predilection towards substance abuse later in life (please notice I said definitive). Conventional wisdom seems to indicate it does.
I'm three years sober next month and couldn't tell you where things went off the rails for me? Despite all the propaganda otherwise, the Army is a serious drinking culture and that may have had the most effect in my life. Especially, post war and I run a Veteran non profit which has led me to believe that for most... it's environmental. However, I will never forget that birth and I think we are wise not to use generalities about this stuff.
I can say that the CSU coach has the complexion of a lot of people in my old group. I don't think he is long for this earth.
Just my two cents. Take it FWIW.
Not trying to throw gas on this fire, but neuroscience seems to coalesce around 50% genetic, 50% environmental. For those of us who are children of parents who conceived during the 50's, 60's, and early 70's...we are likely f'kd and nobody really knows how the smorgasbord of drugs which were administered freely during that time has affected us? I don't think there's much debate about prenatal/natal drug use causing severe withdrawal. I haven't seen anything definitive that indicates a predilection towards substance abuse later in life (please notice I said definitive). Conventional wisdom seems to indicate it does.
I'm three years sober next month and couldn't tell you where things went off the rails for me? Despite all the propaganda otherwise, the Army is a serious drinking culture and that may have had the most effect in my life. Especially, post war and I run a Veteran non profit which has led me to believe that for most... it's environmental. However, I will never forget that birth and I think we are wise not to use generalities about this stuff.
I can say that the CSU coach has the complexion of a lot of people in my old group. I don't think he is long for this earth.
Just my two cents. Take it FWIW.
Aaron
Well-known member
Aren't we self-righteous. Alcoholism is a choice. Alcoholism is like any addiction, you make the choice to indulge and overdo it to the point that you can't quit. If it wasn't by choice, how else would you have a recovering alcoholic? I have never heard of a recovering autistic person. Big difference.[/quote]Wyolie Coyote said:
:thumb:
Wyolie Coyote
Well-known member
Know plenty of them. They will tell you the same thing, it is their choice to drink or not. Lack of self control and over-indulgence is the cause not a symptom.BeaverPoke said:
First, let me start by prefacing my statements by making it clear that I am not an expert in the area of alcoholism or any type of addiction. I have spent a significant amount of time in self-learning relating to the subject at hand and do have a medical background, but have in no way obtained the credentials to be considered an expert.
Doing a meta-analysis of studies relating to the topic, the best answer science can give us at this point concerning the causes behind addiction is "we don't know". Anybody who claims otherwise is cherry-picking studies that fit their bias. It wouldn't take longer than about 5-10 minutes on PubMed or any university library search engine to present them with well done studies concluding the exact opposite. And, in the end, science is always just a series of better wrong answers. Our understanding is always limited, and thus, our conclusions are always proven false in time.
One intriguing aspect of addiction, that is rarely talked about, is what interests me most. Specifically, that is whether or not addicts have any obligation, moral or otherwise, to actively avoid their addiction. It seems to me that most people consider "recovery" to be universally positive and something to be desired. In reality, "recovery" is usually a daily battle for the addict and the avoidance of their substance of choice can be downright miserable on a daily basis. I think there is a real question as to whether being miserable and living an extra 10-20 years in that miserable state is a desirable goal. Most addicts are perfectly content when using, and there is a legitimate argument to made that a shorter life lived in a more content state is better than a longer life lived in a miserable state. Of course, exactly how large a difference in lifespan we are talking about certainly plays a role in that debate.
Many people would argue that regardless of the above issue, the addict has an obligation to "recover" because the addict has a tendency to cause emotional (and sometimes physical) torment to those close to them. However, that argument, at its core, is one that implicitly implies that the emotional well-being of the addict's loved ones are inherantly more important than the emotional well-being of the addict themselves. I'm not sure that should be a generally accepted premise.
Anyways, sorry for the long diatribe on a subject that probably doesn't need any more fuel on the fire. This thread probably doesn't even belong in a sports forum, but I just though I would add some thoughts to consider. What's clear to me is that addiction is not black and white and that while most arguments have some partial validity to them, they do not paint the entire picture.
Doing a meta-analysis of studies relating to the topic, the best answer science can give us at this point concerning the causes behind addiction is "we don't know". Anybody who claims otherwise is cherry-picking studies that fit their bias. It wouldn't take longer than about 5-10 minutes on PubMed or any university library search engine to present them with well done studies concluding the exact opposite. And, in the end, science is always just a series of better wrong answers. Our understanding is always limited, and thus, our conclusions are always proven false in time.
One intriguing aspect of addiction, that is rarely talked about, is what interests me most. Specifically, that is whether or not addicts have any obligation, moral or otherwise, to actively avoid their addiction. It seems to me that most people consider "recovery" to be universally positive and something to be desired. In reality, "recovery" is usually a daily battle for the addict and the avoidance of their substance of choice can be downright miserable on a daily basis. I think there is a real question as to whether being miserable and living an extra 10-20 years in that miserable state is a desirable goal. Most addicts are perfectly content when using, and there is a legitimate argument to made that a shorter life lived in a more content state is better than a longer life lived in a miserable state. Of course, exactly how large a difference in lifespan we are talking about certainly plays a role in that debate.
Many people would argue that regardless of the above issue, the addict has an obligation to "recover" because the addict has a tendency to cause emotional (and sometimes physical) torment to those close to them. However, that argument, at its core, is one that implicitly implies that the emotional well-being of the addict's loved ones are inherantly more important than the emotional well-being of the addict themselves. I'm not sure that should be a generally accepted premise.
Anyways, sorry for the long diatribe on a subject that probably doesn't need any more fuel on the fire. This thread probably doesn't even belong in a sports forum, but I just though I would add some thoughts to consider. What's clear to me is that addiction is not black and white and that while most arguments have some partial validity to them, they do not paint the entire picture.