Such BS

[surviva316]

I used to be one those idiots who thought that anyone who ever takes -ev is an idiot. But honestly, that's a very bad way to view the world. Everyone has different preference. hell I probably spend $10/yr on lotto tickets. berate away. Even more, when im semi forced to buy in to large pools with co workers when jackpots hit 200 mil or whatever.

I don't know whether or not this is a response to my post, but if it is, it's a gross misinterpretation of it. Spending 10 $/year or being involved in NCAA bracket pools does not fulfill the qualifier of "anyone who has gambling as a big enough part of their life for them to've arrived to this quiz/meeting/conversation/etc either because of a judge sending you there or because your wife is threatening to leave if you don't get help or because you're so deep in the bowels of depression and self-destruction that you're desperate enough to end up there."

I guess, i just hate how this is just pure and simple manipulation. It's like that southpark where one char takes an alcoholism test and finds out he is an alcoholic and then he becomes and alcoholic because he can't control. It's like saying u have a gambling problem allows you to have a real gambling problem. Does this shit make sense?

Does it make sense in that it's sensible to think that this could happen? Yeah, I guess so. Does it actually have any relation to how shit works in the real world when you're dealing with trying to help people who have become homeless, family-less, have their entire financial/sexual/emotional/spiritual world revolve around how to get their next fix, on a path that will necessarily--without intervention at least--end in either jail or death, etc? Well, no not really.

I mean, we can get into arguments about semantics and about Plato's musings on the pros and cons of lying to a society for the greater good and talk about how dogmatic, unrevisable, "best possible" type beliefs can be detrimental in certain ways is basically just ivory tower bickering in the context of helping Joe the Heroin Addict. As someone who has chosen to stop drinking because it has become a problem in my life, yet has purposefully chosen to NOT take the path of AA, I doubt there's anyone here better qualified to have personal testament against certain aspects of the program, but for Joe the Heroin Addict, there is no down, so basically ANY change-effecting impact that can be made on his life is almost necessarily an improvement: even if that means joining a cult (not calling xA a cult, I'm just using an extreme example).

So, yeah, xA is imperfect, but it's not near as problematic as you or South Park are making it out to be. It's like people who are like "omg, I hate seat belts. Did you know that it's actually possible for you to die BECAUSE of a seat belt in an otherwise non-fatal incident?" Um, yeah, it's possible, but by wearing a seat belt you're massively increasing your chances of living and massively decreasing the average injury you can be expected to sustain in an accident. Using the South Park episode seems to fall under the same line of thinking of I can imagine a hypothetical where it's detrimental, hence it's bad, whereas out in the real world it probably does a lot more good than it does bad (though it MIGHT be able to do even MORE good in less dubious ways if improved upon in some ways, but that's kind of a moot point to someone who isn't concerned with sitting around and musing on these things and instead just needs to make sure they don't die).

[!Luck]

I don't know whether or not this is a response to my post, but if it is, it's a gross misinterpretation of it. Spending 10 $/year or being involved in NCAA bracket pools does not fulfill the qualifier of "anyone who has gambling as a big enough part of their life for them to've arrived to this quiz/meeting/conversation/etc either because of a judge sending you there or because your wife is threatening to leave if you don't get help or because you're so deep in the bowels of depression and self-destruction that you're desperate enough to end up there."



Does it make sense in that it's sensible to think that this could happen? Yeah, I guess so. Does it actually have any relation to how shit works in the real world when you're dealing with trying to help people who have become homeless, family-less, have their entire financial/sexual/emotional/spiritual world revolve around how to get their next fix, on a path that will necessarily--without intervention at least--end in either jail or death, etc? Well, no not really.

I mean, we can get into arguments about semantics and about Plato's musings on the pros and cons of lying to a society for the greater good and talk about how dogmatic, unrevisable, "best possible" type beliefs can be detrimental in certain ways is basically just ivory tower bickering in the context of helping Joe the Heroin Addict. As someone who has chosen to stop drinking because it has become a problem in my life, yet has purposefully chosen to NOT take the path of AA, I doubt there's anyone here better qualified to have personal testament against certain aspects of the program, but for Joe the Heroin Addict, there is no down, so basically ANY change-effecting impact that can be made on his life is almost necessarily an improvement: even if that means joining a cult (not calling xA a cult, I'm just using an extreme example).

So, yeah, xA is imperfect, but it's not near as problematic as you or South Park are making it out to be. It's like people who are like "omg, I hate seat belts. Did you know that it's actually possible for you to die BECAUSE of a seat belt in an otherwise non-fatal incident?" Um, yeah, it's possible, but by wearing a seat belt you're massively increasing your chances of living and massively decreasing the average injury you can be expected to sustain in an accident. Using the South Park episode seems to fall under the same line of thinking of I can imagine a hypothetical where it's detrimental, hence it's bad, whereas out in the real world it probably does a lot more good than it does bad (though it MIGHT be able to do even MORE good in less dubious ways if improved upon in some ways, but that's kind of a moot point to someone who isn't concerned with sitting around and musing on these things and instead just needs to make sure they don't die).

First. My post was aimed at Oskar, not you. Also, I really liked your post especially about the Plato segment. I guess it more that the harm this does is probably small but widespread where the benefit is concentrated.

It's the hypochondriac in mean that hates this shit.

And yes, this does make me ANGRY!