Sure games don't physically addict (unless you get a heroin hot each time you get xp.)

But mentally it can be possible....although any sane person shouldn't have too much trouble breaking free....

quote:

---

Elvish Crack Piper spewed forth this undeniable truth:
Is it normal to sspeak and not think about hte wrod scoming out?

---

I do it all the time.

quote:

---

D thought about the meaning of life:
I do it all the time.

---

it shows

sure, you wont be taken in by the do stuff and get award if your paying attinion, but how often do you play and think, " oh i wont get taken in, i wont be taken in."?

This is a nitpicking disclaimer.

quote:

---

Kagrama had this to say about John Romero:

Yoda was cool.

Why did he have to dieeeee?!

---

quote:

---

[/qb]frolicking imp had this to say about Cuba:
he DIED?!?!?! Omg nooo!!! You runied the moive!!!!
waaah!

[/QB]

---

uhmm... he died in Return of the Jedi..

[ 04-09-2002: Message edited by: KaLourin DthBlayde ]

quote:

---

Bloodsage wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
*snip*

---

So you can honestly say without a shadow of a doubt, you have no flaws? No hidden vices? That is for the most part exceptionally hard to believe. You have no susceptibility to any outside control whatso ever? I also find this very hard to believe. This is part of human nature, it is also part of the "Curiosity killed the cat" Syndrom which is by part human nature, and fits, for the most part, into your philisophical statement of examining life.

And yes I'm sure you enjoy debating, and I'm sure you want to do it. In fact Im postive. But so do the game players, or drug addicts, or at least they think they do. So that point is irrelevant. The point is, can you NOT do it. Can you not involve your self, or start a debate? Can you look the other way, when a debate on a subject you are aware of has been started, or not start one yourself? It is something you feel yourself just HAVING to get involved in? Could you do without debate?

And I never said, compulsiveness could never be defeated on your own, just that in most cases for most people it requires outside help. Yes, SOME people can turn away from addictive behaviour, for the most part. But almost Inevitable at some point in thier lives, SOMETHING will hook them, if even for a little while. Can you conquer it on your own, yes, but being hooked by it in the first place DOES NOT make you weak. You got hooked on smoking, you said so yourself. YOu defeated it by yourself, but you still got hooked on it. I said being hooked by an addictive behaviour did not make you weak. But I ALSO said.

quote:

---

If they seek help, or are offered help, and they STILL continue to do it. THEN they are weak.

---

Seeking help yourself, is sometimes, just stepping back and saying. "Hey, thats enough."

But even those, who need outside interferance, are not inferior to you, just because they have an issue with compulsive behavior. In most cases they are always just as effective in the human condition as you are. Except for a flaw, and again, I know you can't claim to be flawless.

quote:

---

KaLourin DthBlayde's unholy Backstreet Boys obsession manifested in:

uhmm... he died in Return of the Jedi..

---

thanks mr. icantdetectsarcasm

I don't care what you have a hard time believing, and I guarantee I know me better than you do.

Sorry to burst your bubble, and all that, but not everyone considers weakness and abdication of responsibility the normal human condition. All too many people succumb, but that makes such behavior no less weak, and no less avoidable.

And here's a hint for the future: don't ask a question if you're not prepared for the answer. If your argument rests on the necessity that I'm advocating a double standard, or am hypocritical in my philosophy, then it is flawed.

I debate where I choose to debate. I flame where I choose to flame.

Simply because you either don't like or don't understand the behaviors I've chosen does not make them any less well considered.

You should either concede the point, or find an argument not based upon your unqualified assessment of my personality.

quote:

---

This one time, at frolicking imp camp:
thanks mr. icantdetectsarcasm

---

Most welcome. My sarc-o-matic detector was turned off for the most part of the day

You asked a specific question about vices, which I answered, specifically.

Not the same thing at all.

And for the record, nothing I have said was a personal attack on you, if you feel you are correct in who you are, I cannot nor will I change that. I said I find that hard to believe. And I also asked you, as the subject since you are involved in the debate, can you honestly say beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have never succumbed to an outside influence?

And I already conceded the fact that you choose, and like to debate. I asked if you could not do it. Which I said, and this is purely based off of my experience of you here so OF COURSE it's not complete or applies to anything outside this forum, that I didn't think you could. And then posed the question to you, could you?

I used you as a subject for the posts, because you are the one debating the subject. My argument doesn't rest on anything coming from you, so I could care less whether you have a double standard or are being hypocritical.

And for the last statement of your reply, what makes you anymore qualified than me to debate the human condition. Or to take a point of view adverse to yours? So that itself is an unbased judgement.

I did not turn this into a flame war. Nor did I intetionally set out to attack you, so that has no basis here. If I had anything to direct sepcifically towards you, it would be nothing more than the fact you seem to concider anyone outside, your perfect willpower, and your perfect views on life. Someone unable to cope with choices that you have accepted differently than another might, automatically makes them inferior, or weaker than you.

No one is inferior to you, nor is anyone superior. Placing an inferiority on someone because they are not the person you are, is wrong. I am not superior to you, but I am not, nor will I ever be inferior to you. Regardless of how I handle my choices in life.

quote:

---

Star Collective was naked while typing this:
You're doing it again Faeth.

---

Doing what?

1. Smoking is addictive, no matter easy or hard anyone may find it to stop (In fact, Nicotine is only slightly less addicitive than Heroin) 95% of smokers are addicted in some way to nicotine.
2. Everquest and games like it can be addictive if players begin to have a dependence on playing the game to function normally, or worse start to consider the EQ world as their reality. However....
3. Games do not cause people to commit suicide. It is a factor yes, but a very small one.
4. Anyone can get addicted to something, no matter how great their self-will may be. It's a fact of life.

So yes, there's my 20 cents. Sorry if this sounded like a flame.

quote:

---

How.... StarShadow.... uughhhhhh:
Addiction is when you need to do some activity continuously to function normally.

---

I agree.

16 continuous hours of playing EQ is not normal functioning.

This man was not addicted, he was obsessed.

quote:

---

Verily, Bloodsage doth proclaim:
BTW, before you go off on the "no one is flawless" tangent--which has nothing to do with the discussion at hand--you should find where I claimed to be.

You asked a specific question about vices, which I answered, specifically.

Not the same thing at all.

---

Vices can be, and are often concidered flaws. Character flaws if nothing else. And vices can also be unconcious, and something that you should have the will power to overcome when brought to your attention or discovered on your own.

I also made the comparison to you being a smoker, and the fact that you chose to do it and some point in your life. Which means you gave into an outside influence. And also backed up my explaination of seeking help yourself is often no more then stepping back and saying "Hey thats enough." But you still gave in in the first place to a compulsive behavior, which smoking is concidered. You gave in because it did something for you. Or at least thats the most common case. But that doesn't make you a weak person, anymore than it makes someone else weak for giving into a game that they get something out of.

It is a habit that can be broken, by yourself, or by help. But it's still a formed habit, chosen or not chosen. And we are all susceptible to them. Some more than others, but then those people who have that flaw. May not be flawed in another area where you are. So it is not fair to say someone is weaker against yourself.

quote:

---

StarShadow had this to say about Knight Rider:
I think that the problem is that people are trying to apply specific definitions on addiction and are arguing over the minor points.
Basically,
Addiction is when you need to do some activity continuously to function normally. No more psychological wrangling is required. By that simple definition...

1. Smoking is addictive, no matter easy or hard anyone may find it to stop (In fact, Nicotine is only slightly less addicitive than Heroin) 95% of smokers are addicted in some way to nicotine.
2. Everquest and games like it can be addictive if players begin to have a dependence on playing the game to function normally, or worse start to consider the EQ world as their reality. However....
3. Games do not cause people to commit suicide. It is a factor yes, but a very small one.
4. Anyone can get addicted to something, no matter how great their self-will may be. It's a fact of life.

So yes, there's my 20 cents. Sorry if this sounded like a flame.

---

/agree

Question for Mr Es'Braewyn: Pretty much the same question for you. Where do you draw the line between choice and addiction?

Question for Mr Sage: I think we can all agree that this kid had problems even without EQ. Do you think it's possible that, for someone with a messed up head like him, matters of choice can become matters of addiction? That, perhaps, the little "ding" of each level and the small surge of pleasure it brings had become truely addictive to this kids messed up mind?

Question for Mr Es'Braewyn: Just how messed up do you think someone would have to be for something like EQ to be truely addictive? Would they have to be seriously messed up at first, or could it be something subtile that goes unnoticed till it's set off?

quote:

---

Palador ChibiDragon painfully thought these words up:
Question for Mr Sage: Part of what you're saying isn't clear to me. You say that it's a matter of choice, not addiction. However, there's allways a choice. Even a lab rat can choose not to push the button for another pellet or hit of crack. So, where do you draw the line between choice and addiction?

Question for Mr Es'Braewyn: Pretty much the same question for you. Where do you draw the line between choice and addiction?

Question for Mr Sage: I think we can all agree that this kid had problems even without EQ. Do you think it's possible that, for someone with a messed up head like him, matters of choice can become matters of addiction? That, perhaps, the little "ding" of each level and the small surge of pleasure it brings had become truely addictive to this kids messed up mind?

Question for Mr Es'Braewyn: Just how messed up do you think someone would have to be for something like EQ to be truely addictive? Would they have to be seriously messed up at first, or could it be something subtile that goes unnoticed till it's set off?

---

Question 1) It's always a choice in the begining. We all make them, it's part of who we are, and who we eventually become. It no longer becomes a choice when you think, "Man I need a cigarette", because something particularly stressfull just happened. Or when you come home from work or school and really the only thing on your mind is sitting down to check where you last logged your Mage before leaving to work/school that morning. Instead of say hugging your kids, or getting some work done.

It's then when you take a step back and say "Hey, why am I doing this again." or "Hey, why am I not doing this instead" that you get to make another choice, which some people can stop and break away, while others it may take longer for them to get to the point of stepping back.

For Question 2) Really not all that messed up, I mean having an over stressful day at work can get you started on it or a bad day at school. And then you get on for some stress relief, and next time you have another said day you do the same thing. Till eventually, you get to the point where the only time you are happy is when you are hackin stuff, and it becomes a priority. NO for someone to become sucicidal, or to THAT extreme of addiction, you'd have to be pretty messed up to begin with. And there would be signs for parents and love ones to notice. There would almost have to be.

quote:

---

Palador ChibiDragon probably says this to all the girls:
Question for Mr Sage: Part of what you're saying isn't clear to me. You say that it's a matter of choice, not addiction. However, there's allways a choice. Even a lab rat can choose not to push the button for another pellet or hit of crack. So, where do you draw the line between choice and addiction?

Question for Mr Es'Braewyn: Pretty much the same question for you. Where do you draw the line between choice and addiction?

Question for Mr Sage: I think we can all agree that this kid had problems even without EQ. Do you think it's possible that, for someone with a messed up head like him, matters of choice can become matters of addiction? That, perhaps, the little "ding" of each level and the small surge of pleasure it brings had become truely addictive to this kids messed up mind?

Question for Mr Es'Braewyn: Just how messed up do you think someone would have to be for something like EQ to be truely addictive? Would they have to be seriously messed up at first, or could it be something subtile that goes unnoticed till it's set off?

---

Lab rats do not have a choice. They are animals.

It is our cognitive ability that sets us, as humans, apart from lab rats, who have no say in their conditioning.

Addiction is a physical response to the introduction of certain chemicals to the body. There is a physiological reaction in which the body alters its chemistry in response to the new substance.

Compulsion is a psychological flaw, resulting in the inability to recognize or make certain choices.

In an addiction, something outside the individual is at fault. With compulsive behavior, the individual is at fault.

The distinction is important, because each situation requires a different response. Heroin is addictive, therefore it is illegal. If EQ is addictive, it should be illegal, because it would be to blame for the abnormal behaviors.

With obsessive or compulsive behavior, the trigger is not at fault. The individual has problems, which must be treated. If people obsess over EQ, they need treatment. The game does not need to be regulated.

While nicotine, for example, is highly addictive, it is not present in sufficient quantities in cigarettes to warrant the same kind of control as heroine or morphine. People conveniently claim to be addicted because it absolves them from responsibility for their behavior, and lets them avoid confronting their own weakness.

Hope that clears up your question.

Your second question is: no. It is not addiction. It is compulsion or obsession. See the above discussion.

quote:

---

Verily, Bloodsage doth proclaim:
While nicotine, for example, is highly addictive, it is not present in sufficient quantities in cigarettes to warrant the same kind of control as heroine or morphine. People conveniently claim to be addicted because it absolves them from responsibility for their behavior, and lets them avoid confronting their own weakness.

---

Actually I read somewhere that nicotine was more addictive then heroine/cocaine/I don't remember........??? 'Splain plz? Maybe I'll try to look it up in a bit...*is too lazy and probably won't*....

It is also the basis behind some bi polar aflictions and other similar mental conditions.

So in that sense, it is perfectly reasonable that a game, or any other form of personal enjoyment could cause an addictive nature. For instance, some people are addicted to excerise. And yes they are addicted. Because of alterations to thier outlook and perspective.

It's just not the same for everyone.

quote:

---

Faeth Es'Braewyn had this to say about Knight Rider:
Vices can be, and are often concidered flaws. Character flaws if nothing else. And vices can also be unconcious, and something that you should have the will power to overcome when brought to your attention or discovered on your own.

I also made the comparison to you being a smoker, and the fact that you chose to do it and some point in your life. Which means you gave into an outside influence. And also backed up my explaination of seeking help yourself is often no more then stepping back and saying "Hey thats enough." But you still gave in in the first place to a compulsive behavior, which smoking is concidered. You gave in because it did something for you. Or at least thats the most common case. But that doesn't make you a weak person, anymore than it makes someone else weak for giving into a game that they get something out of.

It is a habit that can be broken, by yourself, or by help. But it's still a formed habit, chosen or not chosen. And we are all susceptible to them. Some more than others, but then those people who have that flaw. May not be flawed in another area where you are. So it is not fair to say someone is weaker against yourself.

---

No.

I did not "give in to outside forces." No one forced me to do anything against my will, which is what this discussion is about.

You should read what I wrote more carefully.

I chose to start. I chose to stop. End of discussion.

Nor is your belief in what I say the least bit relevant--and if you don't want to make this personal, you should have accepted my answer to your question. You're not qualified to dispute it, and your vague mumblings of "I think not" represent no more than rather lame attempts to cast doubt upon my word.

Which annoys me, whether you intend malice or not.

Additionally, your rather odd characterization of my debate as some kind of compulsion or addiction, over which I have no control is both baseless and insulting. Again, it represents nothing more than an amateur attempt to make the discussion both personal and personally insulting, as if my credibility somehow depended upon me measuring up to your arbitrary standard.

It doesn't.

I choose the topics I debate, and I pass as many by as I engage. Your claim that I have no control is nonsensical and self-serving.

It may be, as you say, that you aren't doing any of that intentionally, that you simply lack the debate skill to argue impersonally. If that is true, take this hint and back off the discussion of my personality--you have no basis from which to make the assertions you have, and I'm getting tired of correcting you.

Fundamentally, you are attempting an ad hominem argument: you are saying that if I, personally, admit to any weakness, then my argument is invalid. That is a logical fallacy, and simply lets you avoid the issue of free will and choice that began the conversation.

What is my qualification to assert what I have? I'm widely read in philosophy. Less so in psychology, but I have background there also. Additionally, I live by the philosophy I advocate.

Sorry if that offends your sensibilities.

Now, if you have a point to make that doesn't involve attempts to denigrate my character, feel free to proceed. But all you've said so far equates to "Nuh-uh, and you're not perfect, so you can't talk!"

quote:

---

Kloie Model 2000 was programmed to say:
Actually I read somewhere that nicotine was more addictive then heroine/cocaine/I don't remember........??? 'Splain plz? Maybe I'll try to look it up in a bit...*is too lazy and probably won't*....

---

Don't believe everything you read about cigarettes--there is as much disinformation on the anti-smoking side as there is from tobacco companies.

In its pure form, nicotine is highly addictive. It's just that the dosage normal smokers get is nowhere near that of the average heroine user.

As I said in another thread, caffeine withdrawal is more physically painful than quitting smoking. The hard part about quitting smoking is not breaking the addiction, but breaking the habit.

That's a huge distinction.

quote:

---

Skaw Model 2000 was programmed to say:
Why did you start smoking, Sage?

---

Originally? When I was 10, I wanted to be like my parents, and like the older kids, so I decided to start.

No one asked me or pressured me. I said, "Hey, that looks interesting, I think I'll try that."

Later, when I wanted to do something else, I quit.

Granted, it was poor judgment, but I wasn't a victim of coercion of any sort.

quote:

---

Bloodsage's fortune cookie read:
I wanted to be like my parents

---

And thats not an outside force, how?

quote:

---

Nobody really understood why Skaw wrote:
And thats not an outside force, how?

---

It's not an outside force because it was my choice.

Have you been up on the conversation to this point?

We are discussing free will, and the ability to make choices. By your definition, there can be no such thing as free will, because everything has been done before, and hence is an "outside influence."

It was a choice in that I looked around at the world, and chose which people and things I wanted to emulate, and which not. I also adopted unique things to do. At that age, I knew kids who were doing drugs--it was the mid-'70s, after all! I chose not to be like that.

If you have a specific question about what I'm trying to say, you can simply ask, you know.

It may be hard to believe, but I've thought about these things, and I'm quite consistent in what I think.

quote:

---

Bloodsage had this to say about Punky Brewster:
Originally? When I was 10, I wanted to be like my parents, and like the older kids, so I decided to start.

---

My dad started when he was 13 and didn't quit until he was up to a pack a day at 45 (and even then, he was forced to quit for medical reasons...)

I think eval peer pressure got him, but I don't think he's ever really said....

He did eventually die of lung cancer, but he was over 90 . . .

Reminds me of the one about the guy who went in for his annual checkup. He asked his doctor, "What do I need to do to live to be 100?"

The doctor looked at him. "Do you smoke?"

"No"

"Do you drink?"

"Not a drop."

"Do you stay out all night covorting with loose women?"

"Never!"

"Then what the hell do you want to live to be 100 for?!"

quote:

---

How.... Bloodsage.... uughhhhhh:
No.
I did not "give in to outside forces." No one forced me to do anything against my will, which is what this discussion is about.

---

If it was not an outside force, and you didn't get anything out of it. Then why did you make the choice to start with?

You youself said you did, because its what the kids and adults were doing. That is an outside influence.

And I thought this discussion was about addictive behaviour, a condition which is never forced. It's something you initial choose to get into, but may or may not have a hard time getting out of.

quote:

---

Nor is your belief in what I say the least bit relevant--and if you don't want to make this personal, you should have accepted my answer to your question.

---

This is a debate, I used you as a subject because of it. Questioning a responce is part of the process. I wasn't attempting to attck you, I was questioning your views. Which is what I am trying to define. Whether mine are wrong or right, same for you, is something that has to be questioned in order to clarify the ansewer. This is the same as if you questioned my views to find out why I hold mine.

quote:

---

You're not qualified to dispute it, and your vague mumblings of "I think not" represent no more than rather lame attempts to cast doubt upon my word.

Which annoys me, whether you intend malice or not.

---

Again, you are no more qualified than I am, yet you are debating it. And of course I'm questioning doubt. Thats part of finding an answer. It is still not an attack. And I have not be derogatory in my speech in anyway. If it annoys you, then why does it annoy you? Because I'm questioning you? Can you not be questioned? That makes no sense to me. Escpecially if Im civil about it. If I was being a total ass, and condeming you for your views and just cutting you down and every turn. Then I could see how it would be bad, otherwise I don't see it.

quote:

---

Additionally, your rather odd characterization of my debate as some kind of compulsion or addiction, over which I have no control is both baseless and insulting. Again, it represents nothing more than an amateur attempt to make the discussion both personal and personally insulting, as if my credibility somehow depended upon me measuring up to your arbitrary standard.

---

I personally don't care how you measure up. And how is it baseless? You have never backed down from a debate, that Im aware of, so it seems that you have to continue. That would appear conpulsive. And is often associated with addictive behavior.

quote:

---

It may be, as you say, that you aren't doing any of that intentionally, that you simply lack the debate skill to argue impersonally. If that is true, take this hint and back off the discussion of my personality--you have no basis from which to make the assertions you have, and I'm getting tired of correcting you.

---

...

quote:

---

Fundamentally, you are attempting an ad hominem argument: you are saying that if I, personally, admit to any weakness, then my argument is invalid. That is a logical fallacy, and simply lets you avoid the issue of free will and choice that began the conversation.

---

Yes this is correct, trying to make you see my point. Bringing up a basis for you to have comparison personally. And the conversation was, and is about addiction and compulsiveness. Free will, and choice are inherantly part of that. As everything starts, and sometimes ends on choice and will. Either individulally, or with assistance. I have no stepped out of the bounds of this discussion in that regard.

quote:

---

What is my qualification to assert what I have? I'm widely read in philosophy. Less so in psychology, but I have background there also. Additionally, I live by the philosophy I advocate.

---

I also have quite a bit of history in physcology, having dealt with family mental illness, and also being on staff as a councelor for teens of alcoholics and rape victims. I was also trained under, certified doctor supervision to deal with particular situations among teens and pre teens. On philosphy, I have very little backing at all.

quote:

---

Sorry if that offends your sensibilities.

---

Condesending tones, and immediate dis-creditbility for adverse views offends my sensibilities.

quote:

---

Now, if you have a point to make that doesn't involve attempts to denigrate my character, feel free to proceed. But all you've said so far equates to "Nuh-uh, and you're not perfect, so you can't talk

---

You character is not in question, nor has it ever been unless you fear accepting adverse views as correct, and dislike them. Or if you just dislike them in general because they are adverse to your own.

[ 04-09-2002: Message edited by: Faeth Es'Braewyn ]

quote:

---

Bloodsage wrote this stupid crap:
It's not an outside force because it was my choice.

Have you been up on the conversation to this point?

We are discussing free will, and the ability to make choices. By your definition, there can be no such thing as free will, because everything has been done before, and hence is an "outside influence."

It was a choice in that I looked around at the world, and chose which people and things I wanted to emulate, and which not. I also adopted unique things to do. At that age, I knew kids who were doing drugs--it was the mid-'70s, after all! I chose not to be like that.

If you have a specific question about what I'm trying to say, you can simply ask, you know.

It may be hard to believe, but I've thought about these things, and I'm quite consistent in what I think.

---

An outside force is what causes you to be at the point where you make a choice. To do or not to do something.

Free will has nothing to do with addiction as anything more than getting you started. Yes you have free will, and yes you can make the choice to start something. Addiction takes place after the choice is made. You get a choice again at some point during an addiction to break it or ignore it. But addiction is no involved with free will. If yu make the choice not to start something, then you never got involved in an addiction or compulsive behavior to begin with, and therefore has nothing to do with this conversation.

This conversation was started on the debate of addiction to a game, and extreme addictions as a possible cause for suicide over a game.

As far as the nicotine is almost as addictive as heroin/blow from what I've heard from my friends it's more-so. A lot of my friends used to be addicted to blow and they said it took them a couple of weeks of getting blown out every day before they were fully addicted however it only took me a week ( and them ) to get addicted to cigarettes.

It probably has something to do with what tobacco manufacturers do to cigarettes to make more nicotine get to your brain when you smoke and all that other stuff but commercial cigarettes are probably more addictive then blow or H.

You are not qualified to doubt when I answer a question about me. Period.

When you ask me a question about me, you haven't a choice other than to accept the answer.

Questioning my qualifications to answer personal questions is just silly, and shows you aren't paying attention. I am the only one qualified to answer personal questions about me.

If you doubt the answer, you should never have asked the question, because you have no basis for doubt, except that my answer did not fit your preconceived notion of what you wanted it to be.

So leave off discussing me.

Now.

You don't get more warnings.

If you can't hang in a conversation involving concepts rather than people, you should work on your technique. Either begin discussing relevant ideas, or back out gracefully.

~~~

As for the smoking bit, you're not making any sense.

I chose to start. I chose to quit.

Explain exactly how I did anything I did not intend to do.

Remember the discussion of free will, choice, and responsibility for one's actions?

Addiction is a physical, chemical thing. End of story.

Caffeine is addictive. So what? Caffeine withdrawal is more painful than nicotine withdrawal. So what?

There is absolutely no way EQ can be addictive, which was my earlier point. It follows, then, that there is no way for EQ to be responsible for anyone's behavior.

Granted, some who play these games have a particular psychological flaw which leads to obsessive or compulsive behavior. But that is a flaw in certain individuals, and it is the individual who is responsible for the behavior, rather than whatever external trigger became the focus of destructive behaviors.

The nature of being human, as I have said, is that we have choices. Lab rats do not have those choices. Making excuses for those who choose not to make certain choices does not absolve their personal responsibility for their actions.

Weakness and strength are comparative terms. Yes, someone who "cannot" quit playing EQ, even when the obsession is destroying his or her life, is weak, lacking the necessary self-discipline. Same with any other destructive habit.

It is a psychological problem.

Not the norm.

An addiction is a very different thing. It's perfectly normal to say, "I can't stop shooting heroine without medical help." It's not normal to say, "I can't quit playing video games, even though I want to."

Capisce?

quote:

---

Bloodsage had this to say about Tron:
Lab rats do not have a choice. They are animals.

It is our cognitive ability that sets us, as humans, apart from lab rats, who have no say in their conditioning.

---

I mostly understand this part of your answer. However, I've seen animals break conditioning for no known reason. I've also seen little kids getting trained by conditioning (potty training, fire hurts, ect). Despite these gray areas, I do agree with you on this. Cool.

quote:

---

Addiction is a physical response to the introduction of certain chemicals to the body. There is a physiological reaction in which the body alters its chemistry in response to the new substance.

Compulsion is a psychological flaw, resulting in the inability to recognize or make certain choices.

---

Mostly, I agree with this as well. However, there's something I recall. Scientists with too much free time (and likely working for the government) proved that people can get addicted to hot peppers. The pain of eating one causes the body to release chemicals to make you cope with the pain better. People can get hooked on that release, and thereby get hooked on the peppers that cause it. Same thing with the "runner's high" that people talk about. It's there, and detectable.

Do you think it's possible for some poor, unbalanced person to be so emotionally involved in a game that they get an endorphin (is that the right word?) high whenever they "ding"?

Yah, they would have to be messed up before hand, and be obsessing about the game allready, but couldn't this become at least a mild form of a real addiction, much like the peppers?

(Whoops! Just re-read your post, and found my answer. Don't feel the need to repeat yourself to answer this if you don't want to.)

quote:

---

Faeth Es'Braewyn had this to say about Jimmy Carter:
You have never backed down from a debate, that Im aware of, so it seems that you have to continue. That would appear conpulsive. And is often associated with addictive behavior.

---

Just have to stick my nose in here. Once, after 'Sage and I went at it in a thread, I jumped into another 'Sage argument with a joke inspired by how he had ripped into me a couple days before. I didn't do that good of a job making the joke though, so it looked like a cheap shot at him. He laid into me for it.

When I realized that I had messed up, I said so. He backed off right away, and there were no hard feelings. He could have pressed the argument then, but he didn't. If he feels it needs to be left alone, he will leave it alone.

Not to mention, his backing off nicely after I said I was sorry also destroyed my own argument with him (which had been me saying that he didn't have good manners in debates).

quote:

---

Bloodsage had this to say about Punky Brewster:

There is absolutely no way EQ can be addictive, which was my earlier point. It follows, then, that there is no way for EQ to be responsible for anyone's behavior.

Granted, some who play these games have a particular psychological flaw which leads to obsessive or compulsive behavior. But that is a flaw in certain individuals, and it is the individual who is responsible for the behavior, rather than whatever external trigger became the focus of destructive behaviors.

The nature of being human, as I have said, is that we have choices. Lab rats do not have those choices. Making excuses for those who choose not to make certain choices does not absolve their personal responsibility for their actions.

Weakness and strength are comparative terms. Yes, someone who "cannot" quit playing EQ, even when the obsession is destroying his or her life, is weak, lacking the necessary self-discipline. Same with any other destructive habit.

It is a psychological problem.

Not the norm.

An addiction is a very different thing. It's perfectly normal to say, "I can't stop shooting heroine without medical help." It's not normal to say, "I can't quit playing video games, even though I want to."

Capisce?

---

Fine off the topic of personal comparisons. But I will say, if you don't want it compared to you. Don't claim everyone who doesn't react the same as you or deal with sitations the same as you, as weak individuals. That is you putting yourself, in the personal comparison by your own argument. In a sense, comparing anothers weakness and proclaiming it based off your own ideals and philosophies.

-------------------------------

As I stated, emotional responces stmulated in certain individuals, to extent all indivduals depending on thier already apparent nature, can trigger phsycological responces. Which can in fact trigger addictive behavior. You can in fact become addicted to something that gives you pleasure that is NOT attributed to a narcotic, such as heroin/nicotine/etc.

And free will and choices again, play no part in addictive OR compulsive behavior OTHER than being the begining factor in the equation. If possible, at some point, depending on the individual, the ending factor.

If a game, ANY game, gives a person the correct stimulatory responce needed to trigger a certain responce in THAT individual. It is in fact possible for them to become addicted to it.

And again, it is not the fault of the company because of the makeup of an individual, but the possibility is still there for addiction. A warning label would just be plain stupid. This still however, does not make all individuals weak because of this.

Acholholics, Gambling Addicts, Excercise Addicts, Game Addicts, Drug Addicts. There are addictive variants of all. Even if most are merely compulsive. And even compulsive people are not weak specfically because of thier metal makeup.

And yes, a human being CAN be conditioned, much the same way as a lab rat. This doesn't make the test subject weak, but they are however chosen based off an already known exploitable mental makeup. It is not thier fault.

In fact if you really think about our whole entire lives are in part a mental conditioning from infacy, in order to become effect parts of the human experiment.

Anything you may have seen as a pesonal attack, honestly was not meant as such. I used you for a subject, and obviously that bothers you. And for that I am sorry, it was not my intention to attack or demeen your character.

And just in case we ARE actually on two different topics here, I wanted to clear up what I am actually discussing so you can tell me if we are even on the same page. I came into this discussion on the Addiction aspect of the coversation, and in responce to Addiction and Compulsive behavior making an individual weak. If this is not correct, then Im on the wrong page. If not, this is what I have been discussing thus far.

And the main reason my responces we attached to you, was for your original comments claiming weakness. And even in that, I am not, nor will I attempt to make an attack on your person.

It is not possible to become addicted without introducing chemicals into the body. The very term "addictive beahvior" is an oxymoron meaning "obsessive behavior."

Pop psychology has latched onto the term "addiction" as an all-purpose way to describe destructive behaviors simply because it fits into the currently vogue notion that people are not responsible for their actions. In short, it's a way to get grant money by playing to people's prejudices.

And I fail to see where you get off telling me that I said I was better than everyone else, or that I projected my behavior onto the situation as a substitute for critical thinking. Point to where that happened, or retract the statement.

If you would quit making excuses for defective people for a minute, you'd see that obsessive/compulsive behavior is not the norm. Normal people do not exhibit such destructive behaviors.

Making excuses for them simply makes the problem worse--after all, if such behavior is normal, there's no need to seek treatment, right?

But your entire argument is moot, because such things are the exception rather than the rule. People with self-destructive obsessions or compulsions are a very small minority.

It is neither normal nor acceptible to behave in such ways.

Even your allegation of "outside influence" is logically flawed nonsense. Emulating someone else, by choice, is not a case of influence in any meaningful sense of the word as it pertains to this discussion. Claiming to be unable to make such a choice, or to have been forced into a mode of behavior due advertising, peer pressure, or whatever would have been relevant.

You seem rather confused regarding what it means to choose, and how being responsible for one's actions translates into behavior.

Smoking, for example, is indeed mildly addictive. Far and away the biggest barrier to quitting, however, is the self-discipline required to cease the habit. Not the physical withdrawal or the craving for nicotine.

That's why many smokers gain weight when they quit: exchanging the habit of lighting up for the habit of snacking is easier than truly modifying one's behavior. That's why nicotine patches aren't all that effective: they leave the harder half of the problem unsolved.

No one said changing habits is easy. The ability to choose, however, is what makes us unique as human beings.

To deny not only the obligation, but the ability to choose is to deny our humanity in favor of being a lab rat, acted upon by forces we neither understand nor control.

I think that's bullshit.

Simply because a small minority of defective people who obsess over various things don't want to feel inferior, or bad about themselves, is no reason to deny or cheapen what it means to be human.