Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Ask God -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jamey who wrote (35265)	5/19/2003 12:10:20 PM
From: Berry Picker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 39621

James - that is a perfect example of a completely illogical assertion if I ever saw one. People do not seem to understand that assertion is not proof. The writer starts the article by attempting to prove that once you have been addicted to something that your brain will never again return to 'normal'. He starts off sounding very logical and scientific talking about "dopamine" and pointing out that many who quit using alcohol often increase in their smoking to compensate. This is true - I quit smoking 11 years ago and started eating additional food (sunflower seeds) however I doubt that any "dopamine" was being stimulated by those seeds it just kept me busy. Hethen assert that a "sense of power" would also compensate for the loss of alcohol and that therefore since Bush is in power he is stimulating "dopamine" with this feeling. How can an emotional feeling have the same effect as a substance like "alcohol, caffeine, codeine" or any other chemical? The person who is slandering Bush is pretending to be logical. Assertion is not proof. The person has several 'false premises' as well as utter assertion. Premise 1 - addictive substances chemically alter the mind. Premise 2 - Bush is an alcoholic Premise 3 - the brain can never be cured of a dependency on dopamine. Premise 4 - emotional feelings and pride can also stimulate dopamine Conclusion - Bush has replace alcohol with an insane appetite for power and pride. In order to accept a conclusion one must agree with all the "key" premises. Premise 1 - I do not know about the workings of addictive chemical within the body - I would have to trust the author at this point. Premise 2 - Is Bush an alcoholic? Is this a fact or an evil assertion? I do not know this to be fact. Premise 3 - Again, is this proven? None of the premises are proven by the author they are merely asserted My observation is that after I quit smoking I ate far too much. I still eat too much but I do not eat because I feel like smoking. I have also heard that many alcoholics will drink coffee like mad. Later, however, they sometime quit coffee altogether. What this author has said is that you must replace addictive substances with something else. Am I too believe that no alcoholic that quit drinking is without such a vice in some area? I would have to have that proven. I think the early stages of a battle with addictive substances are not indicative of the rest of ones life. Did Bush just quit drinking recently? I am not convinced of this premise either. Premise 4 - how does this author go from a substance exchange ie alcohol to additional smoking and then from an exchange of a substance to an emotional imbalance? Surely this is a huge leap of 'faith' in reasoning. He did nothing to prove that emotions like excitement or pride have anything to do with having been an alcoholic. Surely all of us subject to such failing, why would an ex-alcoholic be any more subject than the rest of us? Does a weakness in one area prove weakness in all? My experience is that alcohol is a form of hiding while aggressive behaviour is the opposite and often not expressed while they are yet sober. I, personally, do not see any connection between an assumed pride and power problem and having drank too much in the past. Now I have not been able to accept the premises as facts. They appear to me to be only assertions based on very limited observations and false assumptions that serve the purpose of reaching a desired conclusion therefore the conclusion is not proven but merely an opinion. Just another belief based upon 'fluff' Conclusion - The statement that "Bush has replace alcohol with an insane appetite for power and pride." is nothing more than an evil accusation. Bush is innocent of such slander until proven guilty. This person has done nothing to prove that the premises are in fact correct. If Bush is a reformed alcoholic how is it proven that an ego problem if he even has one is a result of having been alcoholic. This author is being ridiculous to say the least. Unfortunately this author is typical of how people go through the process of trying to appear to have thought things through in a logical manner when really they are nothing more false accusers and blind railers. Surely if he has good points he spoiled them with trying to convict Bush as a reformed alcoholic. MY CONCLUSION If Bush is now dispoiled forever because of alcohol then so are all alcoholics or ex-addicts of any kind. We would need a law that if a man was ever addicted to anything he should not be allowed to hold office. That is if what he said were in fact true. It is not true and this lie spoiled his entire paper. I worked on felix and he is 'half baked' :-) My wife likes it so far. It's so nice to have fans.