Quote
mickschix
It's too bad he's such an A**hole really because his show is great! It makes me really laugh!!

Quote
stoned in washington dc
i like it.

its refreshing.

its different


and ultimately whats wrong with someone living their life the way they want to live? he wants to do drugs? so what? i mean he has the money for them.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Wry Cooter

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Wry Cooter

Quote
71Tele
Saw his interview this morning, where he was talking about his sobriety while obviously under the influence of something. Pretty amusing if it wasn't so transparently pathetic. I do agree with him about AA though. While it helps some people, AA's success rate is no better than any other program - or even no program at all. But somehow they have insinuated themselves into the US system (including the courts) as the "official" treatment for people with alcohol problems. There is just no proof that no person can cure themselves of a drinking problem, or that a problem drinker (or even serious alcoholic) must go to meetings the rest of their lives. AA asks us to accept all of this on faith. That doesn't mean I think that Sheen is serious about having solved his problems himself. he certainly does not look like someone who has come to any great realization that his behavior is responsible for most if not all of his problems. I am only saying the idea that AA is for everyone or the only path is a crock.

As someone who regularly attends AA (19 years sober next month), I would be the first to tell you that AA isn't for everyone. As far as success rates go, AA makes no claims -- however it is my experience that people who *work* the program generally get better. But not everyone is up for the "spiritual" aspect of it (not religious and certainly not defined -- I know several sober atheists). Your remark that AA has "insinuated" into the "US system" as the "official" treatment is absurd and patently off base. There is no promotion associated with AA. Any decisions of courts or treatment centers are theirs alone. There is no governing body of AA per se -- just recovering alcoholics helping other alcoholics. Certainly some members can act like zealots (and A-holes!) -- in my experience they are a small minority. Also I have never been told I have to go to meetings the rest of my life -- never heard anyone say that -- in fact I'm told to take it a day at a time.

"The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking."

You are entitled to your opinion and I certainly don't wish to get in a pissing match here, But so much criticism of AA is wildly misinformed and often mean-spirited. It saved my life, y'know?

And I sure don't think it's for Keith!

I'm glad it saved your life - but YOU saved your life, not AA. As I said, I don't doubt it helps some people. Court-ordered attendance at AA meetings is a common occurence in the U.S., contrary to your statement. Much of AA is based on faith. When you try to reason with an AA counselor you get a lot of circular logic and catchphrases. My objections to AA (and there are many) are focused on the fact that it is an ideology which must be accepted on faith, not a medical treatment. AA does not allow the possibility that anyone can cure themselves, when there is absolutely no basis for that belief. AA doctrine insists that one MUST attend meetings - forever, or one has failed. This is the ideology of a cult, not of a sound medical or even psychological practice.

Yes, AA helps people who "work the program", and for those people AA is a Godsend. If the price one pays for giving up destructive behavior is buying into AA's ideology, then that's fine with me - but it's still an ideology. A judge forcing someone to attend AA meetings, even if AA's doctrine's violate the person's religious or philosophical beliefs is an example of what I called AA's insinuation into our institutions. There is simply no medical or scientific proof that AA is better than willpower, aversion therapy, or even moderation. It all depends on the person, the particulars of their problem, etc. I am quite sure there are many people who simply cannot take a drink. The problem is AA's insistence that it is simply not possible for ANY problem drinker to moderate their drinking, or never go to another meeting once they've stopped, etc. Again, this is doctrine taken on faith, not medical science.

Obviously addressing the falsehoods you state does no good. AA does not make the claims you attribute to it, nor definitive statements, though you do. Obviously you are angry at AA -- I couldn't know why -- but there is no need to spread BS.

Anyway, against my better judgement:

There is no such thing as an "AA Counselor".

AA is not associated or aligned with any outside entity. If a court sends someone to AA that has nothing to do with AA itself or its philosophy.

AA makes no claims for anyone who doesn't want the program or criticize other therapies. If willpower works for you then more power to you.

AA has no opinion on outside issues -- and has long been supported by the medical community. The literature encourages getting outside help.

AA states that this is how we did it -- not how you must do it. I know for myself that I cannot drink one drink safely -- and I do not want to. But again, if you or someone can -- "we tip our hat!"

I could go on but what's the point? But you are wrong about one more thing. It did save my life.

Enjoy your path....

I'm not angry at all. And you are repeating typical AA defenses. Party line stuff they always say when criticized. If AA doesn't have "counselors" it certainly has people who play that role, though they may call themselves something different. I spoke with them. I apologize if I used the incorrect nomencalture. My experience with AA made me learn more about it. AA is an ideology based on faith, not a medically-proven treatment program. Again, I have no problem with people belonging to it or benefiting from it. I DO have a problem with some of the misconceptions people have about it, and its intrusion into the court system, business, etc. I'm not even an atheist, so the "higher power" bit does not even trouble me. My objections are that I feel it is intellectually dishonest in the way it presents itself. You obviously have a need to defend it. Fair enough. And arguing with you about whether AA or YOU were the agency that "saved your life" is as useless as arguing with someone convinced that Jesus did, or Hare Krishna for that matter. Again, if that works for you, I have no problem. Hats off to you for taking the steps needed to turn things around. I certainly am not judging YOU. I feel the AA ideology - and it IS an ideology - is intellectually dishonest, and I have stated my reasons for that opinion. The idea that anyone with a substance abuse problem should run off and do a 12-step program has become consensus reality in our culture. It simply is not the answer for every person or every problem. So maybe we agree about that.

Just so you know, for the most part, I have no argument with your last post and your problem with AA's ideology (or any ideology) or individuals or our culture in general and how they approach AA. I appreciate a dialogue. Personally I have a lot of trouble with the way some people promote AA, which to me goes against the actual philosophies of AA's 12 traditions.

Anyway, from here we can agree to disagree -- my desire to "defend" AA seems to me to be on the same level as your desire to attack it. I think you have made many misstatements that are inaccurate and unfair. You claim I promote misstatements from the party line on the reality of AA. No sense in taking it beyond here. I admit that it "saved my life" is entirely subjective. I could actually spell out how that happened -- including my own hard work and participation -- but that would be useless here.

One last thing -- I have studied it's history and can be critical of AA, and my participation in it does not preclude me from seeking therapy, medical attention, other groups, philosophies, spiritualities, ideas and so forth. My stance is that I think much criticism of AA is based on misconceptions or flat out lies. I'd prefer criticism be based on facts, and perhaps that subjective principle, truth.

Quote
mickschix
It's too bad he's such an A**hole really because his show is great! It makes me really laugh!!

Quote
Wry Cooter

Quote
71Tele

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Wry Cooter

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Wry Cooter

Quote
71Tele
Saw his interview this morning, where he was talking about his sobriety while obviously under the influence of something. Pretty amusing if it wasn't so transparently pathetic. I do agree with him about AA though. While it helps some people, AA's success rate is no better than any other program - or even no program at all. But somehow they have insinuated themselves into the US system (including the courts) as the "official" treatment for people with alcohol problems. There is just no proof that no person can cure themselves of a drinking problem, or that a problem drinker (or even serious alcoholic) must go to meetings the rest of their lives. AA asks us to accept all of this on faith. That doesn't mean I think that Sheen is serious about having solved his problems himself. he certainly does not look like someone who has come to any great realization that his behavior is responsible for most if not all of his problems. I am only saying the idea that AA is for everyone or the only path is a crock.

As someone who regularly attends AA (19 years sober next month), I would be the first to tell you that AA isn't for everyone. As far as success rates go, AA makes no claims -- however it is my experience that people who *work* the program generally get better. But not everyone is up for the "spiritual" aspect of it (not religious and certainly not defined -- I know several sober atheists). Your remark that AA has "insinuated" into the "US system" as the "official" treatment is absurd and patently off base. There is no promotion associated with AA. Any decisions of courts or treatment centers are theirs alone. There is no governing body of AA per se -- just recovering alcoholics helping other alcoholics. Certainly some members can act like zealots (and A-holes!) -- in my experience they are a small minority. Also I have never been told I have to go to meetings the rest of my life -- never heard anyone say that -- in fact I'm told to take it a day at a time.

"The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking."

You are entitled to your opinion and I certainly don't wish to get in a pissing match here, But so much criticism of AA is wildly misinformed and often mean-spirited. It saved my life, y'know?

And I sure don't think it's for Keith!

I'm glad it saved your life - but YOU saved your life, not AA. As I said, I don't doubt it helps some people. Court-ordered attendance at AA meetings is a common occurence in the U.S., contrary to your statement. Much of AA is based on faith. When you try to reason with an AA counselor you get a lot of circular logic and catchphrases. My objections to AA (and there are many) are focused on the fact that it is an ideology which must be accepted on faith, not a medical treatment. AA does not allow the possibility that anyone can cure themselves, when there is absolutely no basis for that belief. AA doctrine insists that one MUST attend meetings - forever, or one has failed. This is the ideology of a cult, not of a sound medical or even psychological practice.

Yes, AA helps people who "work the program", and for those people AA is a Godsend. If the price one pays for giving up destructive behavior is buying into AA's ideology, then that's fine with me - but it's still an ideology. A judge forcing someone to attend AA meetings, even if AA's doctrine's violate the person's religious or philosophical beliefs is an example of what I called AA's insinuation into our institutions. There is simply no medical or scientific proof that AA is better than willpower, aversion therapy, or even moderation. It all depends on the person, the particulars of their problem, etc. I am quite sure there are many people who simply cannot take a drink. The problem is AA's insistence that it is simply not possible for ANY problem drinker to moderate their drinking, or never go to another meeting once they've stopped, etc. Again, this is doctrine taken on faith, not medical science.

Obviously addressing the falsehoods you state does no good. AA does not make the claims you attribute to it, nor definitive statements, though you do. Obviously you are angry at AA -- I couldn't know why -- but there is no need to spread BS.

Anyway, against my better judgement:

There is no such thing as an "AA Counselor".

AA is not associated or aligned with any outside entity. If a court sends someone to AA that has nothing to do with AA itself or its philosophy.

AA makes no claims for anyone who doesn't want the program or criticize other therapies. If willpower works for you then more power to you.

AA has no opinion on outside issues -- and has long been supported by the medical community. The literature encourages getting outside help.

AA states that this is how we did it -- not how you must do it. I know for myself that I cannot drink one drink safely -- and I do not want to. But again, if you or someone can -- "we tip our hat!"

I could go on but what's the point? But you are wrong about one more thing. It did save my life.

Enjoy your path....

I'm not angry at all. And you are repeating typical AA defenses. Party line stuff they always say when criticized. If AA doesn't have "counselors" it certainly has people who play that role, though they may call themselves something different. I spoke with them. I apologize if I used the incorrect nomencalture. My experience with AA made me learn more about it. AA is an ideology based on faith, not a medically-proven treatment program. Again, I have no problem with people belonging to it or benefiting from it. I DO have a problem with some of the misconceptions people have about it, and its intrusion into the court system, business, etc. I'm not even an atheist, so the "higher power" bit does not even trouble me. My objections are that I feel it is intellectually dishonest in the way it presents itself. You obviously have a need to defend it. Fair enough. And arguing with you about whether AA or YOU were the agency that "saved your life" is as useless as arguing with someone convinced that Jesus did, or Hare Krishna for that matter. Again, if that works for you, I have no problem. Hats off to you for taking the steps needed to turn things around. I certainly am not judging YOU. I feel the AA ideology - and it IS an ideology - is intellectually dishonest, and I have stated my reasons for that opinion. The idea that anyone with a substance abuse problem should run off and do a 12-step program has become consensus reality in our culture. It simply is not the answer for every person or every problem. So maybe we agree about that.

Just so you know, for the most part, I have no argument with your last post and your problem with AA's ideology (or any ideology) or individuals or our culture in general and how they approach AA. I appreciate a dialogue. Personally I have a lot of trouble with the way some people promote AA, which to me goes against the actual philosophies of AA's 12 traditions.

Anyway, from here we can agree to disagree -- my desire to "defend" AA seems to me to be on the same level as your desire to attack it. I think you have made many misstatements that are inaccurate and unfair. You claim I promote misstatements from the party line on the reality of AA. No sense in taking it beyond here. I admit that it "saved my life" is entirely subjective. I could actually spell out how that happened -- including my own hard work and participation -- but that would be useless here.

One last thing -- I have studied it's history and can be critical of AA, and my participation in it does not preclude me from seeking therapy, medical attention, other groups, philosophies, spiritualities, ideas and so forth. My stance is that I think much criticism of AA is based on misconceptions or flat out lies. I'd prefer criticism be based on facts, and perhaps that subjective principle, truth.

Happy to agree to disagree, but I did not make one misstatement, let alone lie. Just ONE example (of many I could site) of AA's ideology: The concept of a "dry drunk". This is the AA term for someone who stops drinking on their own without going through their program, or the 12 steps. They dismiss anyone who stops drinking on their own or doesn't attend meetings as a "dry drunk", and they refuse to value that person's integrity. Again, this is cult-like behavior. Someone who leaves the group, or criticizes it, is dismissed. There is absolutely no scientific or medical basis in AA's concept of the "dry drunk". Yet I heard this term used over and over again by AA people (I won't call them "counselors", ok?) to dismiss people who stopped drinking without AA.

AA teaches people that they are powerless against "the disease". Again, if people choose to accept this and follow their path to stop drinking, I have no problem with them. I DO have a problem with AA's intellectual dishonesty, however, and the overall disease-model Treatment Industry that now exists in this country. Sorry you are so offended.

Also, you continue to conflate my specific criticisms of AA ideology with your own personal struggle, which I never did, so there is no need to recount your experience for me, as it has no material relationship to my criticisms of AA as a belief-system. I already said I acknowledge that many people quit drinking using AA.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-03-01 21:07 by 71Tele.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Wry Cooter

Quote
71Tele
Saw his interview this morning, where he was talking about his sobriety while obviously under the influence of something. Pretty amusing if it wasn't so transparently pathetic. I do agree with him about AA though. While it helps some people, AA's success rate is no better than any other program - or even no program at all. But somehow they have insinuated themselves into the US system (including the courts) as the "official" treatment for people with alcohol problems. There is just no proof that no person can cure themselves of a drinking problem, or that a problem drinker (or even serious alcoholic) must go to meetings the rest of their lives. AA asks us to accept all of this on faith. That doesn't mean I think that Sheen is serious about having solved his problems himself. he certainly does not look like someone who has come to any great realization that his behavior is responsible for most if not all of his problems. I am only saying the idea that AA is for everyone or the only path is a crock.

As someone who regularly attends AA (19 years sober next month), I would be the first to tell you that AA isn't for everyone. As far as success rates go, AA makes no claims -- however it is my experience that people who *work* the program generally get better. But not everyone is up for the "spiritual" aspect of it (not religious and certainly not defined -- I know several sober atheists). Your remark that AA has "insinuated" into the "US system" as the "official" treatment is absurd and patently off base. There is no promotion associated with AA. Any decisions of courts or treatment centers are theirs alone. There is no governing body of AA per se -- just recovering alcoholics helping other alcoholics. Certainly some members can act like zealots (and A-holes!) -- in my experience they are a small minority. Also I have never been told I have to go to meetings the rest of my life -- never heard anyone say that -- in fact I'm told to take it a day at a time.

"The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking."

You are entitled to your opinion and I certainly don't wish to get in a pissing match here, But so much criticism of AA is wildly misinformed and often mean-spirited. It saved my life, y'know?

And I sure don't think it's for Keith!

I'm glad it saved your life - but YOU saved your life, not AA. It's like saying "Jesus saved my life". Hey, whatever works. As I said, I don't doubt it helps some people. Court-ordered attendance at AA meetings is a common occurence in the U.S., contrary to your statement. Much of AA is based on faith. When you try to reason with an AA counselor you get a lot of circular logic and catchphrases. My objections to AA (and there are many) are focused on the fact that it is an ideology which must be accepted on faith, not a medical treatment. AA does not allow the possibility that anyone can cure themselves, when there is absolutely no basis for that belief. AA doctrine insists that one MUST attend meetings - forever, or one has failed. This is the ideology of a cult, not of a sound medical or even psychological practice.

I do have some experience dealing with a person close to me who was (always "is" in AA's belief system) an alcoholic. What I saw in AA counselors disturbed me very much. You can never question "the program". When you try to pin them down on specifics, you get jargon. I went into it with an open mind - or even a slight bias in favor of AA, but soon found myself asking unwelcome questions.

Yes, AA helps people who "work the program", and for those people AA is a godsend. If the price one pays for giving up destructive behavior is buying into AA's ideology, then that's fine with me - but it's still an ideology. A judge forcing someone to attend AA meetings, even if AA's doctrines violate the person's religious or philosophical beliefs is an example of what I called AA's insinuation into our institutions. There is simply no medical or scientific proof that AA is better than willpower, aversion therapy, or even moderation. It all depends on the person, the particulars of their problem, etc. I am quite sure there are many people who simply cannot take a drink. The problem is AA's insistence that it is simply not possible for ANY problem drinker to moderate their drinking, or never go to another meeting once they've stopped, etc. Again, this is doctrine taken on faith, not medical science.

Quote
BluzDude
Hey Charlie, so you think you are Keith? I know Keith (well, not exactly), and I'm telling you, you ain't no Keith Richards!

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
BluzDude
Hey Charlie, so you think you are Keith? I know Keith (well, not exactly), and I'm telling you, you ain't no Keith Richards!

uh, I'd say Sheen is more Keith than Keith is nowadays.

Quote
Brue

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Wry Cooter

Quote
71Tele
Saw his interview this morning, where he was talking about his sobriety while obviously under the influence of something. Pretty amusing if it wasn't so transparently pathetic. I do agree with him about AA though. While it helps some people, AA's success rate is no better than any other program - or even no program at all. But somehow they have insinuated themselves into the US system (including the courts) as the "official" treatment for people with alcohol problems. There is just no proof that no person can cure themselves of a drinking problem, or that a problem drinker (or even serious alcoholic) must go to meetings the rest of their lives. AA asks us to accept all of this on faith. That doesn't mean I think that Sheen is serious about having solved his problems himself. he certainly does not look like someone who has come to any great realization that his behavior is responsible for most if not all of his problems. I am only saying the idea that AA is for everyone or the only path is a crock.

As someone who regularly attends AA (19 years sober next month), I would be the first to tell you that AA isn't for everyone. As far as success rates go, AA makes no claims -- however it is my experience that people who *work* the program generally get better. But not everyone is up for the "spiritual" aspect of it (not religious and certainly not defined -- I know several sober atheists). Your remark that AA has "insinuated" into the "US system" as the "official" treatment is absurd and patently off base. There is no promotion associated with AA. Any decisions of courts or treatment centers are theirs alone. There is no governing body of AA per se -- just recovering alcoholics helping other alcoholics. Certainly some members can act like zealots (and A-holes!) -- in my experience they are a small minority. Also I have never been told I have to go to meetings the rest of my life -- never heard anyone say that -- in fact I'm told to take it a day at a time.

"The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking."

You are entitled to your opinion and I certainly don't wish to get in a pissing match here, But so much criticism of AA is wildly misinformed and often mean-spirited. It saved my life, y'know?

And I sure don't think it's for Keith!

I'm glad it saved your life - but YOU saved your life, not AA. It's like saying "Jesus saved my life". Hey, whatever works. As I said, I don't doubt it helps some people. Court-ordered attendance at AA meetings is a common occurence in the U.S., contrary to your statement. Much of AA is based on faith. When you try to reason with an AA counselor you get a lot of circular logic and catchphrases. My objections to AA (and there are many) are focused on the fact that it is an ideology which must be accepted on faith, not a medical treatment. AA does not allow the possibility that anyone can cure themselves, when there is absolutely no basis for that belief. AA doctrine insists that one MUST attend meetings - forever, or one has failed. This is the ideology of a cult, not of a sound medical or even psychological practice.

I do have some experience dealing with a person close to me who was (always "is" in AA's belief system) an alcoholic. What I saw in AA counselors disturbed me very much. You can never question "the program". When you try to pin them down on specifics, you get jargon. I went into it with an open mind - or even a slight bias in favor of AA, but soon found myself asking unwelcome questions.

Yes, AA helps people who "work the program", and for those people AA is a godsend. If the price one pays for giving up destructive behavior is buying into AA's ideology, then that's fine with me - but it's still an ideology. A judge forcing someone to attend AA meetings, even if AA's doctrines violate the person's religious or philosophical beliefs is an example of what I called AA's insinuation into our institutions. There is simply no medical or scientific proof that AA is better than willpower, aversion therapy, or even moderation. It all depends on the person, the particulars of their problem, etc. I am quite sure there are many people who simply cannot take a drink. The problem is AA's insistence that it is simply not possible for ANY problem drinker to moderate their drinking, or never go to another meeting once they've stopped, etc. Again, this is doctrine taken on faith, not medical science.

You're obviously not a drunk. Because if you were, you'd ignore all the minutae about spirituality in AA. And really, the whole thing about AA is repetition. You can believe all kinds of things, but as long as you don't pick up a drink, you're a success. If you think that moderation is ok, then you're not a drunk. That's just not how things work, and it's impossible to explain it to the non-drunk. You have to get rid of your grandiosity if you want to succeed.

Quote
stupidguy2

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
BluzDude
Hey Charlie, so you think you are Keith? I know Keith (well, not exactly), and I'm telling you, you ain't no Keith Richards!

uh, I'd say Sheen is more Keith than Keith is nowadays.

Good point.

Quote
Koen
[www.guardian.co.uk]

I got 5/10

Quote
doubledoor
When people have addiction, they need to get help, and treatment helps. AA is by a huge consensus,the only best help. I myself have had the double experience of being a celebrity's assistant who had millions of dollars and popular fame face off against his addiction and the addiction won. He is dead. I am a nobody who much to my surprise after his death, found I was a hopeless drunk myself, I stopped drinking with will power, and avoided like the plague that damn AA that failed my friend. My insanity was now sober but much more intense. AA started in earnest a year later, and although sober a year without it, peace started with it. I did not want that to be the case, as I had been bad mouthing AA for years. But the weird group of people works. It just does. Modern science may not be able to explain it, or back it up; but that is tough shit for modern science. Real hot life is more convincing than cold hard reason.

Quote
Koen
[www.guardian.co.uk]

I got 5/10