chemist

Maybe my above post was a little harsh. The fact that OP decided not to jump a camera is a good sign, even though it's for the wrong reasons. Once he starts jumping more he'll have a few moments where he'll realize "that's why you don't jump a camera!"

That's a theory cannot be tested. I can't just say "I'm perfect I've never made a mistake so when I take a drink it's not caused by a molecule, but when you have a drink it's caused by a molecule" There's no way for you to prove your molecules are NOT causing you to drink. If fails the scientific criteria of testability/falsifiability. Also, to the above post, alcoholism is 'believed' by some to be a disease, it is not a fact. Very important to separate opinion from fact.

I can't believe you still think you're right. EVERYBODY on here with much more experience is telling you otherwise. This isn't riding a fucking unicycle, give it the respect it deserves. It's one thing to be new and ignorant, but to remain ignorant after everybody tells you otherwise is reckless.

Agreed. Obesity is not a disease and neither is alcoholism. Soon everybody will be diseased, I can't go without eating for more than 9 hours and that's not a disease pathology. A disease is a physical malfunction of the body. So for example, the need to breathe air is not a disease. However, a bodily malfunction that limits your ability to breathe air is a disease.

with only 15 jumps your footage will be shit. You can't even do group jumps, free fly or anything worthy of filming. A lot of places require 200 jumps for a gopro, your DZ is saying 50 and you're calling them lame?!?!

don't worry, early on you tend to sit out a lot. It's part of the process, it gets a lot easier to do multiple jumps in a day later in your AFF and once you're licensed. If I did 2 jumps in a day early on in AFF it was like a huge day. Now doing 4 a day is normal number of jumps.

I don't see how that's delusional, 9's and 10's tend to have more baggage, 8's tend to be more level headed. It's basic logic.

... in the ice skating event?

I don't see how this will ever pan out? Doesn't the Olympics have enough power to just say we're not going to host in Russia anymore unless the law don't apply?

that's what she should have said as her reasoning!! lol!

yea man I got some skydiving to do tomorrow. Just chillin' out with some nice tunes thinkin' about tomorrow sounds a lot better than arguing with someone who refuses to accept scientific procedure.

Falsifiability is the cornerstone of the scientific method. "The concern with falsifiability gained attention by way of philosopher of science Karl Popper's scientific epistemology "falsificationism". Popper stresses the problem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience." .... He proposed falsification as a solution to the problem of induction. Popper noticed that although a singular existential statement such as 'there is a white swan' cannot be used to affirm a universal statement, it can be used to show that one is false: the singular existential observation of a black swan serves to show that the universal statement 'all swans are white' is false—in logic this is called modus tollens. 'There is a black swan' implies 'there is a non-white swan,' which, in turn, implies 'there is something that is a swan and that is not white', hence 'all swans are white' is false, because that is the same as 'there is nothing that is a swan and that is not white'. One notices a white swan. From this one can conclude: At least one swan is white. From this, one may wish to conjecture: All swans are white. It is impractical to observe all the swans in the world to verify that they are all white. Even so, the statement all swans are white is testable by being falsifiable. For, if in testing many swans, the researcher finds a single black swan, then the statement all swans are white would be falsified by the counterexample of the single black swan.

I agree the studies I have in mind can't overrule the studies you speak off, because they presume an unfalsifiable claim. It is impossible to overrule just liek it is impossible to produce a study that shows witches are NOT possessed by devils, thetans ARE NOT real, and ghosts DON'T exist or addiction is NOT caused by a a chemical imbalance in the brain. Many people not trained in the scientific discipline mistake unfalsifiability with a good hypothesis. However it is the opposite that makes a good hypothesis. "The earth is flat" for example, is a very good scientific hypothesis because an experiment can be designed and observations made to prove that statement to be untrue. However, "Multiple universes exist" is a poor hypothesis because it is impossible to prove multiple universes DO NOT exist. Even though it is conceivable to prove multiple universes DO exist. Every episode of SLIDERS, or any science fiction story about alternate universes could conceivably be proven to be true to exist, however, they cannot be proven to be untrue. That is the key. I could come up with a theory that the pursuit of a skydiving free fall is a caused by a disease of the brain caused by a chemical imbalance. I would have myself a full proof theory because nobody can prove it to be untrue. I could take pictures of the brain before and after a skydive and I'd bet ya my rig it looks different and lights up in certain spots and so on...

So then how do you approach people who aren't alcoholics and say they aren't? Do you just assume they are because, "Denial is the number one symptom"? They have to be presented as having substance use disorder, either self-disclosure, family or the courts. As a professional, we do not hunt them down. So denial cannot be the number one symptom, since other symptoms have to be present first This is actually not true in practice. Lots of people who do not drink are diagnosed as alcoholics, therefore denial being the only symptom. Also, the primary characteristic in the master-slave relationship is the slave must not be in denial of being born diseased and inferior to the master. It's not a symptom of physical disease, it is a method to deprive a human being of self-determination and dignity. Think of it this way, if someone with cancer doesn't believe they have cancer, that has nothing to do with a physical mass inside the body called cancer. It's there wether you want to believe it or not.

Really, that's what you want to use to knock him down? The fact that he was more progressive than most leaders of his day? FYI: this is called ad hominem attack. It is generally used when you can't attack the argument of the speaker (or writer in this case, as he's long dead). You still haven't supported your claim "There are lots of studies that have shown people stop problem drinking on their own." I know about the RAND report, and it was widely discredited. That's one for you. Does your "lots" have any relation to the percent of total studies. If you can show half, most, or nearly all, that would actually mean something. You still haven't showed that you understand what characteristics are used to define something as a disease, and you haven't said why they don't fit alcoholism. So far it looks like you're ducking and dodging. Irrelevant side note, I would say Trotter called it a disease before B. Rush, but it wasn't until the mid twentieth century that alcoholism as a disease gained traction, in large part due to EM Pattinson. It's pointless for me to waste my time. I will never convince you, you don't have the capacity for rational thought. I believe that people can change and overcome adversity. People make mistakes and learn and better themselves. Sorry you either believe that or you don't.

From Wikipedia: In 1792 Rush read a paper before the American Philosophical Society which argued that the "color" and "figure" of blacks were derived from a form of leprosy. He argued that with proper treatment, blacks could be cured and become white.[19] EDIT: I should mention that 'proper treatment' included violently whipping their backs to cure this disease called Dysaethesia Aethiopica. Of course it was never a disease. I can list the factors of disease, and Dysaethesia Aethiopica does not satisfy the requirements for a disease. It was at the time voted into existence, and it was voted out of existence when it was no longer fashionable.

Still waiting for you to back up anything you've said so far. You can start by citing a source for these two statements. Then you can try to actually refute the classification of alcoholism as a disease, instead of attacking a guy who suggested it. You can start by addressing the AMA and NIH position on this issue. Then you can discuss the definition of disease, and show whether alcoholism fits that definition. (disclaimer: if you do this logically, you'll find out you're wrong) If you use that same logic you could call skydiving a disease. Doesn't make it true. You can repeat a lie a thousand times and it's still a lie. http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/06/20/dr-keith-ablow-obesity-is-not-disease-and-neither-is-alcoholism/ "The AMA, in classifying obesity as a disease, furthers the dependency, disempowerment and entitlement culture that is eroding scientific truth and personal autonomy in America."

you have one life to live, don't waste it following mindless drivel.

What part specifically? Are members allowed to skip the steps that include the word God? Can the higher power be their own free will? Can they choose to drink moderately as part of the 'treatment'? I may have said something you did not say specifically, but I do not believe I accused you of holding any ideas you did not convey or imply.

The first person to call alcoholism a disease also said having black skin was a disease.

Congratulations. You've proven are completely ignorant of addiction and it's treatment. Trouble with statistics, too. Statistics can be flawed, misleading and biased. You've just proved you're completely ignorant of actual facts. You can't just put away to the side the data that conflicts with your opinion. That's not science, that's pushing an agenda. There are lots of studies that have shown people stop problem drinking on their own. That is just fact.

A moral judgement is different from a disease. Anybody can learn to control their drinking if that's what they want. In fact, the majority of problem drinkers quit on their own or begin moderate drinking successfully. It's not for everyone but for the most people it's a matter of a little bit of will power. I have heard of many people who start skydiving to end their addictions. You don't have the moral authority, and you certainly don't have a scientific basis to conclude that that doesn't work for them. Some people have kids and stop, some people get into sports. There are all sorts of ways people stop addictions other than God. Someone who started skydiving wouldn't tell every alcoholic they have to start skydiving and that's the only way, so why would you tell people they have to find God and that's the only way?

you mean DSM5?

I am not aware of any such court cases. Can you give me some examples? I saw it on an episode of Penn and Teller's bullshit about 12 step programs. In the episode I saw that the supreme court ruled alcoholism was NOT a disease. here are the cases from a quick google search http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?p=784

this made me burst out laughing... roflmao 'stunt' locks