Re: More Genetic Counseling

[Guest guest]

I don't see the argument. While I agree the genetic theories are

horseshit (or at best weak),

Do you think, then, that the high correspondence between children of alcoholics and alcoholics (using the word alcoholic as shorthand; I don't label myself that way) is entirely attributable to nurture?

Both of my parents are functioning drunks. Although I ended up with a serious dependency later in life than some, I did eventually join my two other siblings in that. My uncle died of cirrhosis, and his father, my grandfather, was a drunk. We are Irish. This is all culture?

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Even if they could isolate a gene for alcoholism (which they can not because it is a cultural construct and is relative), *they shouldn't even try.*

I wondered why on Earth you would say this, and then you went on to assert:

A behavior pattern that may or may not evidence itself later in life is not a valid criteria for judging human beings. They get punished before they have a chance to act! (

Just because isolating a gene(s) that creates a predisposition to alchol dependency could be used in tis invidious manner, it does not follow that we should be obscurantist on the subject. Information is neither good nor bad in a moral sense; it is what is done with it that is fraught with morlaity.

What if the information that one possesses such genes were found to be useful to the individual who carries them?

Do you really think any form of knowledge ought to be actively avoided?

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

The genetic information about possible "alcoholism" has far greater powers to harm rather than heal. Think of how this type of information will be used. That should be a criteria for deciding whether an avenue of study should be studied.

We'll just have to agree to vigorously disagree about this. Prior restraint in scientific research is no less odious to me than in speech.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

The fact that NEVER, AFAIK, with all the hundreds of thousands of ppl

who go through 12-step farms or other treatment programs every year,

is anyone ever given any form of genetic counselling about future

children is to me pretty well prima facie evidence that genetic

theories of alcoholism/addiction are basically horseshit and deep

down the treatment ppl really know this. If it werent they'd be

giving ppl the stats and encouraging ppl to think in terms of risk

factors and stuff. They dont because they cant with anything like

the certainty needed to have the balls to actually do so. While one

hears a lot of talk about why one should/should not marry someone

else in your XA, never once have I ever heard anyone suggest that by

doing so you increase the risk of passing on the " addictive

disease " . Instead they just urge folks to get their kids into 12-

step at the first drop of alcohol or whiff of pot found near them.

P.

> In " Genetic Counseling, " I was presented with a list of birth

defects

> and the approximate statistical chances of my baby developing

them.

> This is because I was 36 years old at the time my daughter was

going

> to be born and the risk of Down's Syndrome increases phenomenally

as

> maternal age increases. By no means was Down's Syndrome the only

> illness or disease that I as told may be a factor.

>

> I can only imagine the true havoc, pain, and death that presenting

> parents with the idea that their babies are predetermined to be

> 'alcoholics' would create.

>

> This " idea " should be totally shitcanned in the name of humanity.

>

>

[Guest guest]

At 11:04 PM 8/2/01 -0000, watts_pete@... wrote:

>Hi ,

>

>The fact that NEVER, AFAIK, with all the hundreds of thousands of ppl

>who go through 12-step farms or other treatment programs every year,

>is anyone ever given any form of genetic counselling about future

>children is to me pretty well prima facie evidence that genetic

>theories of alcoholism/addiction are basically horseshit and deep

>down the treatment ppl really know this.

I don't see the argument. While I agree the genetic theories are

horseshit (or at best weak), the fact that 12-step treatment doesn't

counsel on genetic factors of alcoholism for future children has no

bearing on it one way or another. What 12-step counselors do has little

basis in the real world that I can see.

Perhaps that topic has come up, but they figure they have enough

trouble getting their patients clean and sober, that they don't have

the time to go into that. Or they figure to do so would reduce the

future alcoholic populaton, and reduce their patient stream/income.

> If it werent they'd be

>giving ppl the stats and encouraging ppl to think in terms of risk

>factors and stuff. They dont because they cant with anything like

>the certainty needed to have the balls to actually do so. While one

>hears a lot of talk about why one should/should not marry someone

>else in your XA, never once have I ever heard anyone suggest that by

>doing so you increase the risk of passing on the " addictive

>disease " .

Actually, I think I've heard that discussed informally, at or after

a meeting. On the other hand, with all the meetings I went to, I've

heard literally tons of shit, so I could have heard that and many other

things that aren't commonly discussed in meetings. With what all I've

heard it's a wonder I can think at all.

>Instead they just urge folks to get their kids into 12-

>step at the first drop of alcohol or whiff of pot found near them.

Or even earlier in Alateen or 'ala-tots'.

>P.

>

>

>> I can only imagine the true havoc, pain, and death that presenting

>> parents with the idea that their babies are predetermined to be

>> 'alcoholics' would create.

There was an alanon meeting where a woman was so worried about her

son (five or eight years old) becoming an alcoholic, because he had

all the behavior patterns of an alcoholic - he was selfish, self-

centered, etc. All the things that sounded to me like a semi-normal

child, or at least could be without a brainwashed mother.

I regret not speaking up and saying it sounds like a normal child

to me, but who was I, with no children, versus all the experience of

other 12-steppers with children in the room.

>> This " idea " should be totally shitcanned in the name of humanity.

I certainly agree with that.

>>

----------

http://listen.to/benbradley

[Guest guest]

>

>Do you think, then, that the high correspondence between children of

>alcoholics and alcoholics (using the word alcoholic as shorthand; I don't

>label myself that way) is entirely attributable to nurture?

>

>Both of my parents are functioning drunks. Although I ended up with a

>serious dependency later in life than some, I did eventually join my two

>other siblings in that. My uncle died of cirrhosis, and his father, my

>grandfather, was a drunk. We are Irish. This is all culture?

>

>--Mona--

Not to mention that stereotyping can be done just as easily on the basis of

behavioral ideas as on anything else, such as:

" You know the Irish, they all drink that way, it's in their.........

heritage. "

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

> Hi ,

>

> The fact that NEVER, AFAIK, with all the hundreds of thousands of

ppl

> who go through 12-step farms or other treatment programs every year,

> is anyone ever given any form of genetic counselling about future

> children is to me pretty well prima facie evidence that genetic

> theories of alcoholism/addiction are basically horseshit and deep

> down the treatment ppl really know this.

Good point, Pete. It strikes me that way too. However, I have heard

more and more of the genetic talk in terms of behavior traits in the

last few months even. I would certainly not be surprised if certain

conversations turned down these corridors.

When I was in tx/aa and trying to get pg *and* my husband and I were

both " diagnosed " with the disease of " alcoholism, " I worried about it,

very briefly. I figured we'd cross that bridge if and when we came to

it, however part of " treatment " was exposure to the idea that our

alcoholism was at least partially caused by genetic factors. They

didn't draw a line from here to there, but most people understand that

genetic traits can be passed down to the next generation.

The " genetic counseling " was scary. Looking at a list of statistics

and risk factors for contracting various congenital diseases--and then

trying to determine if more invasive testing was necessary--was

nerve wracking and scary, esp with my hx.

If it werent they'd be

> giving ppl the stats and encouraging ppl to think in terms of risk

> factors and stuff. They dont because they cant with anything like

> the certainty needed to have the balls to actually do so. While one

> hears a lot of talk about why one should/should not marry someone

> else in your XA, never once have I ever heard anyone suggest that by

> doing so you increase the risk of passing on the " addictive

> disease " . Instead they just urge folks to get their kids into 12-

> step at the first drop of alcohol or whiff of pot found near them.

You're right. Let's hope they don't start trying to take it farther.

Sending kids to 12-steps freaks me out too!

[Guest guest]

Hi Mona,

Although I ended up with

a

> serious dependency later in life than some, I did eventually join my

two

> other siblings in that. My uncle died of cirrhosis, and his father,

my

> grandfather, was a drunk. We are Irish. This is all culture?

>

> --Mona--

Actually, I believe that culture is *much* more important than people

generally recognize and that there will always be this argument. How

much is determined? How much control do we have?

My point with the genetic stuff regarding " alcoholism " is that it

doesn't really matter. Even if they could isolate a gene for

alcoholism (which they can not because it is a cultural construct and

is relative), *they shouldn't even try.*

A behavior pattern that may or may not evidence itself later in life

is not a valid criteria for judging human beings. They get punished

before they have a chance to act! (As did the children of " morons " ).

And some people, you know, have lots of strikes against them and yet

somehow manage to fully realize what humanity is all about. The trend

toward perfecting humans is, IMO, scary and misses the point.

[Guest guest]

I couldn't have said it better myself, Mona.

I'll bet you could you could have. As a pretty firm rule, I don't post cheerleading support to friends in online debates, cuz it just seems so adolescent. But that bit about finding "Hitler as I understand him..." made me spew Diet Rite all over my monitor.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

*Some* free speech is deemed harmful by society, even by you or me.

I actually have a higher tolerance than most (as do you), as I think you have seen from my posts. (Side note Mona, you are the one that wanted Deiner off...)

<sigh> Yes, but that I wanted Deiner off has absolutely no implications for my views on prior restraint in public matters, much less in science. This is a *private list, and the listowner has every right to maintain it in any tenor and tone s/he sees fit. Moderated forums are so for a reason -- because people ought to also have the freedom to participate in private activities where they will be undertaken in the way they prefer.

But those who don't care to abide by the tenor and tone preferences of the moderator on a private list are entirely free to start their own. By contrast, prior restraint prevents a party from speaking, period. This is wrong in virtually any and all circumstances, and the only arguable exception would be for bona fide reasons of national security or to, say, protect the changed identities of persons in witness protection programs.

As to your statements about "morons" and "imbeciles" and their being lobotomized and sterilized, involuntary sterilization ended because it was deemed to violate fundamental constitutional rights. So, it was precisely the dedication to individual liberty that ended these abuses. How would it help "morons" (a clinical term that has passed into pejorative use) to prohibit research into what makes them such?

I do understand that in the 1930s eugenics was nearly as popular in this country, among the elite, as it was in parts of Europe. Indeed, many are shocked to learn that the sainted founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a raging racist and eugenicist. But that movement fell out of such disfavor that ardent Planned Parenthood supporters today frequently become irate if one brings up this unpleasant history. As long as this country remains rooted in respect for individual rights, what makes you think such odious beliefs would gain currency so strong that all genetic research into heritable traits should end?

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Generally I would agree, but dont you accept ethical restraints in medical areas?

Sure. I may have an intense interest in knowing what happens to the human body when it is roasted at 500 degrees, but I can't shove living Pete in an oven to find out. But that is only a prohibition on method and means. If you want to leave your body to science upon death, what would wrong with my scientific inquiry moving forward then?

The inquiry itself is not prohibited, merely the means permissible to undertake it.

Can you think of something science could investigate that We Should Not Know?

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Mona has told me herself that she ***didn't*** want him off.

Not exactly. I said it was a shame he left before you got here. He was a supreme jerk, but it still would have been interesting to see your interactions with him. is very bright, well read, and has an encyclopedic knowledge. Unfortunately, he swamps the list with endless harangues and accusations based on his opinion that, say, instead of posting on this list, or opposing 12 Step coercion in court, we should be charging hills of Central America with automatic weapons, fighting with The People.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

> Not to mention that stereotyping can be done just as easily on the

basis of

> behavioral ideas as on anything else, such as:

> " You know the Irish, they all drink that way, it's in

>their......... heritage. "

I think the phrase in their BLOOD is much more commonly used in such

a context than " heritage " . Also, " heritage " is a sociological

concept rather than a behavioral one. (Ironically, I see peele much

more often, but also erroneously, portrayed as believing only

cultural factors rather than " behaviorist " ones). At least

socioligical theories suggest that you can *change* the social groups

in which you affiliate and draw your values, and that even minorities

will tend to sabsordb the msainstream culture for better or worse -

if youve left Ireland you dont have to think of yourself as Irish,

can lose your accent, Catholicism and any other cultural baggage you

might have and hang out with the local Asians. The only " Genes " you

can change are your Levis.

P.

[Guest guest]

Hi Mona,

> In a message dated 8/2/01 7:29:08 PM US Eastern Standard Time,

> ahicks@s... writes:

>

>

> > Even if they could isolate a gene for

> > alcoholism (which they can not because it is a cultural construct

and

> > is relative), *they shouldn't even try.*

>

> I wondered why on Earth you would say this, and then you went on to

assert:

>

>

> >

> > A behavior pattern that may or may not evidence itself later in

life

> > is not a valid criteria for judging human beings. They get

punished

> > before they have a chance to act!

>

> Just because isolating a gene(s) that creates a predisposition to

alchol

> dependency could be used in tis invidious manner, it does not follow

that we

> should be obscurantist on the subject. Information is neither good

nor bad

> in a moral sense; it is what is done with it that is fraught with

morlaity.

> What if the information that one possesses such genes were found to

be useful

> to the individual who carries them?

>

> Do you really think any form of knowledge ought to be actively

avoided?

Yes. In my old age I have begun to believe that certain knowledge

*should not be sought,* especially " knowledge " that is used to harm

or marginalize people on a massive scale. Probably the most blatant

example is nuclear weaponry, but there are others as well.

The genetic information about possible " alcoholism " has far greater

powers to harm rather than heal. Think of how this type of

information will be used. That should be a criteria for deciding

whether an avenue of study should be studied.

I believe that there is almost unlimited areas of study that would add

to our understanding of people, or of natural phenomena. However,

positivist science disregards the uses to which the information will

be put. It is " knowledge " for the sake of itself (and the

reputations of the scientists). It has almost *always* been used to

differentiate, mark, exclude, intern and harm people ever since the

beginning of what we think of as " science. "

I have more evidence of what I'm talking about here, but will have to

gather it as I can.

[Guest guest]

> I don't see the argument. While I agree the genetic theories are

> horseshit (or at best weak), the fact that 12-step treatment doesn't

> counsel on genetic factors of alcoholism for future children has no

> bearing on it one way or another. What 12-step counselors do has

>little basis in the real world that I can see.

> Perhaps that topic has come up, but they figure they have enough

> trouble getting their patients clean and sober, that they don't have

> the time to go into that. Or they figure to do so would reduce the

> future alcoholic population, and reduce their patient stream/income.

Well there is that of course. The only requirement needed to become

a professional grouper is to be an amateur grouper. In one part of

the " Brass Eye " episode I refer to earlier, a DJ, believing himself

to be making an educational film for children, said these words

without a blink: " Pedophiles have more genetic material in common

with CRABS... " [pointing to one in front of him] " than you or me.

Now there's no real evidence for this, but it's a scientific fact. "

I think that shows the extent of most ppl's understanding of genetics

and their gullibility in the area.

But the pseudomedical arm of steppism in my experience is obsessed

with genetic theories of alcoholism/addiction, hence if solid

evidence were actually found, they'd start shouting it from the

rooftops (they shout the false dawns already). A chap on add_med

suggested that alcoholism/addiction might be explicable in terms of a

genetic " handicap theory " - look what good genes I have that I can

drink a quart of Jack s at one go and I'm still alive.

(Respectable genetic 'handicap theories' can be this bizarre, so alas

one cant reject this on commonsense grounds alone). He suggested by

sobering ppl up perhaps AA and counsellors were reducing their mating

competitiveness (I think this was *almost* entirely tongue in

cheek). I replied that if one believed that alcoholism/addiction is

genetically determined, by making sufferers live longer and healthier

lives you almost certainly make them produce more viable offspring

and increase the number of such alcoholism/addiction genes in the

gene pool. Another consequence of the theory if true that ppl dont

usu think about.

> > While one

> >hears a lot of talk about why one should/should not marry someone

> >else in your XA, never once have I ever heard anyone suggest that

> >by doing so you increase the risk of passing on the " addictive

> >disease " .

> Actually, I think I've heard that discussed informally, at or

>after a meeting.

Well actually I have too - when *I* suggested it. I wonder though if

when you heard the ppl really meant it in a genetic sense, or merely

that whether the kid would sort of absorb it just by being around

them and their " alcoholic attitudes " .

> Or even earlier in Alateen or 'ala-tots'.

These are junior Al-Anon, yes?

P.

[Guest guest]

> > The genetic information about possible " alcoholism " has far greater

> > powers to harm rather than heal. Think of how this type of

> > information will be used. That should be a criteria for deciding

> > whether an avenue of study should be studied.

> >

>

> We'll just have to agree to vigorously disagree about this. Prior

restraint

> in scientific research is no less odious to me than in speech.

>

> --Mona--

I couldn't have said it better myself, Mona.

Steve

[Guest guest]

> In a message dated 8/2/01 8:35:47 PM US Eastern Standard Time,

> ahicks@s... writes:

>

>

> > The genetic information about possible " alcoholism " has far

greater

> > powers to harm rather than heal. Think of how this type of

> > information will be used. That should be a criteria for deciding

> > whether an avenue of study should be studied.

> >

>

> We'll just have to agree to vigorously disagree about this. Prior

restraint

> in scientific research is no less odious to me than in speech.

>

> --Mona--

Hi Mona,

I haven't yet put my best foot forward in this debate. Prior

restraint is a fact of life, no matter what the area or criteria,

including " free speech. " It can't be ignored.

*Some* free speech is deemed harmful by society, even by you or me.

I actually have a higher tolerance than most (as do you), as I think

you have seen from my posts. (Side note Mona, you are the one that

wanted Deiner off...)

I have to put off some of this...I have more information and better

arguments than I have time to put forth at this time.

A *summary* is that positivist research doesn't lend itself well to

humans and historically has been the root of a great deal of pain,

harm and death. In the 30s - 50s they were more interested in

defining " morons " and " imbeciles. " The results were lobotomies,

sterilization, incarceration and...execution. The terms are different

today, but " scientists " are still trying to find the individuals that

are causing the " problems " --and eliminate them. Look for the funding.

As a counterpoint,

I've just finished reading one of the best books I've ever found about

drug use. It is an ethnography called " In Search of Respect: Selling

Crack in El Barrio, " by e Bourgois. I believe that there is an

*interpenetration* of factors between individual action and culture.

This is opposed to the idea that all drug use is a result of

individual flaws. However, this is almost the only framework that

drug use usually discussed in. I'd rather expand the boundaries than

limit them--but using determinist " science " is limiting, rather than

expanding.

More later, I do acknowledge your objections!

[Guest guest]

> We'll just have to agree to vigorously disagree about this. Prior

restraint

> in scientific research is no less odious to me than in speech.

Generally I would agree, but dont you accept ethical restraints in

medical areas?

As an anecdote, there is a sad story of an Italian community where

there was a high prevalance of a genetic disorder - a kind of

presenile dementia, iirc. The geneticists came in, saying, 'Well

let's test everybody and find out who are carriers, and then just

advise everybody who's a carrier not to have children with another

carrier, and the prevalence will go down.'

They returned some years later and found it had increased. What they

hadnt figured on was that since non-carriers could have children with

anybody, it carried an advantage, and two non-carriers always had non-

carrier children, so what happened was that the non-carriers had

children with each other forcing the carriers to have children with

each other so the prevalence of the disease increased.

I am amazed that when I see the issues of genetic counselling

addressed ppl seem to think that having a child who is merely a

*carrier* of a disorder is no big deal, and all that matters is

ensuring that no immediate child actually manifests it. Developments

in human biology - cloning, immortality even - will have massive

implications that must be addressed in advance and if it should be

thought necessary, development of the technology resisted. To be

able to foresee the possible effects will need a great deal of

imagination than many ppl seem to be applying at the moment. I may

look down my nose at certain things - but some folks dont seem able

to see beyond the end of theirs.

P.

[Guest guest]

> Hi Mona,

>

> I haven't yet put my best foot forward in this debate. Prior

> restraint is a fact of life, no matter what the area or criteria,

> including " free speech. " It can't be ignored.

>

> *Some* free speech is deemed harmful by society, even by you or me.

> I actually have a higher tolerance than most (as do you), as I think

> you have seen from my posts. (Side note Mona, you are the one that

> wanted Deiner off...)

Mona has told me herself that she ***didn't*** want him off.

>

> I have to put off some of this...I have more information and better

> arguments than I have time to put forth at this time.

>

> A *summary* is that positivist research doesn't lend itself well to

> humans and historically has been the root of a great deal of pain,

> harm and death. In the 30s - 50s they were more interested in

> defining " morons " and " imbeciles. " The results were lobotomies,

> sterilization, incarceration and...execution. The terms are different

> today, but " scientists " are still trying to find the individuals that

> are causing the " problems " --and eliminate them. Look for the funding.

A minority, a definite minority, did engage in some of these... I'll

acknowledge the first three. Scientists didn't execute any mentally

challenged people.... governments did... just like still happens, sadly,

here in Texas.

Steve

[Guest guest]

>

> I think the phrase in their BLOOD is much more commonly used in such

> a context than " heritage " .

I used " heritage " deliberately to emphasize the sociological bias that some

can have, just like any alleged genetic bias.

Also, " heritage " is a sociological

> concept rather than a behavioral one. (Ironically, I see peele much

> more often, but also erroneously, portrayed as believing only

> cultural factors rather than " behaviorist " ones).

And culture is, in fair part, nothing other than the behavior of individuals

within interpersonal environments, over generations, and the artifacts of

living that develop.

At least

> socioligical theories suggest that you can *change* the social groups

> in which you affiliate and draw your values, and that even minorities

> will tend to sabsordb the msainstream culture for better or worse -

> if youve left Ireland you dont have to think of yourself as Irish,

> can lose your accent, Catholicism and any other cultural baggage you

> might have and hang out with the local Asians. The only " Genes " you

> can change are your Levis.

>

> P.

Ahh, but not everybody packs up and leaves Ireland, and those cultural

stereotypes may well be waiting for them in their new location.

[Guest guest]

>

> Mona has told me herself that she ***didn't*** want him off.

Well, I guess I could locate the posts, however I don't think it will

be truly necessary.

> >

> > I have to put off some of this...I have more information and

better

> > arguments than I have time to put forth at this time.

> >

> > A *summary* is that positivist research doesn't lend itself well

to

> > humans and historically has been the root of a great deal of pain,

> > harm and death. In the 30s - 50s they were more interested in

> > defining " morons " and " imbeciles. " The results were lobotomies,

> > sterilization, incarceration and...execution. The terms are

different

> > today, but " scientists " are still trying to find the individuals

that

> > are causing the " problems " --and eliminate them. Look for the

funding.

>

> A minority, a definite minority, did engage in some of these... I'll

> acknowledge the first three. Scientists didn't execute any mentally

> challenged people.... governments did... just like still happens,

sadly,

> here in Texas.

> Steve

Well, that is the crux of the problem. The scientists themselves

don't necessarily have control over the information they create, once

it is created. It may very well be others, especially governments.

And, in very many cases the results they obtain are adulterated to

mesh with the ends they are seeking, rather than the full findings

the scientists actually made. It is about power.

With the areas of information that it is possible to seek, why are

certain ideas and areas of research almost exclusively sought over

others? Follow the money.

It wasn't a " minority " . Ideas about " born criminals " or " feeble

minded " were developed by scientists and became mainstream.

*Policy* was developed around these ideas. Vigorous attempts to stop

these people from being born were made on a societal level and the

" science " of this is called eugenics. It is a breeding program to

ensure the best possible offspring. It is hard to grasp, but I will

repeat, 70,000 people in the US have been *involuntarily* sterilized.

Several states *still* allow involuntary sterilizations. Texas is

probably one of them.

IMO, much of the attempt to dissociate with our hx of these human

rights violations is d/t the reaction of Nazism. They did it *more*,

perhaps, but idealogically we were right there with them. It was the

science of the times.

These issues went to the Supreme Court. An 11 year old girl became

the focal point because they sterilized her against her will. She had

already become pregnant (now, how did *that* happen?) and her mother

and grandmother were in the asylum. Justice Oliver Wendell Homes said

of the plaintiff, " Three generations of imbeciles are enough. " I

can't remember the names and specifics, but it was Buck vs Bell, 274

US 200, 207 (1927). In point of fact, she was not retarded. I'd like

to hear more about her history, if anyone has the information. I've

heard it, but don't have it down to relate.

[Guest guest]

Yes, <sigh>.

Again, we will have to " vigorously disagree. " At the time that

Deiner was kicked off, the " tenor, " of his posts, as you put it, was

completely different than it had been initially. Rita had the most

severe and involved arguments with him and she, as many others of us

here, did not feel that his banishment was appropriate. IMO, 's

" transgressions " were the same type as Ken himself engaged in. My

impression is that Ken just didn't like what he was saying, though it

was *well* within the stated purpose of the list. Apparently Ken

wasn't too thrilled with Steve's ideas either. (That or just looking

for an excuse to quit...)

Yes. Anyone can start a list. I thought of it myself...but it isn't

quite so simple as that. This was an open forum that people are aware

of and is healthy and alive. Ken was the HP and made his decision. I

think this is actually quite similar to a process where some research

gets funded and approved and other research doesn't.

Anyone can have ideas. But a forum and way to express them to the

people that are interested is also key. As is the support and time

necessary to study and develop them.

I didn't agree with all of 's posts and information, especially at

the beginning when he was so hostile. However, the quality and

relevance of his information to this list was *substantial* and I

still feel that it was *not* in the best interests of this group to

ban Deiner. This is an understatment.

This is

> wrong in virtually any and all circumstances, and the only arguable

exception

> would be for bona fide reasons of national security or to, say,

protect the

> changed identities of persons in witness protection programs.

I lost your references here. Could you " come again " ?

>

> As to your statements about " morons " and " imbeciles " and their being

> lobotomized and sterilized, involuntary sterilization ended because

it was

> deemed to violate fundamental constitutional rights.

Mona, it is still happening today. This is where you go wrong. You

think that all this shit is " fixed, " and it just isn't so.

So, it was

precisely

> the dedication to individual liberty that ended these abuses.

How

would it

> help " morons " (a clinical term that has passed into pejorative use)

to

> prohibit research into what makes them such?

How does it help them? ???

You misunderstand me. I don't " prohibit " research (ha! how could

I????). However, I am *sick and tired* of hearing that our individual

flawed selves need to be fixed. I would rather find information that

supports knowledge of different solutions to human problems. The US

culture is based on a *perfectionism* and commitment to the " ultimate

society " that leaves people left stranded. Problems are seen as

individual failings and there is no responsibility toward solving

them, other than eliminating individuals or fixing their behavior so

that it isn't a problem for the rest of us. This ends up being why I

am here.

Mona, I know that we've become polarized on some issues...but when you

first came on here I was impressed by your stance against the WOD. In

a very real way, the WOD is a result of the " science " that was

*funded.* This has related back to the *social policy* that has

created the breaucracy that continues and maintains the WOD. All of

these giant issues are interrelated. Not one of them will solve the

others.

The continual focus on the individual as the problem absolves the

other elements that contribute to the situation.

My plea...my stance...is that we need to be open to seeing other

factors as participants. Complexity in this situation helps, rather

than hinders.

>

> I do understand that in the 1930s eugenics was nearly as popular in

this

> country, among the elite, as it was in parts of Europe. Indeed,

many are

> shocked to learn that the sainted founder of Planned Parenthood,

Margaret

> Sanger, was a raging racist and eugenicist. But that movement fell

out of

> such disfavor that ardent Planned Parenthood supporters today

frequently

> become irate if one brings up this unpleasant history. As long as

this

> country remains rooted in respect for individual rights, what makes

you think

> such odious beliefs would gain currency so strong that all genetic

research

> into heritable traits should end?

Bleh. You know I didn't say that. I am actually more intersted in

finding more common ground rather than less.

A " heritable trait " is different than a behavior. Why does that annoy

you?

Your stance confuses me. On the one hand, you are a libertarian, a

term I associate with free will. OTOH, you seem enamored with the

" science " of determining that " alcoholism " is genetic. This is a

position that I associate with people *not* exercising their free

will. Which is it?

Most people I've met that like " disease " as a model for explaining

drinking behavior like it because it *absolves them.* They didn't

have a choice! It is a disease. This seems absolutely antithetical

to what you've posted before. Can you explain it to me better?

[Guest guest]

Well said. Thank you.

>

>Reply-To: 12-step-free

>To: 12-step-free

>Subject: Re: More " Genetic Counseling "

>Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 06:13:28 -0000

>

>

>

>Yes, <sigh>.

>

>Again, we will have to " vigorously disagree. " At the time that

>Deiner was kicked off, the " tenor, " of his posts, as you put it, was

>completely different than it had been initially. Rita had the most

>severe and involved arguments with him and she, as many others of us

>here, did not feel that his banishment was appropriate. IMO, 's

> " transgressions " were the same type as Ken himself engaged in. My

>impression is that Ken just didn't like what he was saying, though it

>was *well* within the stated purpose of the list. Apparently Ken

>wasn't too thrilled with Steve's ideas either. (That or just looking

>for an excuse to quit...)

>

>Yes. Anyone can start a list. I thought of it myself...but it isn't

>quite so simple as that. This was an open forum that people are aware

>of and is healthy and alive. Ken was the HP and made his decision. I

>think this is actually quite similar to a process where some research

>gets funded and approved and other research doesn't.

>

>Anyone can have ideas. But a forum and way to express them to the

>people that are interested is also key. As is the support and time

>necessary to study and develop them.

>

>I didn't agree with all of 's posts and information, especially at

>the beginning when he was so hostile. However, the quality and

>relevance of his information to this list was *substantial* and I

>still feel that it was *not* in the best interests of this group to

>ban Deiner. This is an understatment.

>

>This is

> > wrong in virtually any and all circumstances, and the only arguable

>exception

> > would be for bona fide reasons of national security or to, say,

>protect the

> > changed identities of persons in witness protection programs.

>

>I lost your references here. Could you " come again " ?

> >

> > As to your statements about " morons " and " imbeciles " and their being

> > lobotomized and sterilized, involuntary sterilization ended because

>it was

> > deemed to violate fundamental constitutional rights.

>

>Mona, it is still happening today. This is where you go wrong. You

>think that all this shit is " fixed, " and it just isn't so.

>

> So, it was

>precisely

> > the dedication to individual liberty that ended these abuses.

>

> How

>would it

> > help " morons " (a clinical term that has passed into pejorative use)

>to

> > prohibit research into what makes them such?

>

>How does it help them? ???

>

>You misunderstand me. I don't " prohibit " research (ha! how could

>I????). However, I am *sick and tired* of hearing that our individual

>flawed selves need to be fixed. I would rather find information that

>supports knowledge of different solutions to human problems. The US

>culture is based on a *perfectionism* and commitment to the " ultimate

>society " that leaves people left stranded. Problems are seen as

>individual failings and there is no responsibility toward solving

>them, other than eliminating individuals or fixing their behavior so

>that it isn't a problem for the rest of us. This ends up being why I

>am here.

>

>Mona, I know that we've become polarized on some issues...but when you

>first came on here I was impressed by your stance against the WOD. In

>a very real way, the WOD is a result of the " science " that was

>*funded.* This has related back to the *social policy* that has

>created the breaucracy that continues and maintains the WOD. All of

>these giant issues are interrelated. Not one of them will solve the

>others.

>

>The continual focus on the individual as the problem absolves the

>other elements that contribute to the situation.

>

>My plea...my stance...is that we need to be open to seeing other

>factors as participants. Complexity in this situation helps, rather

>than hinders.

>

> >

> > I do understand that in the 1930s eugenics was nearly as popular in

>this

> > country, among the elite, as it was in parts of Europe. Indeed,

>many are

> > shocked to learn that the sainted founder of Planned Parenthood,

>Margaret

> > Sanger, was a raging racist and eugenicist. But that movement fell

>out of

> > such disfavor that ardent Planned Parenthood supporters today

>frequently

> > become irate if one brings up this unpleasant history. As long as

>this

> > country remains rooted in respect for individual rights, what makes

>you think

> > such odious beliefs would gain currency so strong that all genetic

>research

> > into heritable traits should end?

>

>Bleh. You know I didn't say that. I am actually more intersted in

>finding more common ground rather than less.

>

>A " heritable trait " is different than a behavior. Why does that annoy

>you?

>

>Your stance confuses me. On the one hand, you are a libertarian, a

>term I associate with free will. OTOH, you seem enamored with the

> " science " of determining that " alcoholism " is genetic. This is a

>position that I associate with people *not* exercising their free

>will. Which is it?

>

>Most people I've met that like " disease " as a model for explaining

>drinking behavior like it because it *absolves them.* They didn't

>have a choice! It is a disease. This seems absolutely antithetical

>to what you've posted before. Can you explain it to me better?

>

>

>

>

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

It has nothing to do with people exercising free will. If bipolar disorder

is shows to have a genetic component, how does that affect free will?

People, whether bipolar has a genetic basis or not, can still **choose**

whether or not to get professional help, whether or not to take meds, etc.

Right, Steve. I may be a libertarian, but my reality is not dictated by my ideology. To the extent possible, I keep it the other way around. If there is a genetic component to alcoholism, bi-polar disorder, diabetes or whatever, this would simply be a fact. These predispositions may raise interesting questions regarding free will, but denying their reality if they are facts, is, in my view, lunacy. And, as best as I can assess, the role for a measure of genetic predisposition is well demonstrated.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

A "heritable trait" is different than a behavior. Why does that annoy you?

Why on Earth do you think that, of all people, that fact annoys me?

--Mona--