Show of HandsShow of Hands

ovcourse April 3rd, 2016 2:02am

Do you consider chocolate addiction to be a disease, or a character flaw?

9 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

singkitty In the cloud
04/03/16 5:46 am

Isn't that just called being a woman?

nnifer New York
04/03/16 1:37 am

If its maladaptive behavior (example: the person is morbidly obese and consumes copious amounts of chocolate and is unable to stop), it's a disease.

Zod Above Pugetropolis
04/02/16 9:38 pm

An addiction is a disease, enabled initially in almost every case by a character flaw. But in the case of chocolate, it isn't a disease or an addiction, it's just plain good luck.

kspells TheOtherOtherside
04/03/16 5:27 am

Addicts are addicts before just like alcoholics are alcoholics before. When an addict tries drugs they are most likely to develop addiction. People who are not addicts can try drugs & are most likely to not be addicted. Alcoholics who never have any alcohol do not develop the alcoholism, addicts who never try drugs don't develop the addiction. Addicts have the disease, that disease, is what compromises their decision making ability, when given a choice.

Zod Above Pugetropolis
04/03/16 7:11 am

But since only a relatively small percentage of people with the predisposition to addiction become addicts, it is the character flaw that allows it to happen. The arrogance to believe they can control it, or the sense of invincibility that they are special and it won't happen to them. Those predisposed but without those personalities flaws recognize the risk, and avoid it before the dependency develops. But in any case, addiction does not apply to chocolate, because there is no downside - no negative effect, and because it is self limiting. You can't eat too much of it, because you'll get too full to eat more. Just pure chocolatey goodness, one of nature's most perfect snacks.

kspells TheOtherOtherside
04/03/16 12:55 pm

You really think addicts know in advance that they will develop addiction and should be of good character & choose to not use drugs? Well at least you believe that addicts are addicts even if they don't ever use drugs. That's a start. It's the disease that compromises the addicts ability to choose.

Zod Above Pugetropolis
04/03/16 1:09 pm

To be clear, I do not think addicts are addicts before they have ever used drugs, or after using any drugs just a few times. Just like I don't believe skinny people with the predisposition to obesity are obese until they put on the weight. One becomes an addict when they become addicted to something, not simply because they are predisposed to addiction.

kspells TheOtherOtherside
04/03/16 5:34 pm

What about an alcoholic that never has any alcohol? Most people are not addicts or alcoholics, some people are addicts or alcoholics. Addicts and alcoholics won't develop addiction or alcoholism without using, but they still have the affliction if they don't use.

Zod Above Pugetropolis
04/03/16 6:05 pm

If the "alcoholic" has never had alcohol, the "alcoholic" isn't one yet. They may be highly likely to become an alcoholic if they start drinking, but they are certainly not an alcoholic before they do, or even for quite some time after they choose to start and then choose to keep drinking even after it should be obvious to them that they have self control issues, at least where alcohol is concerned. There may be an exception, but I sure can't find documented evidence of a clinically diagnosed alcoholic who has even claimed never to have had a drink, much less one who can be verified never to have had a drink. It may be just possible, in combination with the already very rare auto-brewery syndrome, but if so it hasn't happened often enough to make it to the InterWebs. If there are any of those cases at all they are not common enough to be considered a problem.

kspells TheOtherOtherside
04/03/16 8:19 pm

Then you think everyone has the potential to become an alcoholic, providing they drink long and hard enough.

Zod Above Pugetropolis
04/03/16 8:54 pm

No. Some never will. By far, most never will. But that doesn't mean it was inevitable for those that do, that they never had any control over it. Because they do. Most. Maybe all.

K4tn1ss Dont look in the closet
04/02/16 9:28 pm

I blame the taste of chocolate

TomLaney1 Jesus is Lord
04/02/16 9:19 pm

Neither. It is a gift.

auntiesamm Orange County CA
04/02/16 8:06 pm

Neither! It is pure joy to this chocoholic. It soothes every single emotion I feel. 😊

jvc1133 61535
04/02/16 7:57 pm

Neither, a healthy habit.

dxstap Bloomington, Indiana
04/02/16 7:26 pm

Yep it's an incurable affliction.
But it's a wonderful affliction.
Seriously, it's neither a disease or an flaw. What it is, is pure joy.

04/02/16 7:15 pm

Sugar can be addictive. I don't consider it a character flaw, but something to be addressed.

duey in a fools paradise
04/02/16 7:04 pm

Neither, it's a privilege of being a human being IMHO that is...