Stoke's Matthew Etherington under pressure to settle huge gambling debts

[dom9]

And there you have it. I ask you to give an example of where I have "talked ****e" as you say that you have a Psychology degree and therefore are implying that you can prove me wrong due to your degree qualification. But you have not given me a single example or even attempted to prove me wrong even though I have said it's my opinion. Instead you've personally attacked me with a very uneducated response. You must be aware that there are 4 main approaches in Psychology? And you are aware that some contradict each other? And did I make up the nature vs nurture debate too? (FYI there is evidence in the article Shaggy pulled up which implies that it was due to the envroment Etherington was in that he started gambling)

I'm not saying that I'm an expert on Psychology but I have my own opnion of Psychology and it's approaches. I have never for example agreed with any of the Psychoanalytic approach as there is no scientific evidence that backs up Freud's theories - he only has test cases on individuals which he has generalised to everyone.

I am sorry for hurting your feelings.

I'm not trying to prove your arguments right or wrong as I'm not expert on gambling addiction. I am pointing out that you're opining on the science behind gambling, without having read any papers or research on the matter. Feel free to list the papers you have studied to back up your opinion. :wallbash:

You did mention Behaviourism earlier. Do you think that those theories might help to explain gambling addiction, particularly with respect to reward / repetition in a similar way to Pavlov's dogs? To me those theories may help, but I've not studied gambling to have a valid 'opinion'.

[dom9]

They have already done in many tests. But yet there is no medicine that can help to cure gambling addiction. Hmmm, I wonder why?

Which tests? Can you let me know as I'd be interested in reading the papers.

As for medication, give me a break. In this thread we have established that there are no cures for cancer, AIDS or the common cold. What exactly is your point, and why are you persisting with it?

[Chrono]

I'm not the one saying, my dad has a gamble every now and then and has no problem with it therefore this guy is just a greedy ****.

Quote me. Maybe read the thread properly.

[Chrono]

I'm not the one saying, my dad has a gamble every now and then and has no problem with it therefore this guy is just a greedy ****. Neither am I talking out of my arse about treatments for other addictions or making wild assumptions about the law or his motivations.

I defined addiction, which clearly includes this example, so whatever my personal experience of gambling or other addictions, I am not trying to use that as any source.

Airy fairy spouting without any evidence or backing isn't worth a detailed response beyond stop talking bollox.

I formed an opinion. Get over it.

[BillobShaisley]

Again, superb response. You don't offer an opinion but you obviously know everything hence the "Stop talking boolox". These personal attacks are amazing - why bother posting on this thread or if you're not going to be civilised? Am I not entitled to my opinion given what I've read and studied in the past?

What do you know about treatment for addiction? All the medical and social providers who provide a range of treatments and therapies to deal with the different aspects of cause and effect and symptom from various addictions based on research and you spout ****e about diseases needing cures to be an illness and nonsense about metyhodone etc. You can have any opinion you want, but if you want to discuss it then it should be based on something other than knee jerk reaction and your own minute experience!

They have already done in many tests. But yet there is no medicine that can help to cure gambling addiction. Hmmm, I wonder why?

Again this is just ****e. You haven't actualy done much wondering at all have you?

Different people react differently to risk based games, there's production of dopomine(sp?) and other physiological reactions similar to drug taking.

Is there any medicine for a broken bone? No but there is treatment which aids the healing, there's physio to reable the person to be able to perfrom as normal after the healing is done then there's behavioural aspects to prevent repeat injury. In short you are just talking complete unsubstanciated bollox and then have the gall to criticise my debating style when I address the issue at the level of detail being debated.

[BillobShaisley]

I formed an opinion. Get over it.

An opinion withou basis is worthless and you're not entitled to it. Same as my opinion about anything I clearly know or understand **** all about.

[Chrono]

An opinion withou basis is worthless and you're not entitled to it. Same as my opinion about anything I clearly know or understand **** all about.

You know nothing, absolutely nothing about this case therefore yours is just an opinion like mine. Don't get mad

[BillobShaisley]

He got into trouble and couldn't stop until undergoing a course of treatment which has now helped him stop. A fairly clear textbook case of addiction? Or perhaps it was a coincidence that he 'just pulled himself together' at the same time as his treatment? As for the legal side of things which you assumed was part of his motivation for coming out with the story, do you accept that was wrong?

A lack of control is indicative of any addiction, not a riposte to it. Some people have more control than others, but then some people have a natural immunity to swine flu too.

I have seen though can't yet find an interesting article about a paper concerning physiological aspects of risk taking published here:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/

Found this but not the main one I remember:
- http://www.abc.net.au/science/articl...29/2802811.htm

Parkinson's drug can trigger gambling
- http://www.abc.net.au/science/articl.../12/922460.htm

[saj]

Which tests? Can you let me know as I'd be interested in reading the papers.

As for medication, give me a break. In this thread we have established that there are no cures for cancer, AIDS or the common cold. What exactly is your point, and why are you persisting with it?

You've got psychology degree and I'm sure you know how to use google

My point/opinion is simple: gambling is not an illness like a cold, cancer etc. There is no difference physical/neurological difference between someone who is addicted to gambling to someone who is not. They are addicted due to the environment they have been brought up in, i.e. Nurture. It's something they've chosen to do. People don't choose to get an illness like Cancer do they, so how can gambling addiction be put into the category as illness such Cancer?

[saj]

Parkinson's drug can trigger gambling
- http://www.abc.net.au/science/articl.../12/922460.htm

Ha ha, that is seriously flawed. What if you're in a country such as Pakistan or Afghanistan where gambling doesn't exist - how are the people on the Parkinson's drugs going to gamble ?

[BillobShaisley]

People don't chose to become alcoholic and don't necessarily become addicted by doing anything others who are not addicted do. I really dont get the logic of your statement?

The only reason Cancer came up is your asseryion that only curable things are illnesses! Gambling could however be put into a category with Nymphomania or other behavioural addiction which research is also showing to have a physiological basis beyond 'that addict lacks moral fibre, **** em'.

[BillobShaisley]

Ha ha, that is seriously flawed. What if you're in a country such as Pakistan or Afghanistan where gambling doesn't exist - how are the people on the Parkinson's drugs going to gamble ?

So what? Try and follow the logic. Yourself and others state (and i'll try and interpret in a sympathetic way) that there's no science or chemistry behind behavioural addiction and that because of this its different to substance addiction? My point which I arrive at by reading stuff written by people who study this sort of thing for a living, is that in fact its almost exactly the same in many respects of physiology.

What if your in Saudi and have a predisposition to alcoholism but can't find alcohol? Does that mean anything about alcoholism? Does alcoholism not exist? What if we were all still cavemen and didn't know how to distill? Completely irrelevant. If you put a smack head in solitary where he has no access to drugs, is he still addicted? FFS try and keep up.

[dom9]

You've got psychology degree and I'm sure you know how to use google

My point/opinion is simple: gambling is not an illness like a cold, cancer etc. There is no difference physical/neurological difference between someone who is addicted to gambling to someone who is not. They are addicted due to the environment they have been brought up in, i.e. Nurture. It's something they've chosen to do. People don't choose to get an illness like Cancer do they, so how can gambling addiction be put into the category as illness such Cancer?

Some people are more predisposed to addiction than others. That much is obvious. Many people drink alcohol, gamble, exercise, and the like regularly, at home, in pubs, betting shops, parks and they do not get addicted.

Others do the same and do get addicted. It can not simply be attributed to environment. Sure, if there is no access to alcohol, and you have never encountered it, you can't by definition get addicted. But some people given the same exposure to these things do get addicted. Everyone is different.

For you to try and simplify the argument into Nature vs Nurture, and imply that one only of those affects behavior is totally naive, and illustrates your lack of understanding on the subject matter.

Let's look at another example. Are you argumentative on internet forums because internet forums exist (without them, you wouldn't be debating this right now), or were you brought up that way, or do you have an innate urge to argue about stuff that you don't understand with people you don't know?

I give up.

[Neil Young]

Some people are more predisposed to addiction than others. That much is obvious. Many people drink alcohol, gamble, exercise, and the like regularly, at home, in pubs, betting shops, parks and they do not get addicted.

Others do the same and do get addicted. It can not simply be attributed to environment. Sure, if there is no access to alcohol, and you have never encountered it, you can't by definition get addicted. But some people given the same exposure to these things do get addicted. Everyone is different.

For you to try and simplify the argument into Nature vs Nurture, and imply that one only of those affects behavior is totally naive, and illustrates your lack of understanding on the subject matter.

Let's look at another example. Are you argumentative on internet forums because internet forums exist (without them, you wouldn't be debating this right now), or were you brought up that way, or do you have an innate urge to argue about stuff that you don't understand with people you don't know?

I give up.

Saj wins.

[dom9]