• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is alcohol abuse a "disability"?

Is alcohol abuse a disability; do you agree or disagree with the EEOC?


  • Total voters
    37
  • Poll closed .
Would it be logical for the church to allow him to run their day care? Even though you deflect and refuse to answer the question, you know it wouldn't be. It would actually be IMO criminal for them to hire him to do that.

No, it would not be criminal for this company to allow this guy to drive but it would put them in more risk. That's not a call anyone but the owner should make.

Keep at it, you're in the right here and Captain Courtesy is simply using cheap debating tricks in order to avoid engaging in a full and honest debate on this issue.

In philosophy/logic we use a number of methods to develop understanding of issues.

One method is inductive reasoning. One creates similar situations which differ in detail but require a similar decision be made. One analyzes what motivates the decision being made in these dissimilar instances and generalizes towards a central principle.

Another method is to hold a central principle and use deductive reasoning to apply it to different situations and see if the principle holds.

These false cries of fallacy by appeal to emotion are no such thing. The charge can be negated by simply stating that the person is choosing to violate their general principle in the special case of a pedophile being placed in charge of children. For your position and mine, this admission is useful because we can now examine what criteria is necessary for a person to make an exception to their general rule and then we can see whether those conditions can be applied to drunk drivers of semi-trucks on public roads.

So keep at it - you're doing good work in trying to get people to honestly engage in the issue while they rely on appeals to their own authority, make bombastic declarations about destroying arguments (when they haven't) and rely on tricks to narrowly limit discussion so that they can avoid developing deeper understanding of the broader principles at play in this issue.
 
Actually you haven't

Actually I have.

Just because your position is nonsense, that doesn't mean that disability means what you want it to mean.

Nonsense. If an alcoholic is disabled, I should also get a check for my anxiety disorder, and maybe I should also be a fighter pilot or a police officer. If they don't hire me, I'll sue and claim a disability. Because god forbid a company have any control over who they hire. The truck company is damned if they do, and damned if they don't. If they let the guy drive a rig and he kills someone, they get sued. If they refuse to let him drive a rig, they get sued. I am starting to understand why businesses are going overseas now. Who the hell can afford to operate in this ****ing country?

As for alcoholics having a disease, this is nothing more than people refusing to take responsibility for their actions. Drinking one's self into oblivion is idiotic and self destructive. To coddle drug addicts and drunks is also idiotic and self destructive. What does it accomplish to let alcoholics claim a disability when people like that are almost always a useless drag on society? Now they can demand employment and possibly put innocent people at risk. Good job intrusive and ineffective government. :roll:

I feel no desire to prop them up and tell them that it's not their fault that they're a drunk. I've dealt with low life drug addicts for several years now. None of them take responsibility for what they do or how they treat other people. And very few of them who do enter treatment stay in treatment.
 
Actually I have.



Nonsense. If an alcoholic is disabled, I should also get a check for my anxiety disorder, and maybe I should also be a fighter pilot or a police officer. If they don't hire me, I'll sue and claim a disability. Because god forbid a company have any control over who they hire. The truck company is damned if they do, and damned if they don't. If they let the guy drive a rig and he kills someone, they get sued. If they refuse to let him drive a rig, they get sued. I am starting to understand why businesses are going overseas now. Who the hell can afford to operate in this ****ing country?

As for alcoholics having a disease, this is nothing more than people refusing to take responsibility for their actions. Drinking one's self into oblivion is idiotic and self destructive. To coddle drug addicts and drunks is also idiotic and self destructive. What does it accomplish to let alcoholics claim a disability when people like that are almost always a useless drag on society? Now they can demand employment and possibly put innocent people at risk. Good job intrusive and ineffective government. :roll:

I feel no desire to prop them up and tell them that it's not their fault that they're a drunk. I've dealt with low life drug addicts for several years now. None of them take responsibility for what they do or how they treat other people. And very few of them who do enter treatment stay in treatment.

Depending on the severity of your anxiety disorder, it may be a disability. Maybe you should look into that. Or maybe not.

And if you want to be a police officer or a fire fighter, and you're qualified, then apply for the job. No one is stopping you.
 
Would it be logical for the church to allow him to run their day care? Even though you deflect and refuse to answer the question, you know it wouldn't be. It would actually be IMO criminal for them to hire him to do that.

No, it would not be criminal for this company to allow this guy to drive but it would put them in more risk. That's not a call anyone but the owner should make.

You can keep making irrelevant comparisons, but I will not engage in your logical fallacies. There is nothing similar about these two situations that you can use. Keep trying, though. It is amusing watching you swing in the wind.
 
Keep at it, you're in the right here and Captain Courtesy is simply using cheap debating tricks in order to avoid engaging in a full and honest debate on this issue.

In philosophy/logic we use a number of methods to develop understanding of issues.

One method is inductive reasoning. One creates similar situations which differ in detail but require a similar decision be made. One analyzes what motivates the decision being made in these dissimilar instances and generalizes towards a central principle.

Another method is to hold a central principle and use deductive reasoning to apply it to different situations and see if the principle holds.

These false cries of fallacy by appeal to emotion are no such thing. The charge can be negated by simply stating that the person is choosing to violate their general principle in the special case of a pedophile being placed in charge of children. For your position and mine, this admission is useful because we can now examine what criteria is necessary for a person to make an exception to their general rule and then we can see whether those conditions can be applied to drunk drivers of semi-trucks on public roads.

So keep at it - you're doing good work in trying to get people to honestly engage in the issue while they rely on appeals to their own authority, make bombastic declarations about destroying arguments (when they haven't) and rely on tricks to narrowly limit discussion so that they can avoid developing deeper understanding of the broader principles at play in this issue.

Nah, I already destroyed your lack of logic when you presented this scenario. If you want to discuss a similar situation, be my guest, but thus far, everything you have presented has not been comparable. It's why you have failed so hard in this thread. Now, you can keep cheerleading 1Perry, but he is just following your coattails of failure.

Let me know when you come up with a comparison that makes sense so we can discuss it. Until then, I will not engage in your or his stupid appeals to emotion. It's incredibly weak debating. I'll be happy to keep pointing it out, though.
 
I have not responded to the question, "is alcoholism a disability". Probably because it depends. Alcoholism is a disability IF it's affects impact an individual from working. Now, I do NOT mean one's drinking, but I mean their alcoholism... and, btw, I do agree with the disease model of addiction. When it comes to addiction, I see using it as a disability as a very narrow scope. For example, an individual works at a liquor company, bottling liquor. If he drinks on the job and creates problems because of his drinking, while NOT receiving treatment, he should be fired. If he gets treatment and cannot continue to work at that liquor company because of the threat of relapse (threat towards his health), he is disabled from that position and would be found to receive disability benefits until he can secure another job where relapse is not as much of an issue. I have seen people receive disability benefits for addiction practically NEVER. The addiction itself is a pretty serious disorder that requires treatment and does not earn scorn. It is the behavior that is the issue. Every addict has a choice: receive treatment for their addiction or not. Those that do have my sympathy/empathy. Those that do not, do not.

Oh, and to address something that was just discussed, an anxiety disorder... a severe one is certainly a disability. My brother has been receiving SSD benefits for his anxiety related disability for several years. He cannot function as other people can.
 
You can keep making irrelevant comparisons, but I will not engage in your logical fallacies. There is nothing similar about these two situations that you can use. Keep trying, though. It is amusing watching you swing in the wind.

actually, yes there is. you alls little diversion of the fact is what's amusing, really.
 
Last edited:
actually, yes there is. you alls little diversion of the fact is what's amusing, really.

No, it doesn't in the least. The only ones diverting are the three of you, trying to create non-comparable scenarios in a desperate attempt to prove your position… which you have been unable to do. I wouldn't call it amusing. I'd call what you all are doing weak.
 
I have not responded to the question, "is alcoholism a disability". Probably because it depends. Alcoholism is a disability IF it's affects impact an individual from working. Now, I do NOT mean one's drinking, but I mean their alcoholism... and, btw, I do agree with the disease model of addiction. When it comes to addiction, I see using it as a disability as a very narrow scope. For example, an individual works at a liquor company, bottling liquor. If he drinks on the job and creates problems because of his drinking, while NOT receiving treatment, he should be fired. If he gets treatment and cannot continue to work at that liquor company because of the threat of relapse (threat towards his health), he is disabled from that position and would be found to receive disability benefits until he can secure another job where relapse is not as much of an issue. I have seen people receive disability benefits for addiction practically NEVER. The addiction itself is a pretty serious disorder that requires treatment and does not earn scorn. It is the behavior that is the issue. Every addict has a choice: receive treatment for their addiction or not. Those that do have my sympathy/empathy. Those that do not, do not.

Oh, and to address something that was just discussed, an anxiety disorder... a severe one is certainly a disability. My brother has been receiving SSD benefits for his anxiety related disability for several years. He cannot function as other people can.

I have panic attacks, and along with that-severe depression. Sometimes i go along fine for months. Then it's hell.
 
I have not responded to the question, "is alcoholism a disability". Probably because it depends. Alcoholism is a disability IF it's affects impact an individual from working. Now, I do NOT mean one's drinking, but I mean their alcoholism... and, btw, I do agree with the disease model of addiction. When it comes to addiction, I see using it as a disability as a very narrow scope. For example, an individual works at a liquor company, bottling liquor. If he drinks on the job and creates problems because of his drinking, while NOT receiving treatment, he should be fired. If he gets treatment and cannot continue to work at that liquor company because of the threat of relapse (threat towards his health), he is disabled from that position and would be found to receive disability benefits until he can secure another job where relapse is not as much of an issue. I have seen people receive disability benefits for addiction practically NEVER. The addiction itself is a pretty serious disorder that requires treatment and does not earn scorn. It is the behavior that is the issue. Every addict has a choice: receive treatment for their addiction or not. Those that do have my sympathy/empathy. Those that do not, do not.

Oh, and to address something that was just discussed, an anxiety disorder... a severe one is certainly a disability. My brother has been receiving SSD benefits for his anxiety related disability for several years. He cannot function as other people can.

What other "disease" has a more negative impact on the people around them than it does the person who actually has it? I was just about to post that I can probably concede that alcohol abuse could be a disability, same way as if I cut off my own arm, I would then be disabled. Alcohol can also be an addiction, of course, but I don't believe addiction is a "disease". A person with a disease is a victim of that disease and nobody rational would blame a person who is the victim for their illness. This is why I balk at labeling every compulsive behavior a disease. It's just a way to garner sympathy and avoid responsibility for changing destructive behavior.
 
Tough issue. But, I do wonder about how we prioritize who's supposed to be taken care of and who's obligated to do the taking care. Why does the company have a responsibility for taking care of the alcoholic? Did it cause his alcoholism? It's one thing if a person was injured on the job, but if they're injured off the clock, what makes the place of employment have any liability? If I paralyze myself from the neck down while snow boarding, should my construction company have to support me? Maybe they should have to insure their employees - or maybe the employee should have to have insurance to work for the employer.

If I am one of three employees working for a sole proprietor, and my alcoholism makes me unable to do my job, but paying for my problems puts my boss out of business is that right? What if I have 2 siblings and one living parent? Would they have equal responsibility, or is it just the employer? What about 3 strangers who live in my neighborhood, would they have legal responsibility (ie government support)? We have a lot of sick and needy - where does the alcoholic rank next to the war veteran or the downs child? What if I can't stop lying or stealing? Who should support me? What if I can't be relied upon? Is that enough of a compulsive behavior?

I am NOT minimizing the hurt, sorrow, and difficulty of alcoholism. I'm just wondering when my misfortune automatically becomes a burden to others, how much misfortune is enough to qualify, and how much can I contribute to my own misfortune and still have it count as misfortune.
 
Tough issue. But, I do wonder about how we prioritize who's supposed to be taken care of and who's obligated to do the taking care. Why does the company have a responsibility for taking care of the alcoholic? Did it cause his alcoholism? It's one thing if a person was injured on the job, but if they're injured off the clock, what makes the place of employment have any liability? If I paralyze myself from the neck down while snow boarding, should my construction company have to support me? Maybe they should have to insure their employees - or maybe the employee should have to have insurance to work for the employer.

In the same vein, why would it be the company's place to consequence an individual for something he does off the clock, but does not do on the clock... nor has it affected his job performance.

If I am one of three employees working for a sole proprietor, and my alcoholism makes me unable to do my job, but paying for my problems puts my boss out of business is that right? What if I have 2 siblings and one living parent? Would they have equal responsibility, or is it just the employer? What about 3 strangers who live in my neighborhood, would they have legal responsibility (ie government support)? We have a lot of sick and needy - where does the alcoholic rank next to the war veteran or the downs child? What if I can't stop lying or stealing? Who should support me? What if I can't be relied upon? Is that enough of a compulsive behavior?

I don't see anything here that is consistent with what we are discussing. Here would be something analogous to what we are discussing. If you are an alcoholic, should your two siblings and one remaining parent throw you out of the family?

I am NOT minimizing the hurt, sorrow, and difficulty of alcoholism. I'm just wondering when my misfortune automatically becomes a burden to others, how much misfortune is enough to qualify, and how much can I contribute to my own misfortune and still have it count as misfortune.

As always, it depends.
 
What other "disease" has a more negative impact on the people around them than it does the person who actually has it? I was just about to post that I can probably concede that alcohol abuse could be a disability, same way as if I cut off my own arm, I would then be disabled. Alcohol can also be an addiction, of course, but I don't believe addiction is a "disease". A person with a disease is a victim of that disease and nobody rational would blame a person who is the victim for their illness. This is why I balk at labeling every compulsive behavior a disease. It's just a way to garner sympathy and avoid responsibility for changing destructive behavior.

An alcoholic is a victim of their disease. They cannot drink like those who are not addicted. The part of this that is their responsibility is do they seek treatment and do things to prevent themselves from acting on behaviors or not.
 
An alcoholic is a victim of their disease. They cannot drink like those who are not addicted. The part of this that is their responsibility is do they seek treatment and do things to prevent themselves from acting on behaviors or not.

That's the thing though, most other diseases require extraordinary measures to battle their symptoms as well as the disease itself. People suffering those actual diseases have to make the decision to go through treatment or not. In the case of alcoholism, the "victim" actually has to choose to engage in the destructive behavior that makes them so called victims in the first place. Not only that, but an alcoholic's disease makes victims of other people who don't even have it.
 
That's the thing though, most other diseases require extraordinary measures to battle their symptoms as well as the disease itself. People suffering those actual diseases have to make the decision to go through treatment or not. In the case of alcoholism, the "victim" actually has to choose to engage in the destructive behavior that makes them so called victims in the first place. Not only that, but an alcoholic's disease makes victims of other people who don't even have it.

With the exception of the first two sentences, you are correct. Addiction does require extraordinary measures to battle symptoms and the disease itself. Having treated hundreds with addiction, I can tell you that is accurate. Also, those with addiction have to make the same decision... go through treatment or not.
 
That's the thing though, most other diseases require extraordinary measures to battle their symptoms as well as the disease itself. People suffering those actual diseases have to make the decision to go through treatment or not. In the case of alcoholism, the "victim" actually has to choose to engage in the destructive behavior that makes them so called victims in the first place. Not only that, but an alcoholic's disease makes victims of other people who don't even have it.

Which is why I believe that alcoholism isn't a disease. Yes, a disability can result from alcohol abuse, but because the person must first make the decision to begin drinking, I do not consider it a true disability. Some people become addicted to substances more easily than others, but many people are aware of their own propensity to become addicted because of family history. Recklessly ignoring that is foolish and destructive behavior. Why should such individuals garnish protection because of their own selfish and foolish actions?
 
Can we make being high a disability, too? Hey, maybe we can make everything a disability in the future. (sarcasm) But seriously, it does seem that way. Where did responsibility fly off to?
 
Tough issue. But, I do wonder about how we prioritize who's supposed to be taken care of and who's obligated to do the taking care. Why does the company have a responsibility for taking care of the alcoholic? Did it cause his alcoholism? It's one thing if a person was injured on the job, but if they're injured off the clock, what makes the place of employment have any liability? If I paralyze myself from the neck down while snow boarding, should my construction company have to support me? Maybe they should have to insure their employees - or maybe the employee should have to have insurance to work for the employer.

If I am one of three employees working for a sole proprietor, and my alcoholism makes me unable to do my job, but paying for my problems puts my boss out of business is that right? What if I have 2 siblings and one living parent? Would they have equal responsibility, or is it just the employer? What about 3 strangers who live in my neighborhood, would they have legal responsibility (ie government support)? We have a lot of sick and needy - where does the alcoholic rank next to the war veteran or the downs child? What if I can't stop lying or stealing? Who should support me? What if I can't be relied upon? Is that enough of a compulsive behavior?

I am NOT minimizing the hurt, sorrow, and difficulty of alcoholism. I'm just wondering when my misfortune automatically becomes a burden to others, how much misfortune is enough to qualify, and how much can I contribute to my own misfortune and still have it count as misfortune.

Disability doesn't mean "someone else has to take care of you" or "someone else has to pay for your care" or "someone elses' burden"
 
Which is why I believe that alcoholism isn't a disease. Yes, a disability can result from alcohol abuse, but because the person must first make the decision to begin drinking, I do not consider it a true disability. Some people become addicted to substances more easily than others, but many people are aware of their own propensity to become addicted because of family history. Recklessly ignoring that is foolish and destructive behavior. Why should such individuals garnish protection because of their own selfish and foolish actions?

The same is true for most cases of heart disease, diabetes, and a number of other conditions. People know their family has a history of these diseases, but they eat unhealthy foods anyway. Not only that, but our tax dollars go to subsidizing many of those unhealthy foods making it cheaper to eat those foods.
 
Disability doesn't mean "someone else has to take care of you" or "someone else has to pay for your care" or "someone elses' burden"
Who pays for those with disabilities? Does any of it come from taxes?
 
You know, alcohol is a disability in the sense that alcoholics need treatment. However, this is also about making a choice in life. Bottom line is that I would no more trust an alcoholic driving a bus than I would a pedophile teaching in a classroom full of kids.
 
Last edited:
The same is true for most cases of heart disease, diabetes, and a number of other conditions. People know their family has a history of these diseases, but they eat unhealthy foods anyway. Not only that, but our tax dollars go to subsidizing many of those unhealthy foods making it cheaper to eat those foods.

If someone abuses their body, they are not entitled to protection against being fired. I make no exceptions. However, I do not agree with the qualifier "most." "Many" would be more accurate in this case.
 
If someone abuses their body, they are not entitled to protection against being fired. I make no exceptions. However, I do not agree with the qualifier "most." "Many" would be more accurate in this case.

So it's OK for an employer to fire someone for eating a cheeseburger?

Employees with heart disease increase the medical costs of providing coverage for their employees, and unhealthy eating is one the most important factors in causing heart disease (as well as diabetes). Using your illogic, it's OK for bosses to fire employees who aren't on a low fat diet

That's absurd
 
Last edited:
So it's OK for an employer to fire someone for eating a cheeseburger?

Employees with heart disease increase the medical costs of providing coverage for their employees, and unhealthy eating is one the most important factors in causing heart disease (as well as diabetes). Using your illogic, it's OK for bosses to fire employees who aren't on a low fat diet

That's absurd

Let's refine that to those who abuse their bodies in a way that may affect their job performance. Similar to the alcoholic having a driving job, I often wonder why you see so many fat security guards. I'd rather them be paid to work out under supervision several hours a week than be so fat they couldn't catch a criminal/troublemaker.
 
Back
Top Bottom