As an aside, I would say that 6 pages is probably waaay too short to attempt to cover everything you want in depth.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
3IdSpetsnaz wrote:
Thanks so far guys. I’m really looking forward to the whole, roid rage thing. As I want to make that look as stupid as it really is, what about booze rage or pms? Those are permissiable forms for rage?
Can’t speak to pms, but booze rage is largely due to an impairment of mental judgement and lowering of inhibitions, not booze itself. AAS don’t really lower inhibitions or impair judgement. It perhaps can allow one to be more assertive and confident in general. You could argue that it induces people to take more risks, but that is specious and I would argue rather that risk takers are more prone to take steroids–and do other things–rather than the reverse. [/quote]
Maybe but it is also proven that men with a higher T level will smoke more, drink more, be more aggressive (in some manner, this doesn’t as most think mean they fight or shout), have more partners… etc.
These are all reactions to heightened aggressive behaviours.
Aggression does not necessarily mean one is loud or violent, CEO’s are often very aggressive in business - I have met many an aggressively protective mother (and father in law…).
Rage and aggression are very different - with rage being an act of aggression, being aggressive does not mean you are raging.
Is it true that androgenic steroids increase aggression? Absolutely. This is provenm beyond and reasonable doubt i think.
Is it true that AAS will do this to every man? Possibly, but not in a way that is possible to be measured with a handful or tests.
I will link a test done to assess aggressive behaviours related to androgen level, and it is interesting mostly because it shows a different opinion (and a better understanding than ‘rage’ proponents) on what aggression may entail.
It isnt particularly journal material, but it an interesting point nonetheless.
Anyway. Back to my point.
Will a high Androgen make everyone violent? Nope, but will it increase the likelyhood of all TO be more aggressive? I think absolutely so.
The reason that Androgen level does not make everyone aggressive (noticeably so, it will increase it to some degree in everyone i personally believe) is simply because androgen level is but a single factor in ones temper or aggression.
I have not studied the area in depth, but lets assume that in order for someone to be a really aggressive and violent fucker they need to have all 5 factors of aggression at the highest level. lets assume the level ranges from 1 (low) to 5 (high).
If you have person A who has all five factors below level 2, and inject them with AAS increasing a single factor to 5… then will they become aggressive? Probably not.
However if you inject person B with AAS increasing their androgen level to 5, while naturally their other factors are four or above, then they are much more likely to exhibit aggressive tendancies.
I have absolutely no proof for this but i absolutely categorically stand by this theory.
[quote] Brook wrote:
No, you still believe that because a drug is legally prescribed it cannot be inhertently dangerous - even though i am talking about when they are used in the correct way by people who know what they are doing - whether that is death or addiction.
[/quote]
Untrue. I know prescription meds can be dangerous. Shit, I was taken off accutane after 5 months because it fucked me up, and relative to those rx drugs earlier, accutane doesn’t even sound so horrible.
Also untrue. My trust and faith in medical practitioners (in general) dropped quite a bit during my freshman year of college when my physician prescribed me an SSRI for three months (after speaking about it with him for 5 minutes over the phone) when I had a slight case of seasonal depression disorder from northeast winters that I was able to fix with daily vitamin D.
I don’t get this. Just because you don’t have the same ads doesn’t mean I’m not hearing what the manufacturers ARE advertising as side effects. Whether or not they’ll happen to you, they’re still there that the company is required to tell a potential user of said drug. That said, I do understand that most of what we ‘learn’ on TV is bullshit, but I don’t think reiterating what a drug company has to say about their drugs side effects are included in this.
Over 18 is closer to reality for someone getting their hands on alcohol or tobacco? Please. I knew plenty of kids in middle school who were drinking and smoking on a regular basis. So did my older brother, and I remember when my younger brother came up to me his freshman year of high school to talk to me about drinking. He said his friends were drinking every weekend, as freshman in high school. (14, 15 years old?)
Obviously it’s not legal for them to be drinking, smoking, or dipping, but it’s still not hard [at all] for them to get their hands on it. That said, I don’t think there’s anyone in their right mind who would argue it’s not dangerous for someone that young [or older, for that matter] to be using tobacco.
[quote]
Lastly, as for my pro-steroid arguments, sorry mate but that is a long post i am not about to begin this morning! Needless to say your argument would not be part of it ;)[/quote]
Fair enough. Well, if you ever write an essay on it, you know who’s interested.
Fair enough
One thing i should address, the point i made about the TV ads etc; in the US when a drug is advertised on TV the company have a legal obligation to list every potential side effect that is at least moderately common (or something like that)… whereas in the UK not only do we not have ads on TV for drugs such as anti-depressants, but what ads we do have are not legally obligated to list side effects and when we have a drug prescribed, the doctor does not have to do this either.
The point is, in the UK if you know details about a drug it isnt from an advert or a quick sentance from a biased and often ignorant MD, but it is from personal experience, word of mouth or (and as is my point) as you have looked into the drug, its actions, indications, contra-indications and all that shit.
So the point is, due to there being less info available to the public on prescription meds in the UK, i (and many) British citizens tend to read up on a drug of interest and thus often avoid any ‘spin’ as is dfinitely put on my manufacturers on a commercial break.
[quote] Brook wrote:
but what ads we do have are not legally obligated to list side effects and when we have a drug prescribed, the doctor does not have to do this either.
[/quote]
Damn, that’s fucked up. Especially for the elderly who might not be as adept as some when it comes to computers, which is basically where all information is taken from these days, anyway. [Whether that’s a good thing or not.]
Is this when we hug? errr…