Long-Awaited Feelings - Ch. 32 - I wonder...

[MangaDex]

 

[Kitsune_115]

Tsun tsun

 

[19CharacterUsername]

The last couple of panels were adorable

 

[19CharacterUsername]

The last couple of panels were adorable

 

[Oeconomist]

Aaand it's full bullshit mode. If the MC was previously destroyed by alcohol but now won't stay entirely away from it, then she is beneath even pity, let alone contempt.

 

[LunaaSnow]

Aaand it's full bullshit mode. If the MC was previously destroyed by alcohol but now won't stay entirely away from it, then she is beneath even pity, let alone contempt.

Idk, was pretty clear to me that she was trying to get on the director's good side for a chance to be picked as the second female lead so she could act alongside Jing Xiu in the movie.

Also, wanting to stop but not being able to is literally what addiction means

 

[stinkywinkygl]

she’s so sweet to her 🥺

 

[Oeconomist]

Also, wanting to stop but not being able to is literally what addiction means

No, it's not. An addict, denied the addictive, goes into a state of depression, and possibly suffers various other discomforts (in some cases extreme). But the choice to suffer those discomforts remains, which is exactly why some people can and do clean-up and stay sober.

Moreover, in the case of this character, she has been returned to a state before she'd grossly undermined the permeability of her synaptic membranes by habitual use. So she's not an addict.

 

[shemper]

Thank you for your work!

 

[LunaaSnow]

No, it's not. An addict, denied the addictive, goes into a state of depression, and possibly suffers various other discomforts (in some cases extreme).

Moreover, in the case of this character, she has been returned to a state before she'd grossly undermined the permeability of her synaptic membranes by habitual use. So she's not an addict.

It's literally in the diagnostic criteria, but sure. Agitation and tremors are far more likely to be symptoms of withdrawal than a state of depression anyway, but if we're going to be so specific, let's put it as an unhealthy relationship with alcohol then

 

[Oeconomist]

It's literally in the diagnostic criteria, but sure.

No, it is not. If it were, then no addict would quit except when forcibly restrained.

Agitation and tremors are far more likely to be symptoms of withdrawal than a state of depression anyway

No, depression is a universal trait of withdrawal across all addictions.

let's put it as an unhealthy relationship with alcohol then

In her case, one beneath contempt or pity, as I said.

 

[LunaaSnow]

No, it is not. If it were, then no addict would quit except when forcibly restrained.

No, depression is a universal trait of withdrawal across all addictions.

In her case, one beneath contempt or pity, as I said.

Wow. Just a quick look at the DSM-5 would tell you that what you said was incredibly untrue AND overgeneralized, but you clearly have something personal going on with the topic so let's just leave it at that

 

[Oeconomist]

Wow. Just a quick look at the DSM-5 would tell you that what you said was incredibly untrue AND overgeneralized, but you clearly have something personal going on with the topic so let's just leave it at that

I'd encourage anyone interested to compare your claims about addiction to those in DSM-5. Not because I agree with DSM-5, but because the source that you cite doesn't back you up. Start with your claims

wanting to stop but not being able to is literally what addiction means

It's literally in the diagnostic criteria

DSM-5 has 11 criteria, none of them being an inability to quit, and any two criteria are said to qualify a person as addicted, with the severity of addiction generally taken to increase with the number of criteria met.

But, if anyone has actually attended to the evolution from DSM-I through DSM-5, and the controversies surrounding its initial claims and their evolution, then that person should recognize that it's not a scientific resource, and certainly says nothing about the mechanisms of addiction.

 

[SrNevik]

Idk, was pretty clear to me that she was trying to get on the director's good side for a chance to be picked as the second female lead so she could act alongside Jing Xiu in the movie.

Also, wanting to stop but not being able to is literally what addiction means

It's so clear that I'm honestly shocked by the comment. It's obviously not meant to be a good decision by her and that's communicated in the short chapter. A bit dramatic.

 

[flowsthead]

I'd encourage anyone interested to compare your claims about addiction to those in DSM-5. Not because I agree with DSM-5, but because the source that you cite doesn't back you up. Start with your claims

DSM-5 has 11 criteria, none of them being an inability to quit, and any two criteria are said to qualify a person as addicted, with the severity of addiction generally taken to increase with the number of criteria met.

But, if anyone has actually attended to the evolution from DSM-I through DSM-5, and the controversies surrounding its initial claims and their evolution, then that person should recognize that it's not a scientific resource, and certainly says nothing about the mechanisms of addiction.

I wasn't going to reply, but this seems factually wrong. I checked so many sites and they all list as one of the 11 criteria:
"Trying to cut down or stop using the substance but being unable to." Send a link of where you checked your version, because what you're saying makes absolutely no sense.

As far as DSM and its reliability as a source, I will agree it's not perfect, but the idea that because it's not perfect it is therefore not useful as a source doesn't track. If you have an alternative by all means. All you've done is said other people are wrong without providing your own sources.

 

[Oeconomist]

I wasn't going to reply, but this seems factually wrong. I checked so many sites and they all list as one of the 11 criteria:
"Trying to cut down or stop using the substance but being unable to." Send a link of where you checked your version,

You're not quoting DSM-5; you're quoting someone's attempt to paraphrase DSM-5. The actual wording in DSM-5 is “There is a persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to cut down or control alcohol use.” The claim is not that the abuser cannot reduce use, but that he or she does not.

what you're saying makes absolutely no sense

What makes no sense is reiterating a claim falsified by every addict who stops abusing the addictive.

the idea that because it's not perfect it is therefore not useful as a source

…is something of a strawman argument from you. The DSM-5 isn't useful for settling controversies about anything other than what's in the DSM-5. If you want to use it for a purpose other than controverting a claim about whether some condition exists, whether the condition should be viewed as a disorder, and what its etiology is, then the DSM-5 might be fine.

All you've done is said other people are wrong without providing your own sources.

No, that's not all that I've done.

The principal problem here is that we all are aware that some addicts quit, which makes absurd the claim that addiction is defined by an inability to quit. No one has to cite anything more than those two points.

None-the-less, I cited the actual DSM-5 when a spurious claim was made. My citation didn't then have a quote or link, but neither did the claim to which I responded.

You demanded a link from me, and I've provided one; but note that you gave no link. And rather than consulting the primary source, you just found paraphrases and figured that they were good enough. The link that I gave you was easy to find; you should have found it or an equivalent link yourself.

 

[flowsthead]

You're not quoting DSM-5; you're quoting someone's attempt to paraphrase DSM-5. The actual wording in DSM-5 is “There is a persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to cut down or control alcohol use.” The claim is not that the abuser cannot reduce use, but that he or she does not.

What makes no sense is reiterating a claim falsified by every addict who stops abusing the addictive.

…is something of a strawman argument from you. The DSM-5 isn't useful for settling controversies about anything other than what's in the DSM-5. If you want to use it for a purpose other than controverting a claim about whether some condition exists, whether the condition should be viewed as a disorder, and what its etiology is, then the DSM-5 might be fine.

No, that's not all that I've done.

The principal problem here is that we all are aware that some addicts quit, which makes absurd the claim that addiction is defined by an inability to quit. No one has to cite anything more than those two points.

None-the-less, I cited the actual DSM-5 when a spurious claim was made. My citation didn't then have a quote or link, but neither did the claim to which I responded.

You demanded a link from me, and I've provided one; but note that you gave no link. And rather than consulting the primary source, you just found paraphrases and figured that they were good enough. The link that I gave you was easy to find; you should have found it or an equivalent link yourself.

Fine, let's do this. Here are the two relevant parts in regards to this.
"An important characteristic of substance use disorders is an underlying change in brain circuits that may persist beyond detoxification, particularly in individuals with severe disorders. The behavioral effects of these brain changes may be exhibited in the repeated relapses and intense drug craving when the individuals are exposed to drug-related stimuli."
"The individual may express a persistent desire to cut down or regulate substance use and may report multiple unsuccessful efforts to decrease or discontinue use."

Yes, the exact wording is different than the summaries online, but the same basic idea comes across. Quitting can be extremely difficult depending on the individual, and frequent relapses would suggest that quitting is something people struggle with. To make that a shorthand for "unable to quit" is perhaps eliding over a more complicated truth, but it doesn't strike me as so wrong as to miss the point. If people relapse and report "multiple unsuccessful efforts", then that is an inability to quit.

Also, despite calling me on a strawman argument, which is an incorrect use by the way, your logic is faulty. "What makes no sense is reiterating a claim falsified by every addict who stops abusing the addictive." That some addicts quit does not mean that there are addicts who cannot. You seem to be taking every statement as if it applies to all individuals in every circumstance, which is not how I think people were using it in this thread. I will agree that there are criteria by which quitting is not necessary for something to be an addiction. But again, that doesn't mean people are wrong that quitting can be an extremely difficult thing to do for many addicts. That it doesn't apply to all addicts doesn't negate that.

 

[Oeconomist]

Yes, the exact wording is different than the summaries online, but the same basic idea comes across.

No, it doesn't. The idea of persistent cravings is not at all the same thing as an inability to reduce use nor even as an inability to quit.

To make that a shorthand for "unable to quit" is perhaps eliding over a more complicated truth, but it doesn't strike me as so wrong as to miss the point.

That's because you committed even in the face of my having noted the distinct before you involved yourself.

If people relapse and report "multiple unsuccessful efforts", then that is an inability to quit.

No, not only is the former not the latter; it isn't even proof of the latter.

despite calling me on a strawman argument, which is an incorrect use by the way

No, a straw-man claim is a fiction set up to be easily defeated, and your overly broad

the idea that because it's not perfect it is therefore not useful as a source

is just that.

your logic is faulty. "What makes no sense is reiterating a claim falsified by every addict who stops abusing the addictive." That some addicts quit does not mean that there are addicts who cannot.

Another straw-man from you. I said that the claim that the other person and then you made about the definition of addiction was falsified by addicts who quit. I didn't claim that the success of some addicts in quitting falsified a claim that some addicts could not.

The point that use of addictives is a matter of choice is a deeper issue, involving the actual mechanism of addiction.

 

[flowsthead]

I'm willing to end this here since there doesn't seem to be a point in continuing if we can't agree on basic ideas. You're still misusing what a strawman is. If I had misunderstood your argument that still wouldn't make it a strawman. Just because you've heard of a fallacy doesn't mean you're using it correctly. And quoting everything line by line is frankly a little annoying to read.

 

[outinthegardener]

I'm just glad they revealed the asymmetrical pants.