Did the douchebag say exactly what the post title said he said?

Well yeah, because you are fucking dead. Dying might be the best cure for addiction's known to man.

He looks like David Wallace

I think the better language is "you can be drunk 16 hours a day" which, some people are, and they're certified alcohol addicts. So shoving Instagram in your brain the same way is the same disease, different symptoms.

So someone doing Heroin everday is not addicted if it doesn't cause any problems in life? Clinical Addiction absolutely does have to do with how much you do something (and other factors of course).

Have you walked back your lie comparing the actual topic of addiction to the irrelevant topic of tomatoes? Make sure you post an explicit correction along with an apology.

"If the truth isn't enough, I don't want it." Please demonstrate.

Diablo 3 and Tiny Tina's done this for me

Pfft. I've drank for 16 hours many a day and I'm not dead.

I did both for a while, smoking and vaping. A place I shop at was giving away cans of nicotine pouches when you bought a pack of cigarettes for a little while.

One day I was starting at the nicotine pouches and thought, "fuck it, let's add another addiction to the mix." Over three hours later I realized I hadn't even thought of a cigarette or vape yet and I didn't feel like one even though I was thinking about it then. A lightbulb went off in my head.

I think I bought one more pack of cigarettes after that. I quickly went down to a few cigarettes a day, then down to two cigarettes a day, then one for a few days, and then none. Vapes were just an indoor substitute for cigarettes, once I didn't want cigarettes I didn't want to vape, either. It took me about a month after that to wean off the pouches, too.

*hards on

That's a physical addiction. Drug addiction is a problem physicians handle. Psychologists handle addiction to video games, gambling, sex, the Internet, etc and that's how they define addiction.

You support lying. Good to know.

If you don’t understand the tomato comment, no wonder you’re having so much trouble with the interpretation and lying topics!

There's no way you can say that the inquiry was about tomatoes as much as it was about addiction. Not without being incredibly stupid or incredibly dishonest.

You are now intentionally leaving out multiple paragraphs of content that would prove the opposite, which adds to your deception.

Demonstrate a grain of honesty by fixing your lies and maybe you'll have a right to talk.

Tiny Tina omg

You really don’t understand and are just driving the point home the more you post. I feel kinda sorry for you.

That is simply not correct. It is true that addiction to substances ends in physical dependency. But at its core all addiction is psychological. A heroin addict doesn't relapse after two years of being sober because he's still physically addicted to it. In most cases it's about missing the capacity for emotional regulation. And people addicted to substances don't get treated by physicians, at least where I'm from.

It's not a bug - it's a feature!

Please defend your use of your lying false equivalency. Demonstrate your wisdom, Truth Seeker.

It is correct. If you do heroin everyday, you will have physical problems. If you stop playing Team Fortress 2 and it causes you to start shaking, vomiting, and shitting your pants, then that's comparable to heroin. But you won't do that so they're not the same types of addiction. That's why the medical community defines addiction by how something affects your life and not by some arbitrary number of times you do it.

What do you think my original point was?

Yours was essentially “it doesn’t matter if he said addiction or not, he was dodging the question. All the evidence points towards him claiming that much usage is not an addiction.”

There are more than one criteria by which addiction gets defined. One of these absolutely is how often you do something. How it affects you is not the only criteria by which the medical community defines an addiction, albeit one of them.

Heroin Addiction is different to Team Fortress addiction in the same way it is different to Cannabis addiction, they are all unique in how they affect you. The physical and psychological effects of cannabis addiction are going to be different to the ones of heroin and internet addiction.

If they were only defined by how they affect you, like you argue, then every addiction would be a unique type of addiction, which is not how we define them

Again at the core all addiction is psychogical. We don't differenciate between them on basis of physical effects.

I told you what your point was. Over and over. And I told you how you were misleading (and now, just intentionally dishonest). Quite a few people seem to understand exactly what I told you.

So if you think there's a communication issue, it's on your side to fix.

So how many hours of TF2 can you play a day before doctors will diagnose you with an addiction? Four, eight, sixteen?

I'm sorry but did you even read my comment? As in the part where I explain there are multiple criterias that define an addiction?

But to take the numbers mentioned in the Post, yes, 16 hours of instagram use are an extremely strong indication of an addiction. If more criteria are fulfilled then it will definetely be diagnosed as an addiction.

Yes I read your comment. So if a man is compelled to murder two hobos a month and can't break the habit, that would not be a strong indication of an addiction?

You got it wrong and aren’t willing to recognize that. The fact that you can’t even paraphrase my point (no matter how wrong you think I am) shows just how out of your depth that you are.

I mean I know you asked this as a kind of gotcha, but yes psychologists have long argued that seriel killing can be classified as a behavioral addiction.
Ted Bundy himself said he felt addicted to killing.

The stupid/malicious dichotomy just keeps coming up with you, huh. How did you miss the explanations? Ditto for your original wrong comment.

Even if you think you are right, o arbiter of truth, apparently dozens of people disagree with your take when shown context. That's on you bro. Go fix it.

It's not a gotcha. It's more of the Socratic method.

Lol ok. I guess that means you don't have actual arguments or are just trying to be a troll.

Either way, have a good one.

How can you be arguing with someone and not even know what their position is? No, none of your prior posts come close.

Naw, screw “know” - you’re fucking clueless. You have no idea and are screaming into the wind.

Even if you think you are right, o arbiter of truth, apparently dozens of people disagree with your take when shown context. That's on you bro. Go fix it.

You’re out here swinging on a straw man if you can’t restate what you think my position is, and have it be remotely accurate. Which, so far, you’re not even close.

Did I summarize your position well enough? Any clarifications?

Wrong.

Even if you think you are right, o arbiter of truth, apparently dozens of people disagree with your take when shown context. That's on you bro. Go fix it.

I’m not trolling. I’m trying to get you to think about what you’re saying. I’m hoping if you do, you’ll realize that doctors have to base their diagnosis on “I want to stop but I can’t” and that’s all. Unless it’s something like drinking or drugs that can kill you or harm others, they can’t help some one who says they don’t have a problem.

Well if you're honestly not trolling...

I don't have to think about what I'm saying because I know that this:

"doctors have to base their diagnosis on “I want to stop but I can’t” and that’s all."

is not true.

Do you seriously believe psychiatrists only have this one determining factor to decide if someone is addicted to something?

The ICD-11, which is what is relevant where I'm from, states Gaming Addiction as a behavioral addiction for which one diagnostic criteria is preoccupation which is determined by how often you play games.

To be fair the DSM-5(American Psychiatric Association) lists gaming addiction in it's 'more research needed' section and hasn't yet determined diagnostic criteria for gaming addiction specifically. But it does have the behavioral addiction of gambling, in which preoccupation is also one of these criteria.

I don't know what else to tell you other than that the information you have or where it comes from is simply not true, I'm sorry.

That's interesting. How many times does the DSM-5 say you can gamble before you have an addiction?

lol @ copy and paste. You’re committing a second logical fallacy: appeal to authority.

Still so wrong “bro”

Interesting. How many times do I have to explain the concept of needing multiple criteria in order to diagnose addiction for you to understand it?

lol you missed the duplicate the first time, yet another sign of your illiteracy. And you ignored it, typical of the belligerent hypocrite... But tell us, o wise one, what "authority" do you feel was appealed to?

I was seriously asking. Judging by your reaction though, I assume it doesn't give a number. Probably because it doesn't really factor into the diagnosis at all. The core of the diagnosis will be based on how much it affects your health and happiness.

Because you seem to lack the understanding that no one criteria is enough to diagnose addiction. And yes the preoccupation and duration of use are listed as criteria in both ICD-11 and the DSM-5. Just because there is no set number doesn't mean they do not factor in to diagnosis. And again how it affects your health and life in generell are obviously also criteria by which addiction gets diagnosed.
But saying duration and amount of use are not factors is not true.

What you don't understand is that addiction is actually a symptom of another illness and doctors would like to get rid of the concept of addiction, but they can't because it'd collapse a billion dollar industry, turn the DEA and the rest of the government against them, and they'd never hear the end of it from the lay people. "Preoccupation and duration of use" are fuzzy weasel words without any clear definition tacked on to this criteria simply to appease us wall-eyed villagers.

Which doctors are trying to get rid of the "concept" of addiction?
What Illness is addiction a "symptom" of?
What billion Dollar Industry are you talking about exaclty?
If Addiction is a symptom and not an illness why did you spend this whole thread arguing about its criteria? Symptoms aren't diagnosed.

The only one being fuzzy and vague is you

Most of them, OCD, the rehab and drug enforcement industry, I was trying to get you to ponder the concept of addiction. Saying what I said so bluntly is like telling a Christian that Jesus died 2000 years ago and he ain't coming back. I couldn't just dump that on you.

1. Name one doctors society that does. Because I seriously doubt most, if any doctors say that.

2. Please show me the evidence for that

I will ignore the rest of the rubbish you wrote

Did not miss it just thought you were lazy, and I was right. You’ve never even heard of logical fallacies, have you?

Quick review: I fully understand your point, as demonstrated by you not correcting me, despite being repeatedly challenged to do so. You think you understand mine, but do not. And never have. Which is why you’re so full of yourself here. Again, laughably so.

You couldn’t argue your way out of a paper bag. Proof: this discussion. You don’t even know which way is up.

I do appreciate the fun though.

Quick review: I fully understand your point, as demonstrated by you not correcting me

Wrong, I called you wrong already, you weird liar.

You think you understand mine, but do not. And never have. Which is...

Your fault, even if I assume you might be right.

Genuinely, are you mentally well? I asked you what authority you think I'm appealing to. Am I speaking to a person or an LLM?

Oh my sweet summer child
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Authority

What is the name of the authority you think I used?

Look at the examples in the link you posted.

Do I have to draw a picture for you, o smart one?