looking at this nothing the article states reflects its targeting nonconformity and freethinking. Especially mentions nothing of trying to suppress creative thought. pretty much it says if your child is being an outright asshole for 6 months straight they might have Oppositional defiant disorder. I wish i could downvote
Signs and symptoms were: actively refuses to comply with majority's requests or consensus-supported rules;[5] performs actions deliberately to annoy others;[5] is angry and resentful of others;[4] argues often;[4] blames others for their own mistakes;[6] frequently loses temper;[6] is spiteful or seeks revenge;[6] and is touchy or easily annoyed.[6]
i didnt say it didnt mean what you are saying. but the article specifically decided to use that word for a reason. not because its what was medically used but its what gets attention. it gets the attention of people who hear conformity as a bad thing. which most people do. People want to be an individual. Most people are special little people and will never want to choose to conform to other people. thats why it s a buzzword. it gets an emotional response. if the article title read consenus-supported rules. no one would give a shit and click on there stupid little article. which was a paragraph long and had no links to the actual manual they were talking about. cause they know that people clickbaiting on an emotional response will most likely not actually research and find out they were bullshitting for the views.
All of what you said is an opinion and it's pretty baseless since it's talking about the intention of the author. We are talking about the usage of the word nonconformity and the author correctly used the word because nonconformity is explicitly described as one of the symptoms.
Why are you even changing the subject man? I agree with part of your original comment that the author was nonsensically saying this is against freethinking (it could be with a very extreme interpretation) but I was just comment on what seemed like how you were implying that it's using the word nonconformity inaccurately which is, as I've proven totally wrong.
All of what i said is an opinion? thats not true at all. Because its a fact the author used the word nonconformity and the manual didnt. that is a fact. and i agreed the nonconformity has the definition equal to.
the author chose that one specific word for a reason. that is a fact.
the author didnt link the manual. that is a fact.
i wouldnt say all of what i said is an opinion or baseless?
i didnt change the subject. i was pretty on the nose to what you want to talk about plus some.
and once again the one trait alone is not merit to seek therapy. 4 together are. and the article didnt even directly quote 4 from the manual. specifically chose a few and reworded it to the author's benefit. the article doesnt even
you are ignoring my other comment and focusing on something so minor. you are just being combative and arguing for no reason now. you are not helping along a good and healthy discussion. so from this point im done responding to you. its obvious you just want to argue about nothing.
Those facts can have many implications but no one can prove the implications. You said some of these implications, and if you are saying these implications are true then that is your opinion. The implications were how you think those facts about the article were chosen for the author's benefit and talking about the author's benefit can't be factual unless the author says so...
Plus some? That means you were changing the subject... Anyways you're just ignoring what I posted because I fully explained what I wanted to talk about and you're not talking about it at all. I never said that one trait is enough to seek therapy what makes you think that? Now you're just putting false words into my mouth.
You are the one being combative and arguing for no reason man... What a cop out LMFAO. If I am ignoring your comment you can point out what I am ignoring and we can talk about it dude....
I even said I agreed with the general idea of your original comment and now you're just accusing me of combative? Really now?
view the rest of the comments →
slightly ago
looking at this nothing the article states reflects its targeting nonconformity and freethinking. Especially mentions nothing of trying to suppress creative thought. pretty much it says if your child is being an outright asshole for 6 months straight they might have Oppositional defiant disorder. I wish i could downvote
Signs and symptoms were: actively refuses to comply with majority's requests or consensus-supported rules;[5] performs actions deliberately to annoy others;[5] is angry and resentful of others;[4] argues often;[4] blames others for their own mistakes;[6] frequently loses temper;[6] is spiteful or seeks revenge;[6] and is touchy or easily annoyed.[6]
alsyd ago
Isn't "actively refuses to comply with majority's requests or consensus-supported rules" the exact same thing as nonconformity?
slightly ago
nonconformity is a buzzword. it is not the word used by the actual manual.
alsyd ago
non·con·form·i·ty : failure or refusal to conform to a prevailing rule or practice.
That's the EXACT same as one of the symptoms : actively refuses to comply with majority's requests or consensus-supported rules
slightly ago
i didnt say it didnt mean what you are saying. but the article specifically decided to use that word for a reason. not because its what was medically used but its what gets attention. it gets the attention of people who hear conformity as a bad thing. which most people do. People want to be an individual. Most people are special little people and will never want to choose to conform to other people. thats why it s a buzzword. it gets an emotional response. if the article title read consenus-supported rules. no one would give a shit and click on there stupid little article. which was a paragraph long and had no links to the actual manual they were talking about. cause they know that people clickbaiting on an emotional response will most likely not actually research and find out they were bullshitting for the views.
alsyd ago
All of what you said is an opinion and it's pretty baseless since it's talking about the intention of the author. We are talking about the usage of the word nonconformity and the author correctly used the word because nonconformity is explicitly described as one of the symptoms.
Why are you even changing the subject man? I agree with part of your original comment that the author was nonsensically saying this is against freethinking (it could be with a very extreme interpretation) but I was just comment on what seemed like how you were implying that it's using the word nonconformity inaccurately which is, as I've proven totally wrong.
slightly ago
All of what i said is an opinion? thats not true at all. Because its a fact the author used the word nonconformity and the manual didnt. that is a fact. and i agreed the nonconformity has the definition equal to.
the author chose that one specific word for a reason. that is a fact.
the author didnt link the manual. that is a fact.
i wouldnt say all of what i said is an opinion or baseless?
i didnt change the subject. i was pretty on the nose to what you want to talk about plus some.
and once again the one trait alone is not merit to seek therapy. 4 together are. and the article didnt even directly quote 4 from the manual. specifically chose a few and reworded it to the author's benefit. the article doesnt even
you are ignoring my other comment and focusing on something so minor. you are just being combative and arguing for no reason now. you are not helping along a good and healthy discussion. so from this point im done responding to you. its obvious you just want to argue about nothing.
alsyd ago
Those facts can have many implications but no one can prove the implications. You said some of these implications, and if you are saying these implications are true then that is your opinion. The implications were how you think those facts about the article were chosen for the author's benefit and talking about the author's benefit can't be factual unless the author says so...
Plus some? That means you were changing the subject... Anyways you're just ignoring what I posted because I fully explained what I wanted to talk about and you're not talking about it at all. I never said that one trait is enough to seek therapy what makes you think that? Now you're just putting false words into my mouth.
You are the one being combative and arguing for no reason man... What a cop out LMFAO. If I am ignoring your comment you can point out what I am ignoring and we can talk about it dude....
I even said I agreed with the general idea of your original comment and now you're just accusing me of combative? Really now?