No one made that argument. The original question was asking if it’s a reliable confirmation of a correct diagnosis of ADHD if stimulant medication doesn’t seem to be addictive for the individual. The further implication was research done to demonstrate the low addiction risk of people with ADHD with stimulant medication. There was no attempt at specified language that would necessitate an implication that they believed people with ADHD are “immune”(in the popular use) to stimulant addiction. Maybe their use of language was inexact, but communication is a two-way street and it’s important to not assume necessity where it isn’t explicitly specified. A response of “No.” to the intent of the original question is irresponsibly incorrect.
Even if their intent was indeed to specifically say people with ADHD are immune to stimulant addiction, while the correct first part of a response would be to say that definitely isn’t the case, it still implies some interaction with the studies showing the direct benefits of stimulant medication for people with ADHD struggling with addiction. Leaving the response at a negative would be factually correct, but still irresponsible to leave out the referred studies because the implication would be that it’s just some random made-up bullshit, increasing stigma, seeding skepticism of the actual studies, and just generally being unhelpful. It’s a topical discussion, so the appropriate thing is to actually address the topic at hand.
Also, starting off your comment with “chill the fuck out” and ending it with “feel free to block me.” is hilarious. I’m sorry, I’m not sure how to phrase that without it seeming like I’m mocking you, I just genuinely find it funny.
No one made that argument. The original question was asking if it’s a reliable confirmation of a correct diagnosis of ADHD if stimulant medication doesn’t seem to be addictive for the individual. The further implication was research done to demonstrate the low addiction risk of people with ADHD with stimulant medication. There was no attempt at specified language that would necessitate an implication that they believed people with ADHD are “immune”(in the popular use) to stimulant addiction. Maybe their use of language was inexact, but communication is a two-way street and it’s important to not assume necessity where it isn’t explicitly specified. A response of “No.” to the intent of the original question is irresponsibly incorrect.
Even if their intent was indeed to specifically say people with ADHD are immune to stimulant addiction, while the correct first part of a response would be to say that definitely isn’t the case, it still implies some interaction with the studies showing the direct benefits of stimulant medication for people with ADHD struggling with addiction. Leaving the response at a negative would be factually correct, but still irresponsible to leave out the referred studies because the implication would be that it’s just some random made-up bullshit, increasing stigma, seeding skepticism of the actual studies, and just generally being unhelpful. It’s a topical discussion, so the appropriate thing is to actually address the topic at hand.
Also, starting off your comment with “chill the fuck out” and ending it with “feel free to block me.” is hilarious. I’m sorry, I’m not sure how to phrase that without it seeming like I’m mocking you, I just genuinely find it funny.