I think not bud. That's an illegal play, and you know it.
It is quite possible I have spectrum disorder of some sort or other. That is inconsequential, however. What does have consequence is that I am willing to look at this as a potential problem. The people here, are not.
Also, I distanced myself from computers years ago. My dayjob involves making and reading blueprints, and my hobbies include, but are not all inclusive:
Textile crafts (crochet, knit, tieing nets, etc) Drawing Sculpting Going camping (primative) Equestrianism (but not the bronie kind) Playing video games
With the exception of the first one, these are all "normal" hobbies, and many are social activities as well.
Your accusation is a stereotype, and offbase. While I do like computers, I don't spend inordinate amounts of time with one; I recognize that doing so is a problem, is unhealthy, and *gasp* do other things with my time, and don't self identify as a "computer nerd".
However, people who are subjects of interventions also frequently falsely ascribe malice to said intervention, and consider it harm. (Look at the lindsay lohan drama.)
My pointing out that obcessive behavior is an indicator of illness is like pointing out that drinking 2 or more alcoholic beverages daily is a sign of alcoholism. The personal accusation, "are youj calling me an alcoholic!? How dare you!" Is not deserved, but you are free to level its equivalent if you like.
You: You are making up words Me: No, I get my definitions for mental illness here. (Link) You: (ignores link) You are making up words! My bronie friends would say they have a problem! Me:Alcoholics say they don't have a problem either, but they do. You: (dead horse mode) You are making up definitions to words! Being a bronie is just being a big fan of MLP! This is established use! Me: Being a big fan is the problem. You: You are saying things that make no sense! Me: it makes perfect sense, (explains) You: No it doesn't because (contrived tautology) Me: asserting that people who are simply fans can't avoid being bronies is not logically supported, because that is a genuine no true scottsman. Thus my delineation of "fan" from "bronie" is not specious redefinition, but rationally derived. You: that does not make sense!
It seems to me, that you have difficulty listening, or comprehending what you are reading, when you disagree with it.
Your error: somebody can't be just a little mentally ill, they have to be full on batshit.
The extreme depiction was at "batshit". There are less extreme values for mentally ill. Identifying with a group identity to substantiate a desire for public acceptance reasons indicates that the holder of that identity has actualization deficits. ("I like MLP", vs "we're bronies, yo.")
"Being a BIG fan is the problem" is like unto "eating cheezeburgers is a problem", when "the problem" in the first case is mental illness, and where "the problem" in the second is obesity.
That is, "being a really big fan contributes to unhealthy mental addictions", in the same way that "eating cheeseburgers contributes to obesity"
When you don't moderate the activity, and let the compulsive behavior define you, it is the same as always caving to a desire to eat cheeseburgers, and becoming obese.
That is the relationship. You have been trying your best to pervert it to something absurd for 10+ posts.
PinkiePiePwns1178, a Bronie, sitting down with his MLP message board, and seeing an article about how the MLP fans on a different site oust the bronie movement.. PinkyPiePwns1178 is shocked and declares that "No fan of MLP would do such a thing". The next day he sits down to his MLP message board again; and, this time, finds a thread about a Bronie man who wants to distance himself from the MLP bronie label. This fact shows that PinkeiPiePwns1178 was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true MLP fan would do such a thing".
And thus, is the "all [true] fans of MLP are bronies" argument shown to be a no true scottsman.
How about causing emotional harm, or psychological harm?
Is refusal to be considerate of the wishes of others being harmful? (Loud music at parties? Vandalizing property? Theft? Being verbally abusive? )
I don't care if somebody likes the damn ponies, but I do care when they shove the ponies in my face. I consider that causing harm. Others do to, which is why people ask, and others demand that they not do so. Refusal to accept and be considerate of this is harmful. (Downmodding posts you don't like the message of is also harmful. If your group affiliations cause you to do this, your affiliation is causing you to do harm.)
Moreover , the harm may also be to themselves, by ostracising people they may otherwise find a connection with, if not for the extremity of their positions. (See, middle east writ large.)
You incorrectly assert there is no harm. There is.
A preoccupation does not mean "OMG! ALL THE TIME!", it means "a significant amount of time."
Eg, if you keep thinking about something, it is probably an obcession. It doesn't have to be "all the time", just "frequently", to the point where its habbitual, or routine.
Playing cards with friends casually as an enjoyable activty is fine. When you are totally jonesing for cardnight, and ascribe hightened value to the experience, it is *well* over the line.
The issue here is that you are not listening when I say that there really isn't a *LINE* at all! The issue is defined when there is "harm".
In the case of alcoholics, there is financial harm to feed the addiction, physical harm from the effects of the addiction on the body, emotional harm from the self-worth consequences, and social harm from the fallout of uninhibited behavior.
Because there is so much cear and obvious harm, nobody argues that alcoholism is a disorder.
Fetishistic behavior also carries risk of harm. There is social harm in the form of a stigma, emotional harm in the form self-worth issues and crisis of identity (manifest hy the group identity, to reinforce the self-identity.), possibly physical harm if the fetish involves extreme physical activities or rituals, etc.
A behavior can be unhealthy, in much the same way eating a cheeseburger is unhealthy. It becomes a serious problem when it happens frequently, much like eating hamburgers multiple times a week, and can contribute to a real nasty problem.
You are trying very hard to cast me into the role of saying something absurd, like "if you eat hamburgers, you are obese!", when what I am really saying is that eating fatty foods contributes to obesity, and is unhealthy.
You are scrambling together arguments that with drop-in replcements, produce silly results, like "what's wrong with going out to eat? We eat out all the time! It doesn't contribute to my expanding waistline, or the obesity epidemic! You are making up definitions of what is unhealthy!" , and trying earnestly to insist that I am offbase with them. I have already pointed you at the DSMIV definitions for what constitutes a mentally unhealthy behavior. That is where I am drawing my conclusions from. This is like defining "fatty food" as a food which elevates blood lipid and cholesterol levels above a medically established benchmark. It isn't something I am conjuring from whole cloth like you are implying.
The argument that I am making broad accusations, when I am doing the exact opposite, is however made from whole cloth.
Manning violated the law. Thus, he should be prosecuted. Manning performed a vital public service by outing dirty secrets.
The two are not as dissonant as you may think.
The problem is that it was illegal for him to release the information. By being illegal, the govt must punish him, or undermine the value of rule of law.
Gandhi understood this well; if you are going to be dissonant, then accept the consequences with grace. It causes much more consternation to those that want to silence you, and you never lose the moral high ground.
No, the "I like MLP" group says "Hey, I like MLP! There's nothing wrong with that!" The "bronie" group says something quite different.
See the "brohoof" skein above. Being compelled to make an "in crowd gesture of support" like that is directly indicitative of being far more than "just liking the show."
The problem with association, is that it creates a false sense that this is normal.
Say, alcholics meeting at a bar. All their friends are alcoholics, their friends are alcoholics, what's wrong with drinking heavily every night after work?
This is why the definition is made so clinically. If it preoccupies you, such that it causes deficits in your other interests or personal life, it is defined as harm, and persistent behaviors of this type are signs of mental illness.
Like alcoholism, it is an illness, and people can and do get better. They have to accept that there is a problem first.
So that you can see this is not some definition I pulled out of my ass, I will look it up for you.
Because being a "big" fan of something means it holds more of your attention and consideration for importance than other parts of your life, which then runs foul of the clinical definition.
By definition alone, it is mentally unhealthy behavior. Likeing something isn't bad. Liking something an inordinate amount, however, *is*.
If you find yourself doing or thinking about something more often than other things, it is a sign it is in unhealthy waters.
I have no problem with people donating to charity.
I have no problem with people who don't have an abnormal degree of enjoyment from a children's television program.
I have a problem with people who's enjoyment of a children's television program has caused them to adopt a group identity, and philosophy, which causes manifest changes in their personality.
My suggestion that they are exhibiting signs of a disorder are not unfounded, nor unreasonable. The sympthoms are dead ringers for cult membership, and other deleterious conditions. The fact that the exhibited behavior is considered benevolent and not malign (like cult membership) is inconsequential. The issue at hand is the mechanism, not the result.
Spectrum of inclusiveness, to help you see this isn't a no true scottsman.
[People]->[people who know about x]->[people who like x]->[People who REALLY like X]->[people really like X enough to associate freely with X as part of their identity as a person]->[People who's like of X dominates their emotional and mental condition.]
Note, [people who really like X enough to associate it with their identity as people] is on the far side of that spectrum.
Bronies are people who like MLP so much that they identify it with their personal identity. That makes it an extreme position.
[People who merely like X] is favoring the other, non illness inducing side.
What you are grappling with, is the stigma associated with mental illness. Mental illness is just that. People DO get better, but they have to admit there is a problem first.
Being socially ostracised by the devotion (having "haters") is a sign that there might be a problem.
The "no true scottsman" fallacy implies a conditon in which no true scottsman can exist, because all forms of candidacy are excluded. (No true scottsman comes from the highlands, etc)
This is not a "no true scottsman". The category is well defined.
When your thing of interest occupies more resources than your other interests, it is becoming unhealthy.
This is a spectrum, where "perfectly fine" is on the left, and "seriously, see a therapist" is on the far right.
People who like MLP have a socially questionable preference, but are on the left. People who aggregate to watch MLP, and make group associations with the show, are trending towards the right.
People who give each other "brohooves" or whatever, feel compelled to denounce people who honestly tell them that they are being excessive as "haters", rather than people who are concerned about them, and who enshrine aspects of MLP in their personal philosophies are well into the right hand side.
Slashdot Mirror
It is clearly bordering if not already into the unhealthy side of the spectrum, yes.
Your opinion that it is not is irrelevent, really.
Strawman fallacy play for the win?
I think not bud. That's an illegal play, and you know it.
It is quite possible I have spectrum disorder of some sort or other. That is inconsequential, however. What does have consequence is that I am willing to look at this as a potential problem. The people here, are not.
Also, I distanced myself from computers years ago. My dayjob involves making and reading blueprints, and my hobbies include, but are not all inclusive:
Textile crafts (crochet, knit, tieing nets, etc)
Drawing
Sculpting
Going camping (primative)
Equestrianism (but not the bronie kind)
Playing video games
With the exception of the first one, these are all "normal" hobbies, and many are social activities as well.
Your accusation is a stereotype, and offbase. While I do like computers, I don't spend inordinate amounts of time with one; I recognize that doing so is a problem, is unhealthy, and *gasp* do other things with my time, and don't self identify as a "computer nerd".
I openly acknowledge my abnormality.
Others here? Not so much.
And you are welcome to.
However, people who are subjects of interventions also frequently falsely ascribe malice to said intervention, and consider it harm. (Look at the lindsay lohan drama.)
My pointing out that obcessive behavior is an indicator of illness is like pointing out that drinking 2 or more alcoholic beverages daily is a sign of alcoholism. The personal accusation, "are youj calling me an alcoholic!? How dare you!" Is not deserved, but you are free to level its equivalent if you like.
More like:
You: You are making up words
Me: No, I get my definitions for mental illness here. (Link)
You: (ignores link) You are making up words! My bronie friends would say they have a problem!
Me:Alcoholics say they don't have a problem either, but they do.
You: (dead horse mode) You are making up definitions to words! Being a bronie is just being a big fan of MLP! This is established use!
Me: Being a big fan is the problem.
You: You are saying things that make no sense!
Me: it makes perfect sense, (explains)
You: No it doesn't because (contrived tautology)
Me: asserting that people who are simply fans can't avoid being bronies is not logically supported, because that is a genuine no true scottsman. Thus my delineation of "fan" from "bronie" is not specious redefinition, but rationally derived.
You: that does not make sense!
It seems to me, that you have difficulty listening, or comprehending what you are reading, when you disagree with it.
Your error: somebody can't be just a little mentally ill, they have to be full on batshit.
The extreme depiction was at "batshit". There are less extreme values for mentally ill. Identifying with a group identity to substantiate a desire for public acceptance reasons indicates that the holder of that identity has actualization deficits. ("I like MLP", vs "we're bronies, yo.")
Oh dear gawd.
Here.
"Being a BIG fan is the problem" is like unto "eating cheezeburgers is a problem", when "the problem" in the first case is mental illness, and where "the problem" in the second is obesity.
That is, "being a really big fan contributes to unhealthy mental addictions", in the same way that "eating cheeseburgers contributes to obesity"
When you don't moderate the activity, and let the compulsive behavior define you, it is the same as always caving to a desire to eat cheeseburgers, and becoming obese.
That is the relationship. You have been trying your best to pervert it to something absurd for 10+ posts.
Nope, was made many times earlier up the thread there, bucko.
It's been flung around here inappropriately, but you might find this informative.
wikipedia on no true scottsman fallacy
Pay special attention to the "origin" section.
Now. Let's substitute some text.
PinkiePiePwns1178, a Bronie, sitting down with his MLP message board, and seeing an article about how the MLP fans on a different site oust the bronie movement.. PinkyPiePwns1178 is shocked and declares that "No fan of MLP would do such a thing". The next day he sits down to his MLP message board again; and, this time, finds a thread about a Bronie man who wants to distance himself from the MLP bronie label. This fact shows that PinkeiPiePwns1178 was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true MLP fan would do such a thing".
And thus, is the "all [true] fans of MLP are bronies" argument shown to be a no true scottsman.
Nonsequitor. That is the far extreme of the spectrum, and not the mean.
As such, I don't *need* to find one.
Strawman ahoy!
No, I am saying obcessive behavior is unhealthy.
Your argument only takes one person who likes MLP, and wants to distance themselves from the fandom to fall flat on its face.
Sadly, I am not this person, though it would make me laugh if it were so.
You are asserting this person does not exist, and *MUST* join the fandom association, or they aren't a true fan of MLP.
That my friend, really is a no true scottsman.
Define "hurting others".
Does it stop at physical harm?
How about causing emotional harm, or psychological harm?
Is refusal to be considerate of the wishes of others being harmful? (Loud music at parties? Vandalizing property? Theft? Being verbally abusive? )
I don't care if somebody likes the damn ponies, but I do care when they shove the ponies in my face. I consider that causing harm. Others do to, which is why people ask, and others demand that they not do so. Refusal to accept and be considerate of this is harmful. (Downmodding posts you don't like the message of is also harmful. If your group affiliations cause you to do this, your affiliation is causing you to do harm.)
Moreover , the harm may also be to themselves, by ostracising people they may otherwise find a connection with, if not for the extremity of their positions. (See, middle east writ large.)
You incorrectly assert there is no harm. There is.
No, YOU are saying that ABOUT me.
A preoccupation does not mean "OMG! ALL THE TIME!", it means "a significant amount of time."
Eg, if you keep thinking about something, it is probably an obcession. It doesn't have to be "all the time", just "frequently", to the point where its habbitual, or routine.
Playing cards with friends casually as an enjoyable activty is fine. When you are totally jonesing for cardnight, and ascribe hightened value to the experience, it is *well* over the line.
The issue here is that you are not listening when I say that there really isn't a *LINE* at all! The issue is defined when there is "harm".
In the case of alcoholics, there is financial harm to feed the addiction, physical harm from the effects of the addiction on the body, emotional harm from the self-worth consequences, and social harm from the fallout of uninhibited behavior.
Because there is so much cear and obvious harm, nobody argues that alcoholism is a disorder.
Fetishistic behavior also carries risk of harm. There is social harm in the form of a stigma, emotional harm in the form self-worth issues and crisis of identity (manifest hy the group identity, to reinforce the self-identity.), possibly physical harm if the fetish involves extreme physical activities or rituals, etc.
A behavior can be unhealthy, in much the same way eating a cheeseburger is unhealthy. It becomes a serious problem when it happens frequently, much like eating hamburgers multiple times a week, and can contribute to a real nasty problem.
You are trying very hard to cast me into the role of saying something absurd, like "if you eat hamburgers, you are obese!", when what I am really saying is that eating fatty foods contributes to obesity, and is unhealthy.
You are scrambling together arguments that with drop-in replcements, produce silly results, like "what's wrong with going out to eat? We eat out all the time! It doesn't contribute to my expanding waistline, or the obesity epidemic! You are making up definitions of what is unhealthy!" , and trying earnestly to insist that I am offbase with them. I have already pointed you at the DSMIV definitions for what constitutes a mentally unhealthy behavior. That is where I am drawing my conclusions from. This is like defining "fatty food" as a food which elevates blood lipid and cholesterol levels above a medically established benchmark. It isn't something I am conjuring from whole cloth like you are implying.
The argument that I am making broad accusations, when I am doing the exact opposite, is however made from whole cloth.
I do believe it is called a strawman.
Manning violated the law. Thus, he should be prosecuted.
Manning performed a vital public service by outing dirty secrets.
The two are not as dissonant as you may think.
The problem is that it was illegal for him to release the information. By being illegal, the govt must punish him, or undermine the value of rule of law.
Gandhi understood this well; if you are going to be dissonant, then accept the consequences with grace. It causes much more consternation to those that want to silence you, and you never lose the moral high ground.
Actually, I *am* quite dull. And this *is* a problem I admit having.
But you are purposefully confusing the issue.
Its one thing to sit and watch something with friends, as an every so often thing. It's entirely another to do it "every night".
It's a spectrum. Not a line. The bronies in this thread are trending to the unhealthy side, and should at least CONSIDER that there is a problem.
No, the "I like MLP" group says "Hey, I like MLP! There's nothing wrong with that!" The "bronie" group says something quite different.
See the "brohoof" skein above. Being compelled to make an "in crowd gesture of support" like that is directly indicitative of being far more than "just liking the show."
The problem with association, is that it creates a false sense that this is normal.
Say, alcholics meeting at a bar. All their friends are alcoholics, their friends are alcoholics, what's wrong with drinking heavily every night after work?
This is why the definition is made so clinically. If it preoccupies you, such that it causes deficits in your other interests or personal life, it is defined as harm, and persistent behaviors of this type are signs of mental illness.
Like alcoholism, it is an illness, and people can and do get better. They have to accept that there is a problem first.
So that you can see this is not some definition I pulled out of my ass, I will look it up for you.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3101504/
Actually, his definition is in line with the DSM.
It only has to cause deficits in other aspects of the person's persona and interests to be considered to be "doing harm".
Because being a "big" fan of something means it holds more of your attention and consideration for importance than other parts of your life, which then runs foul of the clinical definition.
By definition alone, it is mentally unhealthy behavior. Likeing something isn't bad. Liking something an inordinate amount, however, *is*.
If you find yourself doing or thinking about something more often than other things, it is a sign it is in unhealthy waters.
They are both equally disturbing.
Neither is preferable.
I have no problem with people donating to charity.
I have no problem with people who don't have an abnormal degree of enjoyment from a children's television program.
I have a problem with people who's enjoyment of a children's television program has caused them to adopt a group identity, and philosophy, which causes manifest changes in their personality.
My suggestion that they are exhibiting signs of a disorder are not unfounded, nor unreasonable. The sympthoms are dead ringers for cult membership, and other deleterious conditions. The fact that the exhibited behavior is considered benevolent and not malign (like cult membership) is inconsequential. The issue at hand is the mechanism, not the result.
Spectrum of inclusiveness, to help you see this isn't a no true scottsman.
[People]->[people who know about x]->[people who like x]->[People who REALLY like X]->[people really like X enough to associate freely with X as part of their identity as a person]->[People who's like of X dominates their emotional and mental condition.]
Note, [people who really like X enough to associate it with their identity as people] is on the far side of that spectrum.
Bronies are people who like MLP so much that they identify it with their personal identity. That makes it an extreme position.
[People who merely like X] is favoring the other, non illness inducing side.
What you are grappling with, is the stigma associated with mental illness. Mental illness is just that. People DO get better, but they have to admit there is a problem first.
Being socially ostracised by the devotion (having "haters") is a sign that there might be a problem.
The "no true scottsman" fallacy implies a conditon in which no true scottsman can exist, because all forms of candidacy are excluded. (No true scottsman comes from the highlands, etc)
This is not a "no true scottsman". The category is well defined.
But you probably already knew that, didn't you?
It is really quite simple, really.
When your thing of interest occupies more resources than your other interests, it is becoming unhealthy.
This is a spectrum, where "perfectly fine" is on the left, and "seriously, see a therapist" is on the far right.
People who like MLP have a socially questionable preference, but are on the left. People who aggregate to watch MLP, and make group associations with the show, are trending towards the right.
People who give each other "brohooves" or whatever, feel compelled to denounce people who honestly tell them that they are being excessive as "haters", rather than people who are concerned about them, and who enshrine aspects of MLP in their personal philosophies are well into the right hand side.
It is hardly black and white.
Precisely. Thank you.
"Being a big fan", (emphasis on big) *is* the problem.
Being a "normal" fan isn't.
Social acceptance is definately covered.
It's one of the 5 major needs in Maslow's heirarchy.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs