"Weak willed" was referring to the parents, not alleged sufferers of ADD. Did you read the whole post, or did you just scan for words you don't like?

In context, "weak willed" referred to the fact that parents let themselves be convinced that their children had ADD when they should have known that they were being sold drugs that were merely performance enhancers.

Overall your post comes across as an angry rhetorical rant, while the original post had some interesting content.

The "solution" that I imagine the poster would propose is to recognize that Amphetamines offer advantages to almost anyone, and that either we should be honest about their use as performance enhancers, or find ways to distinguish between a genuine need for them, and their use for enhancement.

Interestingly, while you are correct in my misunderstanding, I still have the same gripes. I personally take offense when someone attempts to illustrate their point with pejoratives rather than reason.

"weak willed" may have negative connotations, but I can't think of a less loaded word that would express the poster's meaning better.

"suggestible" comes to mind, but I don't think this is really the same thing.

And if the poster really believes that the parents are weak willed, I don't think that saying so can be considered as failing to use reason. In fact censoring oneself to use adjectives that carry less negative connotations, is a violation of reason.

Simply observing that most parents don't research the medication they give to their children would suffice. I don't see any reason to attribute character weaknesses.

I would actually be happy if people even went through the 3 steps. More often it will just be: Can't identify with someone's problem - blame the victim.

Side note: The poster's username is 'negativity' after all :-)