1. Changelog 1.161

    Hello Queens and Kings,
    The update to 1.161 will take place on Wed, Sept 18, 2019. There will be a short period of downtime during the update, we apologize for any inconvenience caused during this time.
    For the detailed description of the upcoming changes, please see the details here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. GvG Improvements Update

    Hello Queens and Kings,
    First up, we wanted to thank you once again for taking the time to continue to contribute your feedback on the upcoming changes to Forge of Empires, especially in relation to Guild Battlegrounds.
    For the detailed description of the upcoming changes, please see the details here.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice

Public Safety vs. Personal Civil Liberties

Discussion in 'Debate Hall' started by Dominotx711, Jul 23, 2012.

  1. YOU SAY:ANNNNND per your logic, is it not my right with the constitution to not be at risk by you?
    I SAY: is it not my right to be free from prosecution from people like you.

    and supposidly violent mentally disabled people being a threat to the public aarnt as much as a threat as the people who persicute them.and their "yellow Ribbons"

    so maby it is the people who are against our cival liberties that are the real threat
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 24, 2012
  2. Dominotx711

    Dominotx711 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    don't get nasty...we are having a discussion. My question is, for the safety of the larger public population (as the entire rest of the world agrees) is it not better to lose a few personal freedoms for the sake of the larger whole? All I am asking is a logical answer to this question that is complete with some reasoning behind your stand.

    I'd like to add, I have had a yellow ribbon near me since Desert Storm. Yellow ribbons belonged to our troops long before the idea was borrowed by some other cause...so yes, I am very VERY proud of my yellow ribbon.

    One other thing, it isn't just mental health, it is things like seat belts, car/booster seats for children, uniforms at schools, etc etc. All those personal freedoms have been lost using the same logic I am using now....explain the difference please.
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2012
  3. Diggo11

    Diggo11 Guest

    Classic slippery slope fallacy. There are plenty of existing laws and regulations that have been implemented specifically to protect not only public but personal safety, take seatbelt laws for example, that may infringe upon civil liberties. The United States have not become a dictatorship because of them, nor will they become one on the basis of any future laws to protect public safety.

    There is not necessarily a need to remove the mentally unstable (i.e. refusing essential treatment), as opposed to the mentally disabled, from society. Both, however, need to have their inabilities taken into account where their civil liberties may infringe on those of others. As it happens, we already screen almost every single adult in America - when they apply for a drivers license. If we go to the effort of stopping the blind from sitting at the wheel of a deadly one tonne truck, we can and should go to the effort to stop the dangerously unstable from standing behind the trigger of a dedicated, semi-automatic killing machine. We can't stop all car accidents, nor will we fatal shootings, but even a reduction of one shooting is a win.

    So yeah, summary version: public safety comes before individual's civil liberties, you are not free to infringe upon my life, liberty or pursuit of happiness.
     
  4. Dark Lotus

    Dark Lotus Guest

    You can not have your cake and eat it too. The problem with government dictating social behavior is that people like big brother when they concur with the behavior. When they do not, then they want the government to stay out of peoples lives. There is no middle ground. The government either is all the way out, or all the way in. If I have to pay for the needles you want, then you have to rent to anyone I tell you to ;)

    Oh goodie the seat belt law lol. When I ride my motorcycle, I have to wear eye protection. If something were to go in my eyes, it could cause me to lose control and create an accident. This law tells me what I must do. It does it to protect others who could be harmed by my choice not to take their saftey into account.

    Not wearing a seat belt, has not and WILL NOT cause an accident! The wearing of a seat belt does not even come into play until after the accident has occurred. I am being told I must because they said so. That they have more power over me then I do. That they know what is better for me then I do. No matter how you try and hide it. It is a clear case of a dictatorship. It is one person, and a party that has the same mind set, telling you that they will control and decide what is best for you. It does not matter if your decisions only affect you. lol even tho it is all a crock. In the end it was all about the revenue that could be generated with a seat belt law in place.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 24, 2012
  5. Dominotx711

    Dominotx711 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Don't know how I missed Daniels post...but miss it I did. Daniel, It isn't removing them so much as making it manditory to be checked if there were any signs of instability.....and treating them accordingly, but also, if you are being treated, you don't have the right to decline treatment....
    if you should decline and it is deemed necessary, well then inside you should go.

    Someone rep Dark for me please...that was freaking hilarious...and an great comeback!!!

    Ahhhh but it does prove my point about civil liberties...here yours are being trampled.......so???? How can anyone say no to protecting the public one way but not the other?
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2012
  6. yellow ribbons were used to persecute a select group of people for the supposed greater good before ww2. and i use meth as a temporary escape from a chaotic mind like someone is blairing heavymetal all day in my skull but as convential medications make me violent and makes it worse.two different things Hellstromm. meth is an temporary escape
    and conventioal medication does they exact opposite for me so anyway back to they topic at hand
    ------------
    It is those personal freedoms that gives us the power as a people to become what we want and do what we want within reason.
    And it is better to have power with the people then in the hands of the goverment.alot of troops died so we could have those freedoms
    why would we discrace our troops memories the men and women who died so that we could keep them.and dishonor them by giving away the very rights that they died for
     
  7. Hellstromm

    Hellstromm Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Umm, actually, violent mentally disabled/disturbed people are indeed threats, which is why if someone is a danger to self or others, they can be institutionalized until stabilized.

    And seriously, in this thread u state getting medicated makes u violent, but in another thread you effectively indicated you self-medicate with illegal substances. You flushed down your own arguments with your candidness. Perhaps you should reconsider your position before you strip nekked and eat someone's face.
     
  8. Dominotx711

    Dominotx711 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Then please explain to me why I have to wear my seatbelt. Why children have to be in a car/booster seat till they are 6? Why school children are now having to wear uniforms and probably the most ironic...how people can tell anyone to wear their pants up around their waist....per your logic.
     
  9. okay i have never heard a federal law stating you had to have your pants around your waiste. just state laws that can be reversed by the people.school uniforms are set fourth by the school not the goverment.children need to stay in car boosters and people need to wear their seatbelts because it is for safety reasons i would rather be caught with one on then without one on.lol
     
  10. Dominotx711

    Dominotx711 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Muddying the waters again. Who said anything about federal verses state? I simply said government.
    Secondly, a school board is considered a government.
    and finally, It is my right not to be forced to wear a seatbelt....but based on your logic, it is for safety reasons mentally disabled people be treated....again.....I am feeling like a broken record....will someone please explain to me the differences??????
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2012
  11. Daniel

    Daniel Guest

    I think that civil liberties are granted based on an opportunity cost of sorts, if you will. Going back to the case of your right to not sell your house to certain people, on one hand you have the right of people to be treated equally and fairly, and on the other hand you have the right of home owners being able to select who they want to sell their house to. Both have some argument to them, I suppose, but we can't have both without one group feeling left out, and so society deemed it more important to have fairness rather than a choice in who you wish to sell to.

    Same thing goes with the seatbelt. It is your right to refuse to wear a seatbelt, but at the same time it is a right of the government to make you wear a seatbelt without being penalized (I think, lol. Sorry if I'm wrong). And even if the latter case is not true, society still deems it more important to force people to wear seatbelts to avoid penalties than to remove any requirements due to safety issues.

    As for the case of making it mandatory for emotionally unstable people to be checked and treated, I feel that it's too much for too little. I'm not saying that saving lives isn't worth it, but at what cost? Something like having checks on these people would mean too much surveillance of everyone, and the time and effort spent doing all of this would provide too few benefits to be considered, IMHO.
     
  12. it is for safety reasons mentally disabled people be treated....
    ----
    but by their own choice. and assuming that they respond positivally to treatment and not worse.
     
  13. Dominotx711

    Dominotx711 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Daniel,
    maybe not even testing every person....I get that would be expensive. But what about those who have shown signs, and they were ignored, or what about those who are diagnosed, but refuse to take their meds?
    Ok hero, enough, back that up with sound reasoning based off the examples given for other situations where civil liberties have been compromised or just stop. You have given no reasonable explanation on how mental health differs from every other situation. And in truth it is becoming tedious to discuss with you for you lack of input. And also, your responses make no sense...it is for safety reasons? but only if you want to? how in any definition of the word does that make sense?
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2012
  14. and their are lots of ways to make treatment happen without losing cival liberties like i would reasonable assume mentally handicapped people cant hold a job. so they collect disability its an easy solution if they get money from they goverment they need to get treatment and provide some sort proof of treatment.or they lose their disability checks
     
  15. Daniel

    Daniel Guest

    But how would we go about finding/stopping such people? The people closest to some of these shooters missed the signs, if any. Unless they can read the signs and stop the person, how else but have someone check up on everyone to find the people showing the signs of being a psychopath or whatever? I guess the trouble I'm having with the scenarios that you proposed is on how we can find these people without having to screen every single person. Because it's not like they're a red dot in a sea of yellow dots. It's pretty much subtle clues that only those closest to these people can see.
     
  16. Hellstromm

    Hellstromm Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    In the U.S., if a person demonstrates to be a Danger to Self, a Danger to Others, or is Incapable of Caring for Self, they can be placed under a 72 hour hold (against their will) for psychiatric evaluation. If, in that time, a psychiatrist may deem it necessary to stabilize the person before allowing him/her to be released, which results in extensions to the psychiatric hold.

    In other words, not by choice. A person can enter any psychiatric facility voluntarily, but a paychiatrist will have to see them before they are released again. And, if the psychiatrist determines the person falls into one of the three stipulated states indicated in the first paragraph, the psychiatrist is legally obligated to impose a 72 hour hold on the person, effectively changing a voluntary admission into a legally bound treatment.

    Please continue...
     
  17. Diggo11

    Diggo11 Guest

    As for the case of making it mandatory for inexperienced drivers to be tested and restricted with a learner's permit, I feel that it's too much for too little. I'm not saying that saving lives isn't worth it, but at what cost? Something like requiring a driver's license for these people would mean too much surveillance of everyone, and the time and effort spent doing all this would provide too few benefits to be considered, IMHO.

    We already limit heaps of "rights" to exclude those incapable of exercising them safely, such that they would otherwise pose a danger to others. It's reactive rather than proactive, but it is done, and could easily be extended to other civil rights should the need arise.
     
  18. Nicklesbe

    Nicklesbe Guest

    When it comes to rights I always think of moto racer [​IMG]

    You can't have all right's in full capacity, it's just not possible. If ya have too much of one right then ya lose ground on another right. Take the right of personal safety for example, in order to keep everyone 100% safe from everyone else then each person pretty much has to lose every other right afforded to them. If people want the right to do anything and everything they want then ya have to give up the right to personal safety and just prey ya don't die because you can't predict what other people will do, you can't even accurately predict what you are capable of doing provided the circumstances.

    However it is possible to have and maintain a balance of our rights, our forefathers knew this and designed our government to keep them in balance. At the end of the day that's all government's job is suppose to be. Unfortunately just like people government isn't perfect. Things like greed, corruption, fear, ignorance, bigotry, and hate can lead to the loss of many rights "all for the greater good". Take the seat-belt law for example, studies have shown that people often die more in serious wrecks because they are trapped by the seat-belt so there is really no valid evidence at all seat belts are safer, buuut the law generates revenue. Another great example are the mind boggling years George W. Bush was president. We lost so many rights and freedoms during those years, and all because of greed, corruption, fear, ignorance, bigotry, and hate and sooo many people in politics and businesses close to politicians got filthy stinking rich because of it.

    The GOP claims they want no government or limited government but that's complete horse dung. What they want is no regulation and no hindrance of their ability to make money from the exploitation of others while they control large government. Government big enough to strip women, those with ethnic backgrounds, and homosexuals of all god given rights so "they are kept in their place". Meanwhile they do all this while hiding behind The Bible which they probably never read and definitely don't understand. The Democratic party isn't much better they are just as greedy and money hungry as the GOP. There is allot of money to be made and they all sit on the hill with their hands out waiting to be paid.

    I digress my point which I hope answers the OP's question is it's not ok to have too much of one because it takes too much away from the other so a constant balance must be measured and maintained. That daunting and never ending job is held by our government and those elected officials we put in charge of that government. If too many rights are lost then it is our job to change the laws and change the leadership that put those laws in place so our rights can once again be balanced. "When injustice becomes law, rebellion becomes duty".
     
    Diggo11 likes this.
  19. Daniel

    Daniel Guest

    But how many people die every year from inexperienced drivers, i.e. teens, vs. from massacres/shootings like in Colorado? I dunno, I just think that in some cases the safety benefits from restricting civil liberties are necessary, whereas in the more rare cases it's slightly more trivial. Again, I'm not saying deaths are not important, but we can't shield ourselves from everything.
     
  20. Diggo11

    Diggo11 Guest

    The real question is, how many more people would die if we allowed anyone of age to drive without a licensing system? ;) We currently allow almost everyone to drive, and similarly we should allow almost anyone to own a gun. Almost anyone, not everyone. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, our inalienable rights come first, before a high risk individual's second amendment. (And no, it's not discrimination; accept essential treatment and you can own as many guns as you like. Like driving, wear contact lenses and wow, suddenly you can drive again.)
     

Top