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. Dominotx711

    Dominotx711 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Daniel,
    this is how we find out things, not to mention a person doesn't just snap (those who do are generally a crime of passion) But, if a person is Baker Acted (that which Hellstromm explained) that person should not be allowed to go off their medicine, and/or if they do, they should be put right back in, until they become compliant. We don't have to do the whole witch hunt thing...I am not saying that, but there are signs and symptoms people will see prior, most people just ignore them.
     
  2. Daniel

    Daniel Guest

    Ah, I see. Well in that case I certainly agree with you that such measures are necessary and need to be kept. I just thought your context was people who go on killing sprees, in which case it's not easy to find and treat such people.
     
    Hero Tactician likes this.
  3. Dominotx711

    Dominotx711 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    No, but if we are attentive to those who have mental disorders, and we are diligent and proactive about being aware of those who have certain symptoms, we can treat those possible threats before they become mass murders. For example, the man who shot Congresswoman Gabby Giffords. Or, the deranged student who shot up that medical college in California. There were signs. It didn't just happen. But many of your simple violent street crime done by those pleading insanity when they are caught, went off their medicine. They shouldn't have the right to go off their medicine...ever. And if they do, they should be aware that they will get institutionalized for the safety of the public. Doctors don't write prescriptions and/or admit people on a whim just to see their handwriting.

    Furthermore, in response to Hero's comment about not liking his meds, that is when it is about communication between doctor and patient. There isn't a single medicine they prescribe, if there is communication, there is a cocktail and/or a therapeutic level that WILL work if one takes the time to work at it....

    EDIT: I just saw a report that New York was trying to outlaw big gulps :p How does that translate?

    *Leave my tongue ALONE!!!!*
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2012
  4. Nicklesbe

    Nicklesbe Guest

    First, there are no more permanent mental institutions in the US Ronald Reagan took care of that so there is no permanent home for the mentally ill. All hospitals can do is hold them for awhile assess them medicate them but eventually they all get kicked out. That's why there are so many homeless with mental disabilities. There is just no place for them. Second where does it stop? This is a very slippery slope you can't mandate that people have to take their meds because at some point someone corrupt in charge can simply say apposing their beliefs is a dangerous mental disorder and then legally be able to force every citizen to down medication to make them compliant and obedient. There are also numerous ways for people to lose sanity from diet, to chemical exposure, to hereditary gene mutation that doesn't show up until later in life. The only way to put in place what you say should happen is if every person in the US is forced to go to the doctor and receive full medical and mental check ups every single week. Are you willing to pay for that? I know I'm not and I know I'm not the only one who isn't in order to put in place what you want we would lose too much. I'm sorry in theory what you want sounds good but just like communism it isn't. I don't believe you have thought it through enough, and you certainly haven't done enough research on the matter.
     
  5. Dominotx711

    Dominotx711 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    And your point? I know in the city where I live, both hospitals in the area have moved to new facilities, and they have perfectly fine AND large facilities just sitting there. Just because something is closed, doesn't mean it needs to stay closed. If Reagan got rid of them, open them back up...
    So your saying homeless and un-medicated is better than secure and safe in hospitals? Really? hahahahahaha, I bet Dark Lotus would rather pay for them to be institutionalized safely rather than give them needles (which doesn't stop the abuse)
    It seems to work as good as anything else in other countries....your excuse is a cheap way out. I don't want to tackle the tough issues so I shall just scream corruption. OH WAIT, you mean corruption like that in the voters pools, or the food stamp program? Oh wait, how about the corruption in the legal system, or better yet, the corruption in the insurance industry and/or disability.........And I save the last but not least, the corruption in Congress? Really? hmmmmm....let us go talk to another country who it seems to be working just fine.
    I didn't say a mental disorder you are born with, I said a disorder period. If you refuse to be proactive in your care, and maintain medicine to make you safe and productive, then to keep the public safe, I don't think a free for all should be allowed.
    I am going to assume you didn't read a single thing I wrote, because I stated otherwise.....every week...pshawww phooey. And lets look at this logically, the new healthcare bill INCLUDES mental health services, so you are PAYING FOR IT ANYWAY. Secondly, what costs more, care for the few who won't take their medicine (by choice, not for financial burdens as Obamacare eliminates that problem) and are a danger to society....OR the paying for them to reside in prison for crimes they have committed upon INNOCENT people, and or the care of the victims who need long term care due to the crimes they perpetuated? I have thought it through, as much as anyone, and I have talked to people in other societies where the system works pretty well. Gabby Giffords care will cost society how much? And the other victims? How about the people who died? Their value is now missing from society. I forget the title, but basically the amount of money they would contribute to society over time etc etc etc...well those who are dead...wouldn't their value now be a big fat Zero? I'd say, the costs you talk about don't add up in your favor....

    Anymore?
     
  6. Nicklesbe

    Nicklesbe Guest

    I never said it was better, I'm saying that's the way it is because no one is willing to pay for it. It's the reason why they haven't been reopened in 20 years, there is no money for it. There was zero money available for it back in the Clinton administration when we had the largest surplus this country has ever seen and now were still trying to recover from the greatest recession since the great depression so there is even less money available for it. I mean how old are you if you don't mind my asking? Are you a tax payer? I ask because you seem to think money grows on trees and ya don't realize that the only way those vacant buildings will ever be reopened is if you yourself or someone else that happens to be very rich comes in buys them and funds them for the rest of time. Otherwise they will never reopen.

    Please name one country, just one that has forced medication because I haven't been able to find a single document on the internet anywhere that states another country has forced medication. Not Canada, Mexico, Europe, or even the Middle east. The only one I found that does it is communist china and their people have no rights or freedoms at all. I also in my searching found this very interesting article which you should read.http://psychminded.co.uk/news/news2009/jan09/psychiatric_medication_by_force002.htm

    What you fail to understand about what I said is that ANBODY at ANYTIME can develop a mental disorder and go insane. There is no accurate, and definitely no cheap way to determine everyone that needs and should be on medication. So forcing people we already know that should be on medication to be on medication doesn't prevent events like the shooting in Colorado from happening. The only way it possibly could is if again every citizen is rounded up every week and forced to have a medical and psychological exam. Even then people would still slip through the cracks. James Holmes was at school getting his PHD do you understand what that means? He was studying to become a doctor, he was surrounded by doctors and psychologists just about every single day and not one of them saw the signs he was crazy, not one of them could tell he should have been on medication.


    You assume allot of things and when you make assumptions you make yourself look like an ass which you have successfully done several time during this thread no offense. I've thoroughly read every single word you've written that's how I know for certain that you have absolutely no idea what your talking about. Really? your going to talk about Obamacare without ever reading the bill or knowing what it does? If you had then you'd know that Obamacare DOESN'T include new mental health services. All it does is regulate and prevent insurance companies from spending more money on themselves than on medical services they are suppose to pay for. Obamacare doesn't eliminate the financial burden it just makes insurance companies do what they are supposed to do. So I don't know where you get your information but it's as wrong as you are.

    If you knew anything about this country then you'd know that we have a revolving door justice system, and that revolving door is even faster for criminals that successfully plead insanity . They don't stay in some jail for a long time they are sent to a medical facility for some time to get treated then they spend some time in a halfway house and then they are right back out on the streets. So we really aren't paying for them to stay in jail because they never stay in jail for very long, not compared to other criminals anyways.

    You haven't thought it through, that's a lie you've just pulled half conceived thoughts out of your ars without thinking about the financial cost or personal cost caused from us having multiple rights stripped from us. What other people in other societies have you talked to? Are you aware they know as little about their society as you do about your own? Maybe if you talked to more people that lived here you'd have a better idea of how this country works and you wouldn't give the impression that you have no idea what your talking about to anyone and everyone that reads anything you say.

    I'm sorry I know I must come off as a rude , I'm just being honest. To be honest the fact that your willing to throw away just about all of our rights for an ill-conceived notion with no idea how to implement it or what its costs would be irks me, you irk me, you are irksome. What bugs me even more is the fact that you haven't thought it through enough to realize just how many rights and freedoms this would cost us, and for what? It couldn't prevent this kind of disaster from happening again. Nothing really could, your fooling yourself if you think it could, all this would do is rob us of more freedoms and rights. All we can do is defend ourselves and protect ourselves. That's the best we can do and that's how it's always been and always will be.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 25, 2012
    Hero Tactician likes this.
  7. Dominotx711

    Dominotx711 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Again I go back to the cost in comparison to incarceration and/or victim care. And maybe care of our mentally needy should rank a higher priority. ESPECIALLY those who WANT to get better and be productive. And no you may not ask how old I am….I have no need to tell you, I can tell you, I am old enough to have a bit of knowledge. And with our healthcare bill putting this generation in debt to pay for the uninsured, you are going to say money is a factor? How about maybe smart budgeting….oh wait, what is that? We haven’t had one of those in how long? And I should say, nobody is suggesting warehousing patients, that is a ridiculous claim, and rather simplified on your part. You act as if I am saying round everyone up and stick them in a box….please!!!!
    Try the UK under the Mental Health Act of 2007. Canada is looking into it. Those name 2, but if you look there are more out there.
    I didn’t fail to understand your point…mine was that a disorder is a disorder, no matter the cause or the timing. And if you go to a hospital, and a doctor says you need medication, they don’t turn you out onto the streets and say “see ya”…no there is follow up. You point is not logical. We have a mental health system….and you are muddying the waters. I will not discuss James Holmes mental condition because we know less than nothing about his time prior to this crime. And other than the timing, I am not sure why you keep bringing it up. He is not a single case…..he may or may not be the most recent. You are totally ignoring all the other examples out there. But AGAIN for the sake of argument….what say you about Jared Lee Loughner. Leave Holmes out of the discussion, he has no place in it yet.
    Also in 2014, mental health and substance use disorder services will be part of the essential benefits package, a set of health care service categories that must be covered by certain plans, including all insurance policies that will be offered through the Exchanges, and Medicaid.
    I guess not much else needs to be said. If everyone is required to have health insurance, problem pretty much solved yes? Secondly, as I stated before, you are paying for it anyway. And Thirdly, if your excuse is you can’t afford it, with Obamacare, that excuse is no longer applicable.
    They have to prove they are insane before that defense can be sought. It isn’t as if the prosecution is saying “oh yeah, you should go for the insane defense”. Nope, doesn’t work that way. So if they are found insane, does logic not equate, that they would in fact BE insane? And your point about them not staying in jail long anyways, is well it is a fallacy. They get out, go off their meds, end back up in jail. And jail is such a safe environment for the mentally insane yes? Much better than the streets, and or a hospital right?
    I have thought this through about as much as most people. Of course I have not made a living through postleizing about it. No, it crossed my mind, the day of the Colorado shootings after hearing a gripe about who was to blame, and a doctor said, it isn’t surprising considering the disservice we have done to our mentally disabled. Which, had you read my OP, you would have seen it crossed my mind on Friday….
    Secondly, I am not doing your homework for you. There are countries with Psychiatric wards still in service.
    And lastly on this topic, out of the many citizens of various countries, we are the only country that as a rule, places individual rights over the health of the whole.
    I am asking the difference in the rights we have lost up until now, and the rights of a few for the safety of the whole. A whole bunch of examples have been brough forth, which I noticed you have not made note of any of those. And you can stop simplifying this to a single event. It happens more than just once. It would not cost anyone any freedoms. If you are ill, take your medicine. If you are not willing to take your medicine, you don’t get the right to reek havoc among society. Everyone has an obligation to promote well being, and if you aren’t willing to do your part, I just don’t see how the single is more important than the whole.
    Oh and by the way, there is no need to get nasty while disagreeing on things. If you can’t maintain your emotions and stay civil, don’t debate…simple as that.

    Reread the original post. I am asking about the rights of an individual verses the safety of the whole. Mental health is an example.....keep it as such
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2012
  8. Hellstromm

    Hellstromm Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Hi, just wanted to correct this. The Republicans, while holding Congress and the White House (Reagan), closed all Federal mental health hospitals. This was based on a Supreme court ruling, I can't recall which, that made it clear providing care for State citizens was the responsibility of the States (it was largely instituted due to the abuse posed at the Federal facilities). As such, while the Federal facilities were closed, the States were required to cover the slack. While some States didn't bother, even though they are mandated, most States stepped up and instituted mental health facilities at the State and County levels, including programs for care housing, etc. While not the perfect system, at least the mental health persons do receive treatment and are stabilized before being released (they are not allowed to be released until such is the case, which means they can be held for a very long time).

    The problem is, non-compliance. Most drugs associated with care of mental disorders have some rather nasty side-effects and persons who are on those drugs don't "recall" anything odd about their behavior prior to the medication (or other treatments), so don't see the point. In response to this, some facilities began a program of videotaping the patients prior to treatment so they could show the patients how they are when not taking their meds. This program has been marginally successful, but not successful enough to warrant the expense and potential liability issues.

    As to mental health patients on the streets, that is more due to a change in laws pertaining to mental health (Baker being one of them) that prevents a person from being institutionalized if they do not exhibit DS, DO, or CS (mentioned earlier). That, in my opinion, is a good thing although I do agree the backlash to this is that there are more mentally disordered persons sleeping in shelters or under causeways. However, this display is misrepresented because there are far more people living in the streets who are not mentally disordered. That has more to do with with the escalating disparity in wealth that, for all effective purposes, started during the Reagan era.


    I'l leave the rest for debate. ;)
     
  9. Dominotx711

    Dominotx711 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    except my using them as an example is not for homeless purposes, but rather the violent ones or those that show ill regard etc etc etc shouldn't have that right. I do not immediately associate a homeless person with one with psychiatric issues. But thanks for doing my homework....that is why you make the big bucks....oh wait, no diamonds for you here :p
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2012
  10. Dark Lotus

    Dark Lotus Guest

    Well I am glad somebody cleared that up. Do not be blaming the greatest president ever (Ronald Reagan) for things he had no control over. Dom is right, I will be glad to kick in a little more to keep then off the streets of the suburbs. Just build more prisons, what it the big deal. It solves so many problems. If not that, then some type of fake shelters at least in the inner cities.
     
  11. Nicklesbe

    Nicklesbe Guest

    Please take a moment and think about this statement plleeeease. The reason why we have a revolving door justice system is because our justice system is understaffed, under-funded, and our jails are constantly over populated this is irrefutable fact. So what your saying let me get this right is mentally ill rank higher then criminals on the human chain so money should be taken from the justice system to pay for a new system where the mentally ill are hunted down and force fed medication to prevent crimes they probably wouldn't have committed in the first place. In the mean time there would be less lawyers/prosecutors so less criminals are tried and convicted, less cops so less criminals are captured, and less money for jails so even more criminals are released onto the street....yeah that wouldn't work. You're right it was wrong of me to ask how old you are that was rude of me and I sincerely apologize, I simply ask because you appear to be very naive, under-informed, and miss-informed. Then again so is 90% of the country so i don't hold that against you. If I had to guess tho I'd bet money that you're near 20 and it wasn't all that long that you graduated highschool. I myself am 28 with a bachelors degree and a ton of experience with all the bull this grand country has to offer. I agree completely we do need smart budgeting badly but I don't think that will ever happen so long as both parties use it as a political footbal, once again money and greed get in the way. The health care bill doesn't put our generation in debt >.< that's just wrong, Ill explain more to that affect later but for now know that is just right wing propaganda that has no basis in reality. I also know that your not saying that we should warehouse the mentally ill however you should be aware of the fact that there is no possible way to forcibly medicate the many homeless mentally ill without warehousing them.

    That is mostly incorrect and is even talked about briefly in the same article in the statement I posted that you quoted above this. Yes the Mental health Act of 2007 does state that those seeking medical attention must take the medication given to them, however the citizens of the UK still maintain the right to refuse medical treatment so if they don't take their medication they receive no health care and are sent home or turned just turned away. That is not forced medication.

    Forced medication is what China does, they have agents visit the homes of those with homes and force them to take drug tests to make sure they have been taking their meds if they fail to or if they lose their home they are institutionalized and reeducated if they are capable of returning to the work force. If their illness prevents them from returning to work they either never leave the institution again or most likely simply just executed and disposed of to conserve resources.

    Yeah actually they do turn people away all the time infact they've been known to turn people away for less http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/story/3-hospitals-cited-turning-away-er-patients/2012-04-23. My point is logical and it's that there is no possible way to find and forcibly medicate every single person in the US who has a mental disorder, and even if we could it still wouldn't do any good. What defies all logic is how you think without providing a feasible means as to how that we some how could and not only could we but despite numerous studies proving otherwise that it would do anything other than waste resources and strip us of our god given rights. Yes we do have a mental health system but it is a broken system that more often than not fails and adding forced medication to the mix will not and cannot fix it.

    "muddying the waters." That is at least the second time in this thread you've used that statement and you didn't exactly use it correctly so here is the definition to help you in the future. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/muddy+the+waters. I didn't bring up anything that was irrelevant. I brought up Holmes because he is no different than Loughner. You say we know little to nothing about the mental state of Holmes, well guess what we still know less than nothing about the mental state of Loghner. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Lee_Loughner He was assessed by a mental illness specialist and was found to not be a threat to himself or others. Bringing up Holmes was also relevant because in both cases there is no evidence that either individual needs, needed medication, or if they had it that it would have made a difference. What was muddying the waters tho was you bringing up and insulting by bringing up the dead to try and justify a failed argument that otherwise had no legs. They aren't relevant to this discussion that's why I haven't so much as acknowledged them until now because I'm not about to muddy the waters and spit on their graves to try and make a point. Holmes has more place in this discussion than the victims so really who should be left out? and who is really muddying the waters?

    Actually there are a few things to be said about this blatant misinformation. First being thank you for proving me right that you have yet to actually read the bill here is the link to the actual bill so that you can actually for the first time in your life read it and understand what is actually in it http://www.healthcare.gov/law/full/. Second being a bit obvious is that it's 2012 and not 2014. So when I said it DOESN'T add it I was 100% correct because the law in it's current form doesn't add it, the section of the bill that takes affect in 2014 isn't part of the current bill and won't even be voted on until 2014 even then there is a chance that it will be voted down and not added to the bill. Third after you actually read the bill you'll realize that were not really paying for anything because our taxes aren't really going towards it all the bill does financially is give tax breaks to the insurance companies. So it really doesn't fix anything at all or pay for anything the way you think. Research is FUN! Also there is no guarantee that Obama will be our next president and him being our next president is the best chance there is of the 2014 update of actually taking affect because if Romney is elected he is going to repeal Obamacare http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/romney-says-he-will-repeal-obamacare-if-elected/ Again Research is FUN!

    Once again completely and utterly wrong. Pretrial mental examinations are used only to determine if the person on trial is capable of standing trial, not whether or not they are insane. It is up to the defense to prove their client is insane with various evidence and experts and it is up to the jury to decide if they are infact insane and it is up to the judge to determine sentencing. Once again you struggle with logic, by your logic someone would have to prove they are innocent before trial could begin, and that just doesn't happen. It's not a fallacy its fact that can be proven by public record, all you have to do is go down to your county courthouse and ask to see trial logs from cases involving people found to be insane and you can all the details involving sentencing and with that ya can find the nearest facility that they are sent to and then ask one of the guards just how long most actually stay there. What is an actual fallacy tho is your false belief that once they are found insane that they are sent to actual prisons with other prisoners which couldn't further than the truth. They are sent to facilities for the criminally insane which are nothing more than mental wards with barbed wire.


    It's that kind of sheep mentality that gets us all in trouble. Mind you that I'm not saying your a sheep or have sheep mentality. It's just that most people only think things to a certain point and they rarely get further than their own preconceived notions. People rarely dig any deeper or try to find a different perspective so that they see things for what they really are. It's because of this that so many people fell for the lies and propaganda and voted for Bush and we all know how that turned out. I did read your OP infact I answered your OP on the page before this but I don't think you saw it. That's also partly why I brought up holmes before because he inspired this thread, and also why I was perplexed by you previous statement that he didn't belong here and his presence was muddying the waters. Thanks but I don't need you to do my homework, in fact I need you to do your homework because I've been doing both yours and mine all night ;P. We put our rights first as a rule because of the sacrifices made by those that came before us, those that died for those rights, those that gave up everything forming and defending this great nation. The constitution was formed around the idea that the whole is healthiest when our rights are in tact which I fully believe and support. There will always be death and disease and unpredictable villains and enemies that exist both domestically and abroad. However as long as we maintain our rights we are better able to defend ourselves from those threats.

    My answer is the rights we've lost up until now are unacceptable losses. Before we do anything else we need to work towards getting those rights and all our rights back in balance. The problem with rights is that they are given to everyone equally at birth so you can't take away the rights of a few to protect the whole because the moment you decide to take them they are lost by all. The reason why I haven't mentioned previous examples because they are nothing more than propaganda and aren't worth mentioning. There is no justification for the loss of rights, no amount of examples can prove otherwise. The moment we give into fear and propaganda and give up our rights we turn our backs on our ancestors and the sacrifices they made for us. Don't be mistaken they had it a thousand times worse than us, they had far greater dangers and far greater risks but they managed to fight to the death to defend our rights. It's because of that that we were the greatest nation in the world. Then we started giving in to the fear and slowly gave up rights for the greater good, now look at us a shadow of our former self. No more I say, no more.. We have to learn from history and not make the same mistakes again. You say I simplify this to a single event but that's just not true, you are the one simplifying things. You simplify things so much that you actually believe this one non-solution, one that you know absolutely nothing about, you don't know how it would be implemented, who would be running it, or really how it would be paid for and somehow it would solve a problem that is both unpredictable and unrelated to the solution. It's complete nonsense. You say it wouldn't cost any freedoms even tho its been well established earlier and even admitted by you previously that it would cost freedoms. That tells me you don't know enough about your freedoms, and ya certainly don't know enough about those that died defending those freedoms. If ya did you would have come to a different conclusion completely. I don't know what country you live in but here in America the only obligations we have are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and defending those rights from all threats both foreign and domestic. What you're talking about is communism and if you want to be a communist I suggest you move to china where they believe the whole is more important than the single. See how that works our for ya, maybe we'll see ya in a drum line in the next Olympics with a lobotomized look on your face.

    By the way I wasn't being nasty. If you want to see nasty go to reddit.
    Tho it is true that I may have been crass, rude, brash, and insensitive but I was being completely honest and maintained civility the entire time. I also assure you that the only emotion I felt this entire time was joy because this has been a fun and spirited debate. However you have irked me but that doesn't detract from the joy or make me think less of you.

    It's also very important that you know that I mean you no disrespect. I have the utmost respect for you, I believe you are a very intelligent person with boat loads of potential it just so happens that like most people you also suffer from being under-informed and miss-informed, but that's not your fault and can easily be remedied.

    I'm sorry if you've felt insulted but really you brought that on yourself. I've never called you stupid or incompetent again I think you are a highly intelligent person, that's why it irks me so that you can be so entirely wrong. I may have implied that you've practiced pore logic but that doesn't make you dumb. I've also said your wrong simply because you were and I tried my best to provide evidence proving so. Whether or not you can accept that depends on you and your own preconceptions. Again I know I was crass but if I wasn't you wouldn't have learned anything, you probably would have just ignored everything I've said.

    Again I hope you know I have nothing but respect for you, if I didn't I wouldn't have bothered pushing you at all. I would have left you alone to wallow in ignorance. You truly don't know what you believe until your told your wrong. Also and finally everything I've said has been on point with the OP and in response to what you have said. You've led this conversation so if it's gone off track it's because you've taken it there.

    - - - Updated - - -

    I'm sorry but to correct your correction Regan did close down mental health facilities when he was governor. I even have documentation from a vetted journalist. http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/ronald-reagan-the-bad-and-the/ Your post is no doubt very nice revisionism but it's not the complete truth.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 25, 2012
  12. Hellstromm

    Hellstromm Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Hehe, it's always a mistake to believe what is posted on a blog. Whether intentional or through ignorance, Fabian (the author of that blog article) incorrectly presented the facts. I suggest you read up on the 1967 Lanterman-Petris-Short Act.

    It was actually the ACLU and patient rights advocacy groups that forced the hand of government, softening the "care for self" definition for institutionalization. Without such strict and all-encompassing parameters, patients were no longer allowed to be institutionalized in such facilities as State-managed (and later Federally-managed, via Baker act, etc) institutions. With no patients, there was no justification for maintaining these facilities.

    The rest I already explained. Oh, and your "vetted journalist" is not. He's aspiring to be a CPA. He used to run a blog, The Golden Nugget. I.e., he was a blogger, not a journalist. --- http://www.linkedin.com/in/fabiangonzalez

    Right, so I corrected your correction, let's see if this discussion can return to the topic at hand. :)
     
  13. Dominotx711

    Dominotx711 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    ok, on that note, I could go and do a long drawn out rebuttal to Nicklesbe, but the truth is he IS muddying the waters. He is changing the topic at hand from do the individual rights of a few out rank the collective rights of the whole. Mental Health was an example of this. He has changed it from the original topic to something about financial applicability. The only part he has right (as far as applicable to my original post) is other nations etc etc. And while I could respond to all of this, he is also missing the point in that area as well. No other nation in the world places as much precedent on individual civil liberties over the safety of the nation as a whole. THAT was my point. As far as other places, their dealings and view of mental health is much stricter than ours is. I think much like the whole needle thing, if it is even a small reduction, if it clears out say, 10% of those in prison for crime, that is a 10% drop in crime....and with crime, there is an innocent party. It isn't about mental health solely. It was the catalist. The government has removed civil liberties all over the place, and nobody cries wolf. So back to my question.......is one worth the whole?

    The problem with rights is that they are given to everyone equally at birth so you can't take away the rights of a few to protect the whole because the moment you decide to take them they are lost by all. - What is the difference in Jails and Psychiatric Units? And on that matter since when do prisoners get a better perks than civilians? What is wrong with chain gangs and tent cities? Why do they get cable and air conditioning, when law abiding civilians get so much less? Being incarcerated is loss of civil liberties yes? As far as mental health, nobody is taking away their right to life and liberty. Nobody is persecuting them, but they have a obligation to be proactive in their care to make them suitable to be amongst society yes? So I don't see you point...AND DON'T bring up the money issue. We are not making policy here, we are discussing lines in the sand.

    ya certainly don't know enough about those that died defending those freedoms. - yeah, probably right.....*rolls eyes*

    Now somewhere in your post you quoted the constitution, but you failed to respond to all of it. So here you go:
    the breakdown:
    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    I am pretty sure "ourselves" and "posterity" are productive members of society. After all, If you look at both sides of our founding fathers, those who wrote the constitution firmly felt, the country should be led by various groups in order to care for those less able to do so. The total democracy concept we have today IS NOT what our forefathers intended...try again.
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2012
  14. Paks

    Paks Guest

    Liberty means responsibility. That is why most people dread it.
    George Bernard Shaw

    It is logical. The need of the many, outweigh the need of the few. Or the one.
    Movie quote


    When somethings goes wrong, we demand something is done about it and cry when the government steps in.
     
  15. Dark Lotus

    Dark Lotus Guest

    lol Dom you sure do love that little piece of part don't you? The constitution is obsolete. It is time you embrace progressive democracy. It is a wonderful thing once you learn to love it. You do not have to do anything. The government will make all your choices for you. They will educate your children on all matters. They will teach them about sex. They will have little candy bowls set out with condoms in them. You have no worries, they have your child's safety at the for front. They will give you a debit card so you can get food to feed them. They will tell you what they can wear to school as a uniform. If your daughter gets pregnant, they will take her in for an abortion. Your consent means nothing. Look at how wonderful planned parenthood is.

    But nooooooo you want to hold on the old ways. The constitution is at best just wall art now. They had it all wrong. Government is the key to a great life for all. We fought and rebelled for nothing. WHO NEEDS CIVIL LIBERTY????? You have progressive liberals now and they are here to help. Do you really think for one moment you should have any say in the raising of your child? What they are taught? What your taxes are spent on? What laws are put into place?

    It is called progressive democracy. It is when the largest percent of the population (who contribute the least, and demand the most) have the numbers to put any rules into effect that the leaders they elected, see fit. Come join the hive, think like us, be like us. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of few. One collective mind, one collective thought. Your USA must take a back seat now to other countries who know what is best for you. Place your head into the lap of progressiveness and be at peace.... Sleeeeeeep and it will all be better when you awake. Resistance is futile!!!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 25, 2012
  16. Dominotx711

    Dominotx711 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    hahahahaha Dark, you crack me up. Look at it on the bright side.....how many people do we want to give free needles to are self medicating? This would take care of your problem right :D
     
  17. Nicklesbe

    Nicklesbe Guest

    Your right you can't always trust a blog so here is an actual wikiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_mental_health_service and here is a published article from a renowned sociologist http://sociology.org/content/vol003.004/thomas_d.html Both with accurate information. I've so far have provided sources for my information where you have yet to provide any kind of source for yours. You might as well have strung random words together out of nothing so you really haven't corrected because you fail to provide any accurate source for your information.

    woops posted the link wrong after wikia, been fixed.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 25, 2012
  18. Dominotx711

    Dominotx711 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
  19. Nicklesbe

    Nicklesbe Guest

    That's a flat out lie! If anyone changed the subject you did when you claimed a solution to the problem would be forced medication. My point was that YOU can't defend forced medication as a solution because you can't justify it's cost. You have been muddying the waters the entire time. This is your OP
    I answered your OP on page 4 and even before that you have changed topic to forced medication. The reason why financial applicability is relevant and on topic with that is because the only way to get money to pay for forced medication is to take it from somewhere else. You said that to pay for it we should take money from the justice system which would increase crime not decrease it. It would also make it that much harder for people to get their right to a fair trial, and their right to justice. One again you also muddy the waters more by bringing up victims, the funny thing is every time someone proves you wrong you cry muddying the water even tho your the one who brought the topic up in the first place.. The victims have no relevance to this discussion. My point which you continually miss is that once you decide to give up one civil liberty you start to lose them all.

    There are allot of differences between psychiatric facilities and prisons. One being people in psychiatric facilities don't rape and murder each other. Also people in psychiatric facilities are never sentenced to spend life in the facility. As long as they willingly take their medication and seek proper therapy they can be released many months or years before they are suppose to be. Most prisoners don't get better perks than civilians, some white collar prisoners probably do but most do not. If you have ever been to an actual prison you'd know that. There is nothing wrong with tent cities and chain gangs, most prisons have to have tent cities because they are running out of room. Also if you have ever been to a prison you'd know they don't get air conditioning and only non-violent offenders get access to cable tv. Being incarcerated is not a loss of civil liberties, however you do lose some but the loss isn't from being incarcerated the loss is acquired when they willfully gave up those liberties when they decided to commit the crime. The thing about mental illness patients is that most of them want to be proactive about their well being and most of them do take their medication. However more severe mental illnesses make it difficult because they have a tenuous grasp on reality. Your right no one does persecute them, they aren't criminals however your idea of a solution would be to persecute them and that's not right.

    Really? the only people that roll their eyes are teenage girls when they've been proven wrong. I don't know anything about you so I guess your trying to be sarcastic, but since you didn't convey sarcasm what your actually doing is agreeing with me. So I'll accept that.

    Posterity aren't productive members of society because posterity means "Future Generations". Since they aren't here yet they can't be productive members of society. Your absolutely right tho that is what the founding father firmly felt. What they didn't feel and were strongly apposed to were sacrificing the rights of the few to protect the whole "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, " You cannot secure liberty for ourselves and posterity by taking them away so this is actually counter-productive to the point you failed to make...try again.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 25, 2012
  20. Nicklesbe

    Nicklesbe Guest


Top