Guest guest Posted February 14, 2001 Report Share Posted February 14, 2001 dixie@... wrote: > > > > >> > I wasn't impressed. > >> > >> Dixie, your bridge called. All is forgiven. > >> > >> *plonk* > > Shrug. Okay, so you rave hysterically with no real evidence or facts, just > hysteria and lots of hand waving, no substantative argument. Okay, if > that's the way you want to do things, fine. Just don't expect to be taken > seriously by anyone. > Dixie, If anyone is guilty of raving hysterically with no real evidence or facts, it is you. How can you expect anyone to take _you_ seriously on a list where people are concerned with things like character, integrity, civil liberties and restrictions on state power when your very best arguments are totally devoid of a knowledge of _any_ of those matters? Do you think calling someone who disagrees with you " mentally ill " makes your weak arguments any stronger? In other posts, you take a stand in favor of coerced treatment. I'm curious how many list members think your opinions and beliefs are a sign of your mental illness. Perhaps we should get together and have you committed, forced to take drugs, or use some other technique to get you to express socially acceptable values? Surely, you have committed some sort of crime or breach of social ettiquette that would qualify under your value system as expressed here that you lose your right to freedom of conscience, freedom of thought and freedom of expression, all that burdensome nonsense that we have inherited in our Western traditions. Ken Ragge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 14, 2001 Report Share Posted February 14, 2001 >How can you expect anyone to take _you_ seriously on a list where people >are concerned with things like character, integrity, civil liberties and >restrictions on state power when your very best arguments are totally >devoid of a knowledge of _any_ of those matters? Totally devoid of knowledge on character, integrity, civil liberties, and restrictions on state power? Wow, that's a pretty serious charge to be leveling against a member of the ACLU and someone who's studied a fair amount of constitutional history/law. Please show me where I have displayed an ignorance of law, civil liberties, or restrictions on state power. Actually, I keep calling up the issue of the justice system's responsibility to the citizenry. I have never come out in favor of widespread forced drugging, but I do believe it has its place. The arguments I've seen on this list fail to substantively address the issues of what we as a society are to do with mentally ill people who wreak havoc (read: commit crimes unless medicated, or cannot function unless medicated.) As an atheist, I am keenly committed to abolishing forced religious practices. As a taxpayer and a citizen, I am interested in both punishing criminals and in rehabilitating people who can be rehabilitated. As the girlfriend of an alcoholic who's got multiple DWIs under his belt, I'm interested in methods of punishment and rehabilitation that *do* work, as opposed to simple jail/prison sentences, which have never been shown to be effective. (If they were effective, he wouldn't have gotten his last 3 DWIs, having already served 2 years in jail.) Do you think calling >someone who disagrees with you " mentally ill " makes your weak arguments >any stronger? It may not make an argument stronger, but I calls 'em as I sees 'em. And the namecalling I did was in response to the same. I was meeting aggression with aggression. 'coolguy' called me some very unfounded names, said I was a patsy to the mob, and I told him he didn't need to show his face around me, because I would show him no compassion. I'm on many email lists, almost all of them very friendly, and I'm generally a very friendly and amiable sort to be around. But I also meet aggression with aggression. If you accuse me of namecalling, do a bit of searching and see what I was called first. coolguy himself said: > My reality, which apparently is the domain of only raving lunatics, >doesn't comprise solely a race of people who live in self-sacrifice for the >rest of the race (your greatest group, you grouper). So he (and, I believe, Tommy) proclaim that many people find them not completely sane. I'm merely confirming that impression that they have already proclaimed. And notice that coolguy calls me a grouper--a laughable accusation, since I always approached the 12 step program with a healthy dose of scepticism and never swallowed it hook line and sinker. >In other posts, you take a stand in favor of coerced treatment. > >I'm curious how many list members think your opinions and beliefs are a >sign of your mental illness. Perhaps we should get together and have >you committed, forced to take drugs, or use some other technique to get >you to express socially acceptable values? Socially acceptable values such as? the right of people to not be harrassed and assaulted? What socially acceptable values did you have in mind? Surely, you have committed >some sort of crime or breach of social ettiquette that would qualify >under your value system as expressed here Please explain your understanding of my value system. It would be interesting to compare it to what my value system actually *is*. that you lose your right to >freedom of conscience, freedom of thought and freedom of expression, all >that burdensome nonsense that we have inherited in our Western >traditions. Please show me where, in any of my posts to this list, I have advocated losing ones right to freedom of conscience, thought or expression. You slander me, sir. And please do go through my posts and show where I have advocated any of that. In the past, when I have challenged people to substantiate their claims and assertions, I have been met with silence. Which means, people here have felt free to throw wild accusations my way, but have been unwilling or unable to stand by them or find evidence to support their assertions. Dixie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 14, 2001 Report Share Posted February 14, 2001 >How can you expect anyone to take _you_ seriously on a list where people >are concerned with things like character, integrity, civil liberties and >restrictions on state power when your very best arguments are totally >devoid of a knowledge of _any_ of those matters? Totally devoid of knowledge on character, integrity, civil liberties, and restrictions on state power? Wow, that's a pretty serious charge to be leveling against a member of the ACLU and someone who's studied a fair amount of constitutional history/law. Please show me where I have displayed an ignorance of law, civil liberties, or restrictions on state power. Actually, I keep calling up the issue of the justice system's responsibility to the citizenry. I have never come out in favor of widespread forced drugging, but I do believe it has its place. The arguments I've seen on this list fail to substantively address the issues of what we as a society are to do with mentally ill people who wreak havoc (read: commit crimes unless medicated, or cannot function unless medicated.) As an atheist, I am keenly committed to abolishing forced religious practices. As a taxpayer and a citizen, I am interested in both punishing criminals and in rehabilitating people who can be rehabilitated. As the girlfriend of an alcoholic who's got multiple DWIs under his belt, I'm interested in methods of punishment and rehabilitation that *do* work, as opposed to simple jail/prison sentences, which have never been shown to be effective. (If they were effective, he wouldn't have gotten his last 3 DWIs, having already served 2 years in jail.) Do you think calling >someone who disagrees with you " mentally ill " makes your weak arguments >any stronger? It may not make an argument stronger, but I calls 'em as I sees 'em. And the namecalling I did was in response to the same. I was meeting aggression with aggression. 'coolguy' called me some very unfounded names, said I was a patsy to the mob, and I told him he didn't need to show his face around me, because I would show him no compassion. I'm on many email lists, almost all of them very friendly, and I'm generally a very friendly and amiable sort to be around. But I also meet aggression with aggression. If you accuse me of namecalling, do a bit of searching and see what I was called first. coolguy himself said: > My reality, which apparently is the domain of only raving lunatics, >doesn't comprise solely a race of people who live in self-sacrifice for the >rest of the race (your greatest group, you grouper). So he (and, I believe, Tommy) proclaim that many people find them not completely sane. I'm merely confirming that impression that they have already proclaimed. And notice that coolguy calls me a grouper--a laughable accusation, since I always approached the 12 step program with a healthy dose of scepticism and never swallowed it hook line and sinker. >In other posts, you take a stand in favor of coerced treatment. > >I'm curious how many list members think your opinions and beliefs are a >sign of your mental illness. Perhaps we should get together and have >you committed, forced to take drugs, or use some other technique to get >you to express socially acceptable values? Socially acceptable values such as? the right of people to not be harrassed and assaulted? What socially acceptable values did you have in mind? Surely, you have committed >some sort of crime or breach of social ettiquette that would qualify >under your value system as expressed here Please explain your understanding of my value system. It would be interesting to compare it to what my value system actually *is*. that you lose your right to >freedom of conscience, freedom of thought and freedom of expression, all >that burdensome nonsense that we have inherited in our Western >traditions. Please show me where, in any of my posts to this list, I have advocated losing ones right to freedom of conscience, thought or expression. You slander me, sir. And please do go through my posts and show where I have advocated any of that. In the past, when I have challenged people to substantiate their claims and assertions, I have been met with silence. Which means, people here have felt free to throw wild accusations my way, but have been unwilling or unable to stand by them or find evidence to support their assertions. Dixie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2001 Report Share Posted February 15, 2001 dixie@... wrote: > > >How can you expect anyone to take _you_ seriously on a list where people > >are concerned with things like character, integrity, civil liberties and > >restrictions on state power when your very best arguments are totally > >devoid of a knowledge of _any_ of those matters? > > Totally devoid of knowledge on character, integrity, civil liberties, and > restrictions on state power? Wow, that's a pretty serious charge to be > leveling against a member of the ACLU and someone who's studied a fair > amount of constitutional history/law. Please show me where I have displayed > an ignorance of law, civil liberties, or restrictions on state power. > Actually, I keep calling up the issue of the justice system's > responsibility to the citizenry. Dixie, But which citizenry? The ones who think properly as defined by state regulation? Or those whose thoughts and behavior are a nuisance to " decent society. " > I have never come out in favor of > widespread forced drugging, but I do believe it has its place. The > arguments I've seen on this list fail to substantively address the issues > of what we as a society are to do with mentally ill people who wreak havoc > (read: commit crimes unless medicated, or cannot function unless > medicated.) When someone is institutionalized for " mental illness " and put on drugs to keep them sane (compliant, obediant) it is not " helping " them, no matter how much the helpers insist (probably especially to themselves) that that is what they are doing. Whether an agent of the state is wearing a blue jacket and is using handcuffs or prison bars to restrain someone or is wearing a white jacket and used pills or shots to restrain someone, it is the same thing. > As an atheist, I am keenly committed to abolishing forced religious > practices. As a taxpayer and a citizen, I am interested in both punishing > criminals and in rehabilitating people who can be rehabilitated. As the > girlfriend of an alcoholic who's got multiple DWIs under his belt, I'm > interested in methods of punishment and rehabilitation that *do* work, as > opposed to simple jail/prison sentences, which have never been shown to be > effective. (If they were effective, he wouldn't have gotten his last 3 > DWIs, having already served 2 years in jail.) When you start talking about the government " rehabilitating " the " mentally ill " you are on the slippery slope of the government defining what is acceptable thought and acceptable world view. Do you think the government should step in and make your boyfriend behave the way you want him to? Do you think he doesn't, at some level, want to drink and do what he does when he goes on a tear? Do you not think that if the government stuck to sanctions for drunk driving and stayed out of the parent/guru role he might still drink but would be less likely to be a menace to others? > Do you think calling > >someone who disagrees with you " mentally ill " makes your weak arguments > >any stronger? > > It may not make an argument stronger, but I calls 'em as I sees 'em. You certainly do that. But don't you see that when you are arguing in favor of forced treatment for the " mentally ill " and call a person who has very different political ideas and world view from your own " mentally ill " you are essentially calling for state sanctions against someone because you don't like his views? > And > the namecalling I did was in response to the same. I was meeting aggression > with aggression. 'coolguy' called me some very unfounded names, said I was > a patsy to the mob, and I told him he didn't need to show his face around > me, because I would show him no compassion. It wasn't your interchange with coolguy I was referring to, but with Tommy. > I'm on many email lists, almost all of them very friendly, and I'm > generally a very friendly and amiable sort to be around. But I also meet > aggression with aggression. If you accuse me of namecalling, do a bit of > searching and see what I was called first. > > coolguy himself said: > > My reality, which apparently is the domain of only raving lunatics, > >doesn't comprise solely a race of people who live in self-sacrifice for the > >rest of the race (your greatest group, you grouper). > > So he (and, I believe, Tommy) proclaim that many people find them not > completely sane. I'm merely confirming that impression that they have > already proclaimed. Mentally ill? In line for forced imprisonment, drugging, etc? > And notice that coolguy calls me a grouper--a laughable accusation, since I > always approached the 12 step program with a healthy dose of scepticism and > never swallowed it hook line and sinker. > > >In other posts, you take a stand in favor of coerced treatment. > > > >I'm curious how many list members think your opinions and beliefs are a > >sign of your mental illness. Perhaps we should get together and have > >you committed, forced to take drugs, or use some other technique to get > >you to express socially acceptable values? > > Socially acceptable values such as? the right of people to not be harrassed > and assaulted? What socially acceptable values did you have in mind? If they are harassing and assaulting, they are committing criminal offenses. > > Surely, you have committed > >some sort of crime or breach of social ettiquette that would qualify > >under your value system as expressed here > > Please explain your understanding of my value system. It would be > interesting to compare it to what my value system actually *is*. > > that you lose your right to > >freedom of conscience, freedom of thought and freedom of expression, all > >that burdensome nonsense that we have inherited in our Western > >traditions. > > Please show me where, in any of my posts to this list, I have advocated > losing ones right to freedom of conscience, thought or expression. You > slander me, sir. Well then, what kind of " treatment " do you propose people get for " mental illness " or " alcoholism " if it isn't aimed at changing their thoughts, their feelings, their world view? Ken Ragge > And please do go through my posts and show where I have advocated any of > that. In the past, when I have challenged people to substantiate their > claims and assertions, I have been met with silence. Which means, people > here have felt free to throw wild accusations my way, but have been > unwilling or unable to stand by them or find evidence to support their > assertions. > Dixie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2001 Report Share Posted February 15, 2001 dixie@... wrote: > > >How can you expect anyone to take _you_ seriously on a list where people > >are concerned with things like character, integrity, civil liberties and > >restrictions on state power when your very best arguments are totally > >devoid of a knowledge of _any_ of those matters? > > Totally devoid of knowledge on character, integrity, civil liberties, and > restrictions on state power? Wow, that's a pretty serious charge to be > leveling against a member of the ACLU and someone who's studied a fair > amount of constitutional history/law. Please show me where I have displayed > an ignorance of law, civil liberties, or restrictions on state power. > Actually, I keep calling up the issue of the justice system's > responsibility to the citizenry. Dixie, But which citizenry? The ones who think properly as defined by state regulation? Or those whose thoughts and behavior are a nuisance to " decent society. " > I have never come out in favor of > widespread forced drugging, but I do believe it has its place. The > arguments I've seen on this list fail to substantively address the issues > of what we as a society are to do with mentally ill people who wreak havoc > (read: commit crimes unless medicated, or cannot function unless > medicated.) When someone is institutionalized for " mental illness " and put on drugs to keep them sane (compliant, obediant) it is not " helping " them, no matter how much the helpers insist (probably especially to themselves) that that is what they are doing. Whether an agent of the state is wearing a blue jacket and is using handcuffs or prison bars to restrain someone or is wearing a white jacket and used pills or shots to restrain someone, it is the same thing. > As an atheist, I am keenly committed to abolishing forced religious > practices. As a taxpayer and a citizen, I am interested in both punishing > criminals and in rehabilitating people who can be rehabilitated. As the > girlfriend of an alcoholic who's got multiple DWIs under his belt, I'm > interested in methods of punishment and rehabilitation that *do* work, as > opposed to simple jail/prison sentences, which have never been shown to be > effective. (If they were effective, he wouldn't have gotten his last 3 > DWIs, having already served 2 years in jail.) When you start talking about the government " rehabilitating " the " mentally ill " you are on the slippery slope of the government defining what is acceptable thought and acceptable world view. Do you think the government should step in and make your boyfriend behave the way you want him to? Do you think he doesn't, at some level, want to drink and do what he does when he goes on a tear? Do you not think that if the government stuck to sanctions for drunk driving and stayed out of the parent/guru role he might still drink but would be less likely to be a menace to others? > Do you think calling > >someone who disagrees with you " mentally ill " makes your weak arguments > >any stronger? > > It may not make an argument stronger, but I calls 'em as I sees 'em. You certainly do that. But don't you see that when you are arguing in favor of forced treatment for the " mentally ill " and call a person who has very different political ideas and world view from your own " mentally ill " you are essentially calling for state sanctions against someone because you don't like his views? > And > the namecalling I did was in response to the same. I was meeting aggression > with aggression. 'coolguy' called me some very unfounded names, said I was > a patsy to the mob, and I told him he didn't need to show his face around > me, because I would show him no compassion. It wasn't your interchange with coolguy I was referring to, but with Tommy. > I'm on many email lists, almost all of them very friendly, and I'm > generally a very friendly and amiable sort to be around. But I also meet > aggression with aggression. If you accuse me of namecalling, do a bit of > searching and see what I was called first. > > coolguy himself said: > > My reality, which apparently is the domain of only raving lunatics, > >doesn't comprise solely a race of people who live in self-sacrifice for the > >rest of the race (your greatest group, you grouper). > > So he (and, I believe, Tommy) proclaim that many people find them not > completely sane. I'm merely confirming that impression that they have > already proclaimed. Mentally ill? In line for forced imprisonment, drugging, etc? > And notice that coolguy calls me a grouper--a laughable accusation, since I > always approached the 12 step program with a healthy dose of scepticism and > never swallowed it hook line and sinker. > > >In other posts, you take a stand in favor of coerced treatment. > > > >I'm curious how many list members think your opinions and beliefs are a > >sign of your mental illness. Perhaps we should get together and have > >you committed, forced to take drugs, or use some other technique to get > >you to express socially acceptable values? > > Socially acceptable values such as? the right of people to not be harrassed > and assaulted? What socially acceptable values did you have in mind? If they are harassing and assaulting, they are committing criminal offenses. > > Surely, you have committed > >some sort of crime or breach of social ettiquette that would qualify > >under your value system as expressed here > > Please explain your understanding of my value system. It would be > interesting to compare it to what my value system actually *is*. > > that you lose your right to > >freedom of conscience, freedom of thought and freedom of expression, all > >that burdensome nonsense that we have inherited in our Western > >traditions. > > Please show me where, in any of my posts to this list, I have advocated > losing ones right to freedom of conscience, thought or expression. You > slander me, sir. Well then, what kind of " treatment " do you propose people get for " mental illness " or " alcoholism " if it isn't aimed at changing their thoughts, their feelings, their world view? Ken Ragge > And please do go through my posts and show where I have advocated any of > that. In the past, when I have challenged people to substantiate their > claims and assertions, I have been met with silence. Which means, people > here have felt free to throw wild accusations my way, but have been > unwilling or unable to stand by them or find evidence to support their > assertions. > Dixie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2001 Report Share Posted February 15, 2001 >But which citizenry? The ones who think properly as defined by state >regulation? Or those whose thoughts and behavior are a nuisance to > " decent society. " Please explain what " think properly as defined by state regulation " means. I know of no state or federal regulation dictating how we must think. I do know of laws passed to control behavior. It is against the law to steal, to assault, to expose oneself in public. These laws are passed by elected representatives of the people. If you disagree with such laws, please explain what you would have in their place. >When someone is institutionalized for " mental illness " and put on drugs >to keep them sane (compliant, obediant) it is not " helping " them, no >matter how much the helpers insist (probably especially to themselves) >that that is what they are doing. What alternative do you suggest? Not " just let them go free " because in most instances, they weren't institutionalized because they could control their behavior or their actions. Generally (there are some abuses in the system, but generally) a person is not institutionalized unless they are a danger to themselves or others. Even then, they are usually not institutionalized. Whether an agent of the state is >wearing a blue jacket and is using handcuffs or prison bars to restrain >someone or is wearing a white jacket and used pills or shots to restrain >someone, it is the same thing. So do you disagree with prisons too? Yes, there are thousands--probably hundreds of thousands--of people being held against their will in this country. Their daily activities are highly regulated. They are not allowed full contact with their family and friends, and allowed only limited visits. They are confined to a small area and kept there by armed guards. They are fed lousy food. And they are not allowed to leave for many years. This is a travesty, no? Unconstitutional, yes? We should work to free these poor people kept against their will, right? But guess what--they're in PRISON. And they're there because they violated " proper actions as defined by state regulation. " So are you in favor of freeing everyone in prison? >When you start talking about the government " rehabilitating " the > " mentally ill " you are on the slippery slope of the government defining >what is acceptable thought and acceptable world view. No, just acceptable actions. Do you think the >government should step in and make your boyfriend behave the way you >want him to? I think they should step in and say, " If you don't do something about your alcoholism, you're going to prison. We've given you several chances, and each time we let you go free, you drink and drive again. Treat your addiction, or go to prison. Your choice. " Do you not think that if the >government stuck to sanctions for drunk driving and stayed out of the >parent/guru role he might still drink but would be less likely to be a >menace to others? No, because these sanctions haven't worked. He's been in jail before--it hasn't stopped him from drinking. Historically, there is no evidence that jail or prison stops people from drinking or drug addiction. We've been trying that for hundreds of years. Has it worked yet? No. Is there any evidence to show that jail time might keep people from drinking, or from drinking too much once they start? No. As I have repeatedly pointed out, many addicts serve their time in prison and immediately return to drugging/drinking when they get out--because they never overcame their addiction. Perhaps you were never an addict. Perhaps you were merely someone who drank too much. If this is so, please do not claim that what worked for you will work for addicts, because it won't. I have repeatedly mentioned people in their 40's, 50's, and 60's who have been alcoholics their entire adult life. They were never able to moderate their drinking. >You certainly do that. But don't you see that when you are arguing in >favor of forced treatment for the " mentally ill " and call a person who >has very different political ideas and world view from your own > " mentally ill " you are essentially calling for state sanctions against >someone because you don't like his views? And them calling me " bitch " is supposed to do what???? If someone displays signs of mental illness, and especially when that someone has been diagnosed as mentally ill in the past and wears that badge proudly, I see nothing wrong with saying, " You are displaying signs of mental illness. As a result, you are delusional. " >If they are harassing and assaulting, they are committing criminal >offenses. Precisely. And what I said about the web page that Tommy pointed us to was that there was absolutely no discussion about why these people were being medicated. Perhaps they committed a crime? Would your stance differ then? Or do you want to fill up our prisons with people who are mentally ill, and stable when medicated? Would you deny them their freedom because they won't take a pill that would help clear their muddied minds so that they don't commit crimes? People are not court ordered to take medication because the judge got up and said, " I think I'm going to medicate someone today. " They are court ordered to take medication for a reason--usually as a condition of parole or allowint them to live in a housing situation--because if they don't take their meds, they become very disruptive to the other members of that housing situation. Would you like to be awakened at 4 AM by someone arguing with the voices in their head? Would you turn the other cheek if this happened every day? Would you not mind if your neighbor never took out his garbage, and the smell became overpowering? What would you do about it? Would you want your landlord to make your neighbor's continued residence dependent on compliance with certain rules? And if medication was the only way to accomplish that, what would you do? That's why that web page was hogwash. It was a rant against medication, with no discussion or consideration of alternatives, or why the people were being medicated in the first place. I don't know if you've been involved in the mental health system. I have. In my experience, it is very hard for those who need and want medication to get it. The mental health system is simply too busy trying to provide for those who want it, to chase after those who don't just to get their jollies. >Well then, what kind of " treatment " do you propose people get for > " mental illness " or " alcoholism " if it isn't aimed at changing their >thoughts, their feelings, their world view? How about their actions and their behaviors? I agree that fundamentalist Christians are somewhat pathological. But insofar as their behaviors do not impact me, they can believe that they talk to the three-men-in-one in the sky and that the 3 men in one save them from the mean guy down below. Whatever. But when they come to my door and harrass me, they have crossed the line. When they cannot maintain any kind of stable employment or housing because of their beliefs, and then they expect me to take care of them and feed and clothe them while they are delusional, then I have an interest in their actions. When they commit crimes because of the voices in their heads, society has an interest in their actions and the things that compel them to act in that manner. Did you see the episodes of ER recently, when Abby's bipolar mom showed up in Chicago at the hospital where her daughter worked, and made scene after scene? Sure, that's a fictional show, but that's a scene out of real life. Situations like that happen every day all across the country. So you think it's fine for a parent/adult child/other relative to lose their job because another person's " thoughts, feelings, and world view " is such that they interfere and make a scene at the workplace? I've asked before, and I'll ask again: how many lives are you willing to lose before you force someone to take their meds? I've worked in domestic violence before, and we see a lot of mental illness there. But the laws against stalking have been weakened to where they're virtually nonexistent. So if a mentally ill person stalks someone, the innocent person has to be assaulted or killed before the police will do anything. In the meantime, the mentally ill person has made their life a living hell. So you think that's okay, because the mentally ill person has the world view that any woman he likes should be attracted to him and made to sleep with him? Dixie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2001 Report Share Posted February 15, 2001 >But which citizenry? The ones who think properly as defined by state >regulation? Or those whose thoughts and behavior are a nuisance to > " decent society. " Please explain what " think properly as defined by state regulation " means. I know of no state or federal regulation dictating how we must think. I do know of laws passed to control behavior. It is against the law to steal, to assault, to expose oneself in public. These laws are passed by elected representatives of the people. If you disagree with such laws, please explain what you would have in their place. >When someone is institutionalized for " mental illness " and put on drugs >to keep them sane (compliant, obediant) it is not " helping " them, no >matter how much the helpers insist (probably especially to themselves) >that that is what they are doing. What alternative do you suggest? Not " just let them go free " because in most instances, they weren't institutionalized because they could control their behavior or their actions. Generally (there are some abuses in the system, but generally) a person is not institutionalized unless they are a danger to themselves or others. Even then, they are usually not institutionalized. Whether an agent of the state is >wearing a blue jacket and is using handcuffs or prison bars to restrain >someone or is wearing a white jacket and used pills or shots to restrain >someone, it is the same thing. So do you disagree with prisons too? Yes, there are thousands--probably hundreds of thousands--of people being held against their will in this country. Their daily activities are highly regulated. They are not allowed full contact with their family and friends, and allowed only limited visits. They are confined to a small area and kept there by armed guards. They are fed lousy food. And they are not allowed to leave for many years. This is a travesty, no? Unconstitutional, yes? We should work to free these poor people kept against their will, right? But guess what--they're in PRISON. And they're there because they violated " proper actions as defined by state regulation. " So are you in favor of freeing everyone in prison? >When you start talking about the government " rehabilitating " the > " mentally ill " you are on the slippery slope of the government defining >what is acceptable thought and acceptable world view. No, just acceptable actions. Do you think the >government should step in and make your boyfriend behave the way you >want him to? I think they should step in and say, " If you don't do something about your alcoholism, you're going to prison. We've given you several chances, and each time we let you go free, you drink and drive again. Treat your addiction, or go to prison. Your choice. " Do you not think that if the >government stuck to sanctions for drunk driving and stayed out of the >parent/guru role he might still drink but would be less likely to be a >menace to others? No, because these sanctions haven't worked. He's been in jail before--it hasn't stopped him from drinking. Historically, there is no evidence that jail or prison stops people from drinking or drug addiction. We've been trying that for hundreds of years. Has it worked yet? No. Is there any evidence to show that jail time might keep people from drinking, or from drinking too much once they start? No. As I have repeatedly pointed out, many addicts serve their time in prison and immediately return to drugging/drinking when they get out--because they never overcame their addiction. Perhaps you were never an addict. Perhaps you were merely someone who drank too much. If this is so, please do not claim that what worked for you will work for addicts, because it won't. I have repeatedly mentioned people in their 40's, 50's, and 60's who have been alcoholics their entire adult life. They were never able to moderate their drinking. >You certainly do that. But don't you see that when you are arguing in >favor of forced treatment for the " mentally ill " and call a person who >has very different political ideas and world view from your own > " mentally ill " you are essentially calling for state sanctions against >someone because you don't like his views? And them calling me " bitch " is supposed to do what???? If someone displays signs of mental illness, and especially when that someone has been diagnosed as mentally ill in the past and wears that badge proudly, I see nothing wrong with saying, " You are displaying signs of mental illness. As a result, you are delusional. " >If they are harassing and assaulting, they are committing criminal >offenses. Precisely. And what I said about the web page that Tommy pointed us to was that there was absolutely no discussion about why these people were being medicated. Perhaps they committed a crime? Would your stance differ then? Or do you want to fill up our prisons with people who are mentally ill, and stable when medicated? Would you deny them their freedom because they won't take a pill that would help clear their muddied minds so that they don't commit crimes? People are not court ordered to take medication because the judge got up and said, " I think I'm going to medicate someone today. " They are court ordered to take medication for a reason--usually as a condition of parole or allowint them to live in a housing situation--because if they don't take their meds, they become very disruptive to the other members of that housing situation. Would you like to be awakened at 4 AM by someone arguing with the voices in their head? Would you turn the other cheek if this happened every day? Would you not mind if your neighbor never took out his garbage, and the smell became overpowering? What would you do about it? Would you want your landlord to make your neighbor's continued residence dependent on compliance with certain rules? And if medication was the only way to accomplish that, what would you do? That's why that web page was hogwash. It was a rant against medication, with no discussion or consideration of alternatives, or why the people were being medicated in the first place. I don't know if you've been involved in the mental health system. I have. In my experience, it is very hard for those who need and want medication to get it. The mental health system is simply too busy trying to provide for those who want it, to chase after those who don't just to get their jollies. >Well then, what kind of " treatment " do you propose people get for > " mental illness " or " alcoholism " if it isn't aimed at changing their >thoughts, their feelings, their world view? How about their actions and their behaviors? I agree that fundamentalist Christians are somewhat pathological. But insofar as their behaviors do not impact me, they can believe that they talk to the three-men-in-one in the sky and that the 3 men in one save them from the mean guy down below. Whatever. But when they come to my door and harrass me, they have crossed the line. When they cannot maintain any kind of stable employment or housing because of their beliefs, and then they expect me to take care of them and feed and clothe them while they are delusional, then I have an interest in their actions. When they commit crimes because of the voices in their heads, society has an interest in their actions and the things that compel them to act in that manner. Did you see the episodes of ER recently, when Abby's bipolar mom showed up in Chicago at the hospital where her daughter worked, and made scene after scene? Sure, that's a fictional show, but that's a scene out of real life. Situations like that happen every day all across the country. So you think it's fine for a parent/adult child/other relative to lose their job because another person's " thoughts, feelings, and world view " is such that they interfere and make a scene at the workplace? I've asked before, and I'll ask again: how many lives are you willing to lose before you force someone to take their meds? I've worked in domestic violence before, and we see a lot of mental illness there. But the laws against stalking have been weakened to where they're virtually nonexistent. So if a mentally ill person stalks someone, the innocent person has to be assaulted or killed before the police will do anything. In the meantime, the mentally ill person has made their life a living hell. So you think that's okay, because the mentally ill person has the world view that any woman he likes should be attracted to him and made to sleep with him? Dixie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2001 Report Share Posted February 15, 2001 >But which citizenry? The ones who think properly as defined by state >regulation? Or those whose thoughts and behavior are a nuisance to > " decent society. " Please explain what " think properly as defined by state regulation " means. I know of no state or federal regulation dictating how we must think. I do know of laws passed to control behavior. It is against the law to steal, to assault, to expose oneself in public. These laws are passed by elected representatives of the people. If you disagree with such laws, please explain what you would have in their place. >When someone is institutionalized for " mental illness " and put on drugs >to keep them sane (compliant, obediant) it is not " helping " them, no >matter how much the helpers insist (probably especially to themselves) >that that is what they are doing. What alternative do you suggest? Not " just let them go free " because in most instances, they weren't institutionalized because they could control their behavior or their actions. Generally (there are some abuses in the system, but generally) a person is not institutionalized unless they are a danger to themselves or others. Even then, they are usually not institutionalized. Whether an agent of the state is >wearing a blue jacket and is using handcuffs or prison bars to restrain >someone or is wearing a white jacket and used pills or shots to restrain >someone, it is the same thing. So do you disagree with prisons too? Yes, there are thousands--probably hundreds of thousands--of people being held against their will in this country. Their daily activities are highly regulated. They are not allowed full contact with their family and friends, and allowed only limited visits. They are confined to a small area and kept there by armed guards. They are fed lousy food. And they are not allowed to leave for many years. This is a travesty, no? Unconstitutional, yes? We should work to free these poor people kept against their will, right? But guess what--they're in PRISON. And they're there because they violated " proper actions as defined by state regulation. " So are you in favor of freeing everyone in prison? >When you start talking about the government " rehabilitating " the > " mentally ill " you are on the slippery slope of the government defining >what is acceptable thought and acceptable world view. No, just acceptable actions. Do you think the >government should step in and make your boyfriend behave the way you >want him to? I think they should step in and say, " If you don't do something about your alcoholism, you're going to prison. We've given you several chances, and each time we let you go free, you drink and drive again. Treat your addiction, or go to prison. Your choice. " Do you not think that if the >government stuck to sanctions for drunk driving and stayed out of the >parent/guru role he might still drink but would be less likely to be a >menace to others? No, because these sanctions haven't worked. He's been in jail before--it hasn't stopped him from drinking. Historically, there is no evidence that jail or prison stops people from drinking or drug addiction. We've been trying that for hundreds of years. Has it worked yet? No. Is there any evidence to show that jail time might keep people from drinking, or from drinking too much once they start? No. As I have repeatedly pointed out, many addicts serve their time in prison and immediately return to drugging/drinking when they get out--because they never overcame their addiction. Perhaps you were never an addict. Perhaps you were merely someone who drank too much. If this is so, please do not claim that what worked for you will work for addicts, because it won't. I have repeatedly mentioned people in their 40's, 50's, and 60's who have been alcoholics their entire adult life. They were never able to moderate their drinking. >You certainly do that. But don't you see that when you are arguing in >favor of forced treatment for the " mentally ill " and call a person who >has very different political ideas and world view from your own > " mentally ill " you are essentially calling for state sanctions against >someone because you don't like his views? And them calling me " bitch " is supposed to do what???? If someone displays signs of mental illness, and especially when that someone has been diagnosed as mentally ill in the past and wears that badge proudly, I see nothing wrong with saying, " You are displaying signs of mental illness. As a result, you are delusional. " >If they are harassing and assaulting, they are committing criminal >offenses. Precisely. And what I said about the web page that Tommy pointed us to was that there was absolutely no discussion about why these people were being medicated. Perhaps they committed a crime? Would your stance differ then? Or do you want to fill up our prisons with people who are mentally ill, and stable when medicated? Would you deny them their freedom because they won't take a pill that would help clear their muddied minds so that they don't commit crimes? People are not court ordered to take medication because the judge got up and said, " I think I'm going to medicate someone today. " They are court ordered to take medication for a reason--usually as a condition of parole or allowint them to live in a housing situation--because if they don't take their meds, they become very disruptive to the other members of that housing situation. Would you like to be awakened at 4 AM by someone arguing with the voices in their head? Would you turn the other cheek if this happened every day? Would you not mind if your neighbor never took out his garbage, and the smell became overpowering? What would you do about it? Would you want your landlord to make your neighbor's continued residence dependent on compliance with certain rules? And if medication was the only way to accomplish that, what would you do? That's why that web page was hogwash. It was a rant against medication, with no discussion or consideration of alternatives, or why the people were being medicated in the first place. I don't know if you've been involved in the mental health system. I have. In my experience, it is very hard for those who need and want medication to get it. The mental health system is simply too busy trying to provide for those who want it, to chase after those who don't just to get their jollies. >Well then, what kind of " treatment " do you propose people get for > " mental illness " or " alcoholism " if it isn't aimed at changing their >thoughts, their feelings, their world view? How about their actions and their behaviors? I agree that fundamentalist Christians are somewhat pathological. But insofar as their behaviors do not impact me, they can believe that they talk to the three-men-in-one in the sky and that the 3 men in one save them from the mean guy down below. Whatever. But when they come to my door and harrass me, they have crossed the line. When they cannot maintain any kind of stable employment or housing because of their beliefs, and then they expect me to take care of them and feed and clothe them while they are delusional, then I have an interest in their actions. When they commit crimes because of the voices in their heads, society has an interest in their actions and the things that compel them to act in that manner. Did you see the episodes of ER recently, when Abby's bipolar mom showed up in Chicago at the hospital where her daughter worked, and made scene after scene? Sure, that's a fictional show, but that's a scene out of real life. Situations like that happen every day all across the country. So you think it's fine for a parent/adult child/other relative to lose their job because another person's " thoughts, feelings, and world view " is such that they interfere and make a scene at the workplace? I've asked before, and I'll ask again: how many lives are you willing to lose before you force someone to take their meds? I've worked in domestic violence before, and we see a lot of mental illness there. But the laws against stalking have been weakened to where they're virtually nonexistent. So if a mentally ill person stalks someone, the innocent person has to be assaulted or killed before the police will do anything. In the meantime, the mentally ill person has made their life a living hell. So you think that's okay, because the mentally ill person has the world view that any woman he likes should be attracted to him and made to sleep with him? Dixie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2001 Report Share Posted February 15, 2001 Once upon a sunny morning a man who sat in a breakfast nook looked up from his scrambled eggs to see a white unicorn with a golden horn quietly cropping the roses in the garden. The man wnet up to the bedroom where his wife was still asleep and woke her. " There's a unicorn in the garden, " he said. " Eating roses. " She opened one unfriendly eye and looked at him. " The unicorn is a mythical beast, " she said, and turned her back on him. The man walked slowly downstairs and out into the garden. The unicorn was still there; he was now browsing among the tulips. " Here, unicorn, " said the man and pulled up a lily and gave it to him. The unicorn ate it gravely. With a high heart, because there was a unicorn in his garden, the man went upstairs and roused his wife again. " The unicorn, " he said, " ate a lily. " His wife sat up in bed and looked at him, coldly. " You are a booby, " she said, " and I am going to have you put in a booby-hatch. " The man, who never liked the words " booby " and " booby-hatch, " and who liked them even less on a shining morning when there was a unicorn in the garden, thought for a moment. " We'll see about that, " he said. He walked over to the door. " He has a golden horn in the middle of his forehead, " he told her. Then he went back to the garden to watch the unicorn; but the unicorn had gone away. The man sat among the roses and went to sleep. And as soon as the husband had gone out of the house, the wife got up and dressed as fast as she could. She was very excited and there was a gloat in her eye. She telephoned the police and she telephoned the psychiatrist; she told them to hurry to her house and bring a strait-jacket. When the police and the psychiatrist looked at her with great interest. " My husband, " she said, " saw a unicorn this morning. " The police looked at the psychiatrist and the psychiatrist looked at the police. " He told me it ate a lily, " she said. The psychiatrist looked at the police and the police looked at the psychiatrist. " He told me it had a golden horn in the middle of its forehead, " she said. At a solemn signal from the psychiatrist, the police leaped from their chairs and seized the wife. They had a hard time subduing her, for she put up a terrific struggle, but they finally subdued her. Just as they got her into the strait-jacket, the husband came back into the house. " Did you tell your wife you saw a unicorn? " asked the police. " Of course not, " said the husband. " The unicorn is a mythical beast. " " That's all I wanted to know, " said the psychiatrist. " Take her away. I'm sorry, sir, but your wife is as crazy as a jay bird. " So they took her away, cursing and screaming, and shut her up in an institution. The husband lived happily ever after. -- Thurber, of course ;-) Jim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2001 Report Share Posted February 15, 2001 Once upon a sunny morning a man who sat in a breakfast nook looked up from his scrambled eggs to see a white unicorn with a golden horn quietly cropping the roses in the garden. The man wnet up to the bedroom where his wife was still asleep and woke her. " There's a unicorn in the garden, " he said. " Eating roses. " She opened one unfriendly eye and looked at him. " The unicorn is a mythical beast, " she said, and turned her back on him. The man walked slowly downstairs and out into the garden. The unicorn was still there; he was now browsing among the tulips. " Here, unicorn, " said the man and pulled up a lily and gave it to him. The unicorn ate it gravely. With a high heart, because there was a unicorn in his garden, the man went upstairs and roused his wife again. " The unicorn, " he said, " ate a lily. " His wife sat up in bed and looked at him, coldly. " You are a booby, " she said, " and I am going to have you put in a booby-hatch. " The man, who never liked the words " booby " and " booby-hatch, " and who liked them even less on a shining morning when there was a unicorn in the garden, thought for a moment. " We'll see about that, " he said. He walked over to the door. " He has a golden horn in the middle of his forehead, " he told her. Then he went back to the garden to watch the unicorn; but the unicorn had gone away. The man sat among the roses and went to sleep. And as soon as the husband had gone out of the house, the wife got up and dressed as fast as she could. She was very excited and there was a gloat in her eye. She telephoned the police and she telephoned the psychiatrist; she told them to hurry to her house and bring a strait-jacket. When the police and the psychiatrist looked at her with great interest. " My husband, " she said, " saw a unicorn this morning. " The police looked at the psychiatrist and the psychiatrist looked at the police. " He told me it ate a lily, " she said. The psychiatrist looked at the police and the police looked at the psychiatrist. " He told me it had a golden horn in the middle of its forehead, " she said. At a solemn signal from the psychiatrist, the police leaped from their chairs and seized the wife. They had a hard time subduing her, for she put up a terrific struggle, but they finally subdued her. Just as they got her into the strait-jacket, the husband came back into the house. " Did you tell your wife you saw a unicorn? " asked the police. " Of course not, " said the husband. " The unicorn is a mythical beast. " " That's all I wanted to know, " said the psychiatrist. " Take her away. I'm sorry, sir, but your wife is as crazy as a jay bird. " So they took her away, cursing and screaming, and shut her up in an institution. The husband lived happily ever after. -- Thurber, of course ;-) Jim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2001 Report Share Posted February 15, 2001 dixie@... wrote: > > >But which citizenry? The ones who think properly as defined by state > >regulation? Or those whose thoughts and behavior are a nuisance to > > " decent society. " > > Please explain what " think properly as defined by state regulation " means. > I know of no state or federal regulation dictating how we must think. I do > know of laws passed to control behavior. It is against the law to steal, to > assault, to expose oneself in public. These laws are passed by elected > representatives of the people. If you disagree with such laws, please > explain what you would have in their place. Dixie, You are confounding the issue. It is not an issue of whether the state should bring sanctions against people for certain behavior (e.g. murder, littering). It is whether the state should use its power to enforce " treatment. " If treatment isn't aimed at changing someones thoughts, feelings and world view, just what is it? > >When someone is institutionalized for " mental illness " and put on drugs > >to keep them sane (compliant, obediant) it is not " helping " them, no > >matter how much the helpers insist (probably especially to themselves) > >that that is what they are doing. > > What alternative do you suggest? Not " just let them go free " because in > most instances, they weren't institutionalized because they could control > their behavior or their actions. Generally (there are some abuses in the > system, but generally) a person is not institutionalized unless they are a > danger to themselves or others. Even then, they are usually not > institutionalized. What if someone is stopped for speeding, what does one do? Send them for treatment where they learn they have a mental illness (who else but the mentally ill would endanger their own and the lives of others like that) and are incapable of controlling their behavior without the intervention of the Therapeutic State? > Whether an agent of the state is > >wearing a blue jacket and is using handcuffs or prison bars to restrain > >someone or is wearing a white jacket and used pills or shots to restrain > >someone, it is the same thing. > > So do you disagree with prisons too? Yes, there are thousands--probably > hundreds of thousands--of people being held against their will in this > country. Their daily activities are highly regulated. They are not allowed > full contact with their family and friends, and allowed only limited > visits. They are confined to a small area and kept there by armed guards. > They are fed lousy food. And they are not allowed to leave for many years. > This is a travesty, no? Unconstitutional, yes? We should work to free these > poor people kept against their will, right? But guess what--they're in > PRISON. And they're there because they violated " proper actions as defined > by state regulation. " So are you in favor of freeing everyone in prison? Are you trying to be silly here? There is a vast difference between someone being sentenced to prison for a crime and someone being sentenced into some sort of Soviet or Chinese style " re-education. " It is the re-education I oppose. > >When you start talking about the government " rehabilitating " the > > " mentally ill " you are on the slippery slope of the government defining > >what is acceptable thought and acceptable world view. > > No, just acceptable actions. But you call for treatment that changes their very consciousness. Are you suggesting that " treatment successes " (yes, I have a disease and I'm greatful to the state-appointed psychiatrist " and " treatment failures " be set free? > > Do you think the > >government should step in and make your boyfriend behave the way you > >want him to? > > I think they should step in and say, " If you don't do something about your > alcoholism, you're going to prison. We've given you several chances, and > each time we let you go free, you drink and drive again. Treat your > addiction, or go to prison. Your choice. " But he has had lots of treatment. Imagine someone who habitually is ticketed for speeding. If he is, rather than given " normal judicial sanctions " with the assumption that it is up to him to figure out how to stop speeding, what do you think his chances of success are versus if the power of the state is used to get him _give up his own responsibility_ and to get _someone else_ to stop him from speeding, or turn himself over to someone else to get him to stop? > Do you not think that if the > >government stuck to sanctions for drunk driving and stayed out of the > >parent/guru role he might still drink but would be less likely to be a > >menace to others? > > No, because these sanctions haven't worked. He's been in jail before--it > hasn't stopped him from drinking. Historically, there is no evidence that > jail or prison stops people from drinking or drug addiction. We've been > trying that for hundreds of years. Has it worked yet? No. Is there any > evidence to show that jail time might keep people from drinking, or from > drinking too much once they start? No. As I have repeatedly pointed out, > many addicts serve their time in prison and immediately return to > drugging/drinking when they get out--because they never overcame their > addiction. But the issue is drunk driving. Is it the state's responsibility to stop him from drinking or to stop him from drinking and driving? > Perhaps you were never an addict. Perhaps you were merely someone who drank > too much. If this is so, please do not claim that what worked for you will > work for addicts, because it won't. I have repeatedly mentioned people in > their 40's, 50's, and 60's who have been alcoholics their entire adult > life. They were never able to moderate their drinking. What has moderation got to do with all of this? > >You certainly do that. But don't you see that when you are arguing in > >favor of forced treatment for the " mentally ill " and call a person who > >has very different political ideas and world view from your own > > " mentally ill " you are essentially calling for state sanctions against > >someone because you don't like his views? > > And them calling me " bitch " is supposed to do what???? > If someone displays signs of mental illness, and especially when that > someone has been diagnosed as mentally ill in the past and wears that badge > proudly, I see nothing wrong with saying, " You are displaying signs of > mental illness. As a result, you are delusional. " I'm very curious where Tommy was " display[ing] signs of mental illness. Does he have mentally-ill political views that the state should step in on and treat away? > >If they are harassing and assaulting, they are committing criminal > >offenses. > > Precisely. And what I said about the web page that Tommy pointed us to was > that there was absolutely no discussion about why these people were being > medicated. Perhaps they committed a crime? Would your stance differ then? > Or do you want to fill up our prisons with people who are mentally ill, > and stable when medicated? Would you deny them their freedom because they > won't take a pill that would help clear their muddied minds so that they > don't commit crimes? If you are concerned about overflowing prisons, you might consider rethinking the commonly-accepted " mentally-healthy " opinions that have lead us to become the leaders in imprisonment of our own population in the world. > People are not court ordered to take medication because the judge got up > and said, " I think I'm going to medicate someone today. " They are court > ordered to take medication for a reason--usually as a condition of parole > or allowint them to live in a housing situation--because if they don't take > their meds, they become very disruptive to the other members of that > housing situation. Would you like to be awakened at 4 AM by someone arguing > with the voices in their head? Would you turn the other cheek if this > happened every day? Would you not mind if your neighbor never took out his > garbage, and the smell became overpowering? What would you do about it? Heck, you should know what I would do. You express opinions I don't like which bothers me to no end and I think you should be drugged or locked in a psychiatric hospital until you get a mentally-healthy world view -- show gratitude to all of us and stop being so disagreeable. <G> > Would you want your landlord to make your neighbor's continued residence > dependent on compliance with certain rules? And if medication was the only > way to accomplish that, what would you do? > That's why that web page was hogwash. It was a rant against medication, > with no discussion or consideration of alternatives, or why the people were > being medicated in the first place. Are you suggesting that Szasz shouldn't speak of a problem unless he offers a solution? Should people not detail the poor state of California schools unless they can offer a quick, easy fix? > I don't know if you've been involved in the mental health system. I have. > In my experience, it is very hard for those who need and want medication to > get it. The mental health system is simply too busy trying to provide for > those who want it, to chase after those who don't just to get their > jollies. For an article on the " helpers " you might find interesting, check out: http://www.concentric.net/~Kenr1/commonsense/12steps/helpers.shtml > >Well then, what kind of " treatment " do you propose people get for > > " mental illness " or " alcoholism " if it isn't aimed at changing their > >thoughts, their feelings, their world view? > > How about their actions and their behaviors? I agree that fundamentalist > Christians are somewhat pathological. But insofar as their behaviors do not > impact me, they can believe that they talk to the three-men-in-one in the > sky and that the 3 men in one save them from the mean guy down below. > Whatever. But when they come to my door and harrass me, they have crossed > the line. When they cannot maintain any kind of stable employment or > housing because of their beliefs, and then they expect me to take care of > them and feed and clothe them while they are delusional, then I have an > interest in their actions. When they commit crimes because of the voices in > their heads, society has an interest in their actions and the things that > compel them to act in that manner. > Did you see the episodes of ER recently, when Abby's bipolar mom showed up > in Chicago at the hospital where her daughter worked, and made scene after > scene? Sure, that's a fictional show, but that's a scene out of real life. > Situations like that happen every day all across the country. So you think > it's fine for a parent/adult child/other relative to lose their job because > another person's " thoughts, feelings, and world view " is such that they > interfere and make a scene at the workplace? > I've asked before, and I'll ask again: how many lives are you willing to > lose before you force someone to take their meds? I've worked in domestic > violence before, and we see a lot of mental illness there. But the laws > against stalking have been weakened to where they're virtually nonexistent. > So if a mentally ill person stalks someone, the innocent person has to be > assaulted or killed before the police will do anything. In the meantime, > the mentally ill person has made their life a living hell. So you think > that's okay, because the mentally ill person has the world view that any > woman he likes should be attracted to him and made to sleep with him? I'm very curious what brain disease the above man has. Ken Ragge > Dixie > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.