Liberty of the Mentally Disturbed

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 8:35 am

In light of the recent shootings, I've heard some people lament that we don't provide enough help for our mentally disturbed. How much focus should we put on this issue? Would it be too much to institutionalize them until experts can reasonably ensure they are not dangers to society?

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 8:47 am

Danger to others - or themselves.

Many times experts have released the mentally ill back into society.

Prisoners have more care than mentally ill.

something is backwards here...?

Patsy

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 9:28 am

Accountable;1412868 wrote: In light of the recent shootings, I've heard some people lament that we don't provide enough help for our mentally disturbed. How much focus should we put on this issue? Would it be too much to institutionalize them until experts can reasonably ensure they are not dangers to society?

How are the two connected ?

Were any of the gunmen known to be in need of mental care ?

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 9:40 am

They are discussing this on the Sunday shows right now.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 10:01 am

Bruv;1412890 wrote: How are the two connected ?

Were any of the gunmen known to be in need of mental care ?

The Aurora Movie shooter was definitely in care. This current one had some mental thing going. I don't want his father off the hook here. I think he should be urged to share details of what he must know about this kid.

The Batman movie shooter's psychiatrist did, I believe, notify police who apparently could or would do nothing. It's hard to lock up a person before the crime is committed.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 10:17 am

AnneBoleyn;1412899 wrote: The Aurora Movie shooter was definitely in care. This current one had some mental thing going. I don't want his father off the hook here. I think he should be urged to share details of what he must know about this kid.

The Batman movie shooter's psychiatrist did, I believe, notify police who apparently could or would do nothing. It's hard to lock up a person before the crime is committed.

I didn't know that.

Our British shooters were a bit strange in retrospect, but there are lots of strange people about, I don't believe any were under care.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 11:04 am

Apparently this guy had Aspergers Syndrome, a form of Autism. I have an autistic student who has great difficulty maintaining his composure when frustrated. He's flipped desks, rammed his head into a concrete wall, and once when running away from a stressful situation, slammed a girl who was in his way into a wall - hurt her pretty badly. Should this 16-year-old be locked up? Should all autistic kids be locked up until we know for sure? Perhaps we should lock up all soldiers returning from combat until we can be sure they won't explode and beat their spouses or get into bar room brawls ... or go on mass shootings.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 11:14 am

Accountable;1412929 wrote: Apparently this guy had Aspergers Syndrome, a form of Autism. I have an autistic student who has great difficulty maintaining his composure when frustrated. He's flipped desks, rammed his head into a concrete wall, and once when running away from a stressful situation, slammed a girl who was in his way into a wall - hurt her pretty badly. Should this 16-year-old be locked up? Should all autistic kids be locked up until we know for sure? Perhaps we should lock up all soldiers returning from combat until we can be sure they won't explode and beat their spouses or get into bar room brawls ... or go on mass shootings.

Or possibly keep the means of committing such atrocities out of their hands ?

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 11:16 am

It is hard to just lock up people and for good reason. It has to be clearly defined when & why someone should be "locked up", otherwise in the enthusiasm of the moment we'd be locking up willy-nilly for someones "good." Slippery slope, lots of potentially expensive lawsuits. Rightfully so.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 11:18 am

Bruv;1412932 wrote: Or possibly keep the means of committing such atrocities out of their hands ?

Not an option, not realistically. Modest estimate of 250 million guns in private hands in US.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 11:45 am

What's the definition of strange? By what standards are we judging people? I don't necessarily trust experts in this.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 12:11 pm

Accountable;1412868 wrote: In light of the recent shootings, I've heard some people lament that we don't provide enough help for our mentally disturbed. How much focus should we put on this issue? Would it be too much to institutionalize them until experts can reasonably ensure they are not dangers to society?

Who would pay? Presumably the ones roaming the streets are the ones who can't afford medical care in the first place and in a society where being poor means you are left to die if you can't afford medical cover who will pay for the mentally ill?

In the UK dear old maggie brought in a concept called care in the community which might have been a good idea in concept but in practice was essentially an excuse to shut mental hospitals to save money and of course no funds were actually provided to give people the care in the community. As a result the number of homeless mentally ill people shot up and there were an increased number of acts of violence were perpetrated against members of the public by a small minority of people who had previously been in psychiatric hospitals.

So as someone opposed to your taxes going to provide medical care to those too feckless to provide for themselves how do you feel about taxes going to help those pathetic individuals who are mentally ill? I know you don't actually think of them that way so please take no offence as none was intended.

I phrase it that way as many on the right and the religious right regard mental illness as a matter of choice and those who are so are merely feeble minded or inadequate. Bit like homosexuality you can chose to be mentally ill and things like depression are a liberal fantasy to excuse criminals from the consequences of their actions.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 12:18 pm

All we need to do is begin to refuse gun permits to anyone with any history of any so called mental or emotional "disorder" themselves or in their family. That will stop gun sales dead in its tracks. Asperger's, ADD, ADHD, learning disabilities, any form of depression in their history. Then nobody would be qualified to own a gun of any kind. So with all the guns in circulation, that would make everyone a criminal. And you know how much the NRA despises criminals. The problem for the NRA is most of their organization would be disqualified from owning a gun.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 12:32 pm

Ahso!;1412949 wrote: All we need to do is begin to refuse gun permits to anyone with any history of any so called mental or emotional "disorder" themselves or in their family. That will stop gun sales dead in its tracks. Asperger's, ADD, ADHD, learning disabilities, any form of depression in their history. Then nobody would be qualified to own a gun of any kind. So with all the guns in circulation, that would make everyone a criminal. And you know how much the NRA despises criminals. The problem for the NRA is most of their organization would be disqualified from owning a gun.

Correct me if I'm wrong but was it not the case the killer had tried to purchase a gun but been refused as being under 21 he needed a parent's permission or something.

It 's peculiarly american issue. Why are you all so afraid of each other. On thing that struck me is the school apparently had drills about what to do if a shooter came in to the school. Have you any idea how weird that is.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 12:40 pm

gmc;1412954 wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong but was it not the case the killer had tried to purchase a gun but been refused as being under 21 he needed a parent's permission or something.Don't know!

gmc;1412954 wrote: It 's peculiarly american issue. Why are you all so afraid of each other. On thing that struck me is the school apparently had drills about what to do if a shooter came in to the school. Have you any idea how weird that is.Yes, i do. It's embarrassing too. We'll just keep plugging away. No pun intended.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 12:41 pm

gmc;1412954 wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong but was it not the case the killer had tried to purchase a gun but been refused as being under 21 he needed a parent's permission or something.

It 's peculiarly american issue. Why are you all so afraid of each other. On thing that struck me is the school apparently had drills about what to do if a shooter came in to the school. Have you any idea how weird that is.

You are wrong, so I'm correcting you. He never tried to buy any weapons. He had them available in his own home. His mother was a gun enthusiast, with about 6 weapons.

I must bring up the shooting in the gym in Scotland that flopstock referred to. Those were children of the same age, if I remember correctly. The gun laws in the state of Connecticut are among the strictest anywhere.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 12:51 pm

AnneBoleyn;1412959 wrote: You are wrong, so I'm correcting you. He never tried to buy any weapons. He had them available in his own home. His mother was a gun enthusiast, with about 6 weapons.

I must bring up the shooting in the gym in Scotland that flopstock referred to. Those were children of the same age, if I remember correctly. The gun laws in the state of Connecticut are among the strictest anywhere.Meaning?

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 2:10 pm

Accountable;1412929 wrote: Apparently this guy had Aspergers Syndrome, a form of Autism. I have an autistic student who has great difficulty maintaining his composure when frustrated. He's flipped desks, rammed his head into a concrete wall, and once when running away from a stressful situation, slammed a girl who was in his way into a wall - hurt her pretty badly. Should this 16-year-old be locked up? Should all autistic kids be locked up until we know for sure? Perhaps we should lock up all soldiers returning from combat until we can be sure they won't explode and beat their spouses or get into bar room brawls ... or go on mass shootings.
You have a lot of soldiers returning that should not be out there. There needs to be some decompression build into the deployment system, IMO.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 2:45 pm

Ahso!;1412960 wrote: Meaning?
Meaning it had no meaning!

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 3:12 pm

AnneBoleyn;1412959 wrote: You are wrong, so I'm correcting you. He never tried to buy any weapons. He had them available in his own home. His mother was a gun enthusiast, with about 6 weapons.

I must bring up the shooting in the gym in Scotland that flopstock referred to. Those were children of the same age, if I remember correctly. The gun laws in the state of Connecticut are among the strictest anywhere.

I stand connected - thought I'd read somewhere he had try to buy a gun before using his mothers.

The shooter in the Dunblane case was a member of a gun club with legally owned weapons, In the aftermath hand guns were banned. At a by election that took place in stirling shortly after a pro gun candidate had to have police protection, the tories, who broadly supported the gun lobby, were left with no Scottish MP's at the next election. Generally speaking anyone arguing he should all be allowed to carry a gun is looked at askance as a likely nutter. We're not exactly peaceful if our levels of gun ownership were the same as the US the carnage would perhaps be as great.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 3:25 pm

Generally speaking anyone arguing he should all be allowed to carry a gun is looked at askance as a likely nutter.

I hope that would happen here. The shunning aspect. To make it less appealing. Gun violence is so prevalent there is such a thing as "Community Guns". Certain neighborhoods have hiding spots for guns that are open secrets in this "Community"--everyone has an equal opportunity to use & replace the same gun.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 6:53 pm

Bruv;1412932 wrote: Or possibly keep the means of committing such atrocities out of their hands ?
How will you keep the means of a combat-vetted soldier from beating his or her spouse or from getting into brawls?

How will you keep the means of a deranged teenager from knocking an innocent girl down? Or of throwing furniture? Will you bolt all school desks to the floor?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 7:11 pm

flopstock;1412977 wrote: You have a lot of soldiers returning that should not be out there. There needs to be some decompression build into the deployment system, IMO.
I heard about it somewhere. WWII vets came back on ships as a whole unit. The time spent at sea with nothing to do but talk to others with similar experiences was good therapy. Now a soldier can be in a fire fight one day and sitting at home a day or two later, surrounded by people who have no concept of his experiences. Yes, there should be some kind of mandatory decompression.

Hell, drone pilots are stateside! They can be involved in combat then be home for supper!

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 4:40 am

Accountable;1413013 wrote: How will you keep the means of a combat-vetted soldier from beating his or her spouse or from getting into brawls?

How will you keep the means of a deranged teenager from knocking an innocent girl down? Or of throwing furniture? Will you bolt all school desks to the floor?
Brawls and beatings are one thing, give the same person an automatic firearm and the story ends with death and not bruising.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 4:43 am

Accountable;1413014 wrote:

Hell, drone pilots are stateside! They can be involved in combat then be home for supper!

Drone pilots are called.....Pilots ?

Are they not just a little detached from the gore and horror of their remote actions ?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 4:53 am

Bruv;1413026 wrote: Brawls and beatings are one thing, give the same person an automatic firearm and the story ends with death and not bruising.My post that you responded to was not about firearms for a reason. Do you have an opinion on it?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 4:58 am

Bruv;1413027 wrote: Drone pilots are called.....Pilots ?Yes. As I understand it the mechanics are the same. The only real difference is that you personally don't die if you mess up the landing.

Bruv;1413027 wrote: Are they not just a little detached from the gore and horror of their remote actions ?They are somewhat detached, but there's a real danger in that. Ever watch a kid playing a shoot 'em up video game? They don't get real upset if they shoot an innocent victim. I think it's good when drone pilots keep in mind that these are real people, real lives, that they see on their monitor screen.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:10 am

Accountable;1413032 wrote: My post that you responded to was not about firearms for a reason. Do you have an opinion on it?

All returning combat soldiers should be kept under scrutiny, their needs are well known. As you have mentioned a period of decompression or debriefing, call it what you want. Maybe a change of attitude to the macho soldier's return might help.

Drones to me are equally evil as landmines, napalm, agent orange, and cluster bombs.

I am sure they will be seen as such one day.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 6:53 am

Bruv;1412932 wrote: Or possibly keep the means of committing such atrocities out of their hands ?

Accountable;1413013 wrote: How will you keep the means of a combat-vetted soldier from beating his or her spouse or from getting into brawls?

How will you keep the means of a deranged teenager from knocking an innocent girl down? Or of throwing furniture? Will you bolt all school desks to the floor?Conflating the extreme and the non extreme? This is a common tactic of the conservative right, and it's usually intentional, though I'm not convinced you're that smart, or devious.

You don't get to analogize the means involved with mass murder with throwing furniture or knocking a person over by someone running out of a room. To suggest that if we contemplate the removal of guns from our society we have to solve every issue related to emotional responses by people you view as unlike yourself is ludicrous.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 8:04 am

Bruv;1413036 wrote: All returning combat soldiers should be kept under scrutiny, their needs are well known. As you have mentioned a period of decompression or debriefing, call it what you want. Maybe a change of attitude to the macho soldier's return might help.

Drones to me are equally evil as landmines, napalm, agent orange, and cluster bombs.

I am sure they will be seen as such one day.
Hopefully.

Our current technology will allow for an all-drone army. The military is a jobs program and a means to funnel funding to Washington's corporate sponsors. If we can find jobs for all the human soldiers, we could easily fill the slots with remote-control machines. I shudder to think of the carnage that could bring while the people themselves sit safely at home base.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 8:13 am

Ahso!;1413047 wrote: Conflating the extreme and the non extreme? This is a common tactic of the conservative right, and it's usually intentional, though I'm not convinced you're that smart, or devious.

You don't get to analogize the means involved with mass murder with throwing furniture or knocking a person over by someone running out of a room. :yh_rotfl You're the judge who decides what I "get to" do??

The idea is to spot behaviors that might lead to a blow-up before the blow-up happens. The teen I described could someday easily be driving with the same mindless panic that he ran down the hall. A man who beats his wife may not be far down the road from killing her, the kids, and then himself. My question is should we "jump the gun" and institutionalize these people before they have a chance to escalate, and only release them once we're sure that they won't. It's not far-fetched. I don't support the idea, but it's a logical question.

Ahso!;1413047 wrote: To suggest that if we contemplate the removal of guns from our society we have to solve every issue related to emotional responses by people you view as unlike yourself is ludicrous.I agree. That's why it never occurred to me to even suggest it, yer honor.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 8:22 am

Accountable;1413049 wrote: :yh_rotfl You're the judge who decides what I "get to" do??

The idea is to spot behaviors that might lead to a blow-up before the blow-up happens. The teen I described could someday easily be driving with the same mindless panic that he ran down the hall. A man who beats his wife may not be far down the road from killing her, the kids, and then himself. My question is should we "jump the gun" and institutionalize these people before they have a chance to escalate, and only release them once we're sure that they won't. It's not far-fetched. I don't support the idea, but it's a logical question.

I agree. That's why it never occurred to me to even suggest it, yer honor.There's that gap again. You don't get to do it without being called on it.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 8:23 am

Nice dance, BTW.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:24 am

The gap is between your ears.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:30 am

Accountable;1413067 wrote: The gap is between your ears. ;)There's plenty between my ears. There ain't no gaps though. Stay abreast of the other thread, I just might make my case.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:34 am

Accountable;1412868 wrote: In light of the recent shootings, I've heard some people lament that we don't provide enough help for our mentally disturbed. How much focus should we put on this issue? Would it be too much to institutionalize them until experts can reasonably ensure they are not dangers to society?The title of the thread highlights the isolationist agenda that is the result of our failure to connect with other human beings on a fundamental level.

Why consider the mentally disturbed as being a question of liberty, exactly? It's this reason he didn't get the help he needed because our society isolates itself against what they find to contradict their concrete ideologies.

If we collectively accept and come together as one nation to center our discussions around consensus for purposeful results that can be rationally appraised by all of us we can better deal with the very anxieties that led to this shooting, as opposed to debate which seems to be the number one virtue within what is supposed to be a democracy not a shouting match and to the victor with the loudest voice(or gun - hint, hint).

Our failure to seek meaning in our lives reduces us to the meaningless observations of our scientific minds. Throughout history the collective human species gave meaning to everything(For a fitting analogy see Doctor of Philosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), but now we've reduced ourselves to the very meaningless observations that sewn the seeds for the naturalist definitions of "liberty" and "freedom" that too many people have mistakenly interpreted too literally. It's the very definition of cultural slavery.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:42 am

K.Snyder;1413071 wrote: The title of the thread highlights the isolationist agenda that is the result of our failure to connect with other human beings on a fundamental level.

Why consider the mentally disturbed as being a question of liberty, exactly? It's this reason he didn't get the help he needed because our society isolates itself against what they find to contradict their concrete ideologies.

If we collectively accept and come together as one nation to center our discussions around consensus for purposeful results that can be rationally appraised by all of us we can better deal with the very anxieties that led to this shooting, as opposed to debate which seems to be the number one virtue within what is supposed to be a democracy not a shouting match and to the victor with the loudest voice(or gun - hint, hint).

Our failure to seek meaning in our lives reduces us to the meaningless observations of our scientific minds. Throughout history the collective human species gave meaning to everything(For a fitting analogy see Doctor of Philosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), but now we've reduced ourselves to the very meaningless observations that sewn the seeds for the naturalist definitions of "liberty" and "freedom" that too many people have mistakenly interpreted too literally. It's the very definition of cultural slavery. ^^^This^^^

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 11:19 am

Why consider the mentally disturbed as being a question of liberty, exactly?
Nowhere in this thread has anyone implied that mental illness was a question of liberty. The thread is about whether we should limit their liberty because of their mental illness. I personally don't think we should, but I floated the idea to see if anyone here thought it a worthy idea. The few that have actually addressed the issue seem to be against it, which heartens me.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 2:16 pm

Accountable;1413013 wrote: How will you keep the means of a combat-vetted soldier from beating his or her spouse or from getting into brawls?

How will you keep the means of a deranged teenager from knocking an innocent girl down? Or of throwing furniture? Will you bolt all school desks to the floor?

There's a bit of a difference between a deranged teenager knocking down an innocent girl or even thumping a six year old and getting a machine and slaughtering as many people as he get get access to. The deranged would be mass killer may be a potential problem but only if they can get their hands on machine guns and actually carry out their fantasies. It's a really crap analogy I find it hard to0n believe you are serious.

In the UK we too have returning soldiers with mental health problems. Once they leave the forces they can't readily get their hands on weapons. Besides how many vets have actually gone on the rampage in the US?

This guys mother was a doomsday prepper. maybe they are the mentally disturbed you should be worrying about. Actually I think fundamentalist Christians are deranged, at best they are ignorant or really thick.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 4:44 pm

AnneBoleyn;1412959 wrote: You are wrong, so I'm correcting you. He never tried to buy any weapons. He had them available in his own home. His mother was a gun enthusiast, with about 6 weapons.

I must bring up the shooting in the gym in Scotland that flopstock referred to. Those were children of the same age, if I remember correctly. The gun laws in the state of Connecticut are among the strictest anywhere.

If you made that "anywhere in the US" it might possibly be correct, as it stands it is totally untrue.

In the UK none of those weapons would have been legal - to any private individual under any conditions. That a semi-automatic assault rifle might be being legally kept at home is shocking in the extreme.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 4:57 pm

Of course I meant the U.S. Sorry 'bout that!

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 4:58 pm

***************************

duplicate post

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:00 pm

AnneBoleyn;1413146 wrote: Of course I meant the U.S. Sorry 'bout that!

I guessed that was the case

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 6:26 pm

gmc;1413107 wrote: There's a bit of a difference between a deranged teenager knocking down an innocent girl or even thumping a six year old and getting a machine and slaughtering as many people as he get get access to. The deranged would be mass killer may be a potential problem but only if they can get their hands on machine guns and actually carry out their fantasies. It's a really crap analogy I find it hard to0n believe you are serious.
It wasn't an analogy at all, but you all have such hard-ons for taking guns that you're not reading, just reacting. I'm out. The timing was wrong. Maybe I'll try again in a few months if I think about it.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 6:35 pm

Accountable;1413171 wrote: It wasn't an analogy at all, but you all have such hard-ons for taking guns that you're not reading, just reacting. I'm out. The timing was wrong. Maybe I'll try again in a few months if I think about it.What I have a hard on for is guns not being the solution of choice when someone becomes angry or feels let down, scared or doesn't want the music playing so loud.

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 6:43 pm

The closest gun store to the shooting site reported record sales after the shooting. Most customers wanted to buy the same model assault rifle used in the shooting. What could the possible reasons for this be? Souvenirs? A rifle proven to be effective for mass murder? Would either of those reasons be considered grounds to question the mental health of those purchasing the guns?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 6:47 pm

Wandrin;1413176 wrote: The closest gun store to the shooting site reported record sales after the shooting. Most customers wanted to buy the same model assault rifle used in the shooting. What could the possible reasons for this be? Souvenirs? A rifle proven to be effective for mass murder? Would either of those reasons be considered grounds to question the mental health of those purchasing the guns?I read that. Gun sales skyrocketed across the country. The NRA has probably instructed (ordered) their members to do this after every gun related incident that makes major headlines.

Talk about being dis-ordered.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 11:40 am

Accountable;1413100 wrote: Nowhere in this thread has anyone implied that mental illness was a question of liberty. The thread is about whether we should limit their liberty because of their mental illness. I personally don't think we should, but I floated the idea to see if anyone here thought it a worthy idea. The few that have actually addressed the issue seem to be against it, which heartens me. "Would it be too much to institutionalize them until experts can reasonably ensure they are not dangers to society?" is exactly "the isolationist agenda that is the result of our failure to connect with other human beings on a fundamental level".

It connotes a particular issue deep within our culture that stems from our morally relative presuppositions. It all comes from the naturalist world views that have presupposed our capitalist values.

Anyone that states "Liberty of the Mentally Disturbed" implicitly highlights the need for its refutation because it ignores its only answer. Posing it as a question suggests there's more than one answer to it which inevitably requires the question "Why consider the mentally disturbed as being a question of liberty, exactly [at all]?"

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 7:08 pm

Prisoners have more care than mentally ill.

something is backwards here...?

A large part of our prison population is in fact mentally ill. When these people act up out in the world where do we house them? You guessed it, the prison system.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 7:54 pm

Scrat

I stated that - your right the mentally ill do end up in prison as you said.

I write in shorthand some times sorry

I actually meant the care for the mentally ill is lacking - state funds are not available for the mentally ill department of health care.

There's some in a up roar over prison care - yet we allow the mentally ill to walk amongst us as if they don't count.

I could care less if a rapist in prison needs a pain pill since he pulled a muscle lifting weights.

I'd rather assist some one before they jump

Patsy