Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Two Massacres, Two days, One With a Gun, One with a Van


Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

Actually right-wing militarism appears to have resumed its place as the most likely culprit in a given terrorist attack. It seems to be part of an overall pattern in the last few years  where racists/misogynists are increasingly speaking/acting out.

There's that Left/Right again. Mental Illness has no political leaning. More and more, we are living in a cocoon-enabling society. You can do pretty well everything with a phone and enhance it with a TV. Makes it easy to live in the basement or by yourself and if you are at all introverted, you can get on the isolation treadmill very easily. And if you're at risk of mental illness, chances are the risk is increased. With Social media, these isolationists can join like-minded groups. Listening and preaching to their own choir - they can get all juiced up with hatred of any group or issue that turns their sometimes misguided cranks........all without seeing the light of day or actually interacting with a real person. Continuous exposure to "bad stuff" has a cumulative effect on people who are looking for something to latch onto - an outlet for their frustrations or parnoia. Technology and our own apathy have ENABLED introverts to wallow in their social ineptness and in some cases, descend into a miserable, bitter existence that can manifest itself in violence. Possibly like Alek Minassian.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

What on earth are you babbling about?????  What  "twisted morality" is added to the mix?   Are you talking in codes?  Why can't you be specific?

41 minutes ago, betsy said:

:rolleyes:  Because, you mistakenly think there's a big difference. :)

If you're not allowed to get out, and you're confined to an enclosure - you're incarcerated!   It doesn't have to be a place with a big sign that says:  JAIL  or, PRISON.

 

here, from Merriam:

 

Incarcerate:

1 : to put in prison
2 : to subject to confinement

Excuse me Betsy but your mind is so polluted with silly superstitious nonsense you almost qualify for... incarceration yourself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, dialamah said:

People in hospitals are free to leave if they want, even against medical advice.  People in prisons are not.  

The difference is that incarceration implies a certain moral prejudice against the incarcerated. This is where social conservatives, especially the religious, are practically useless when it comes to discussing mental illness. Far too many people still think that mental illness, like schizophrenia for example, is a moral failing as opposed to an organic disease.

Edited by eyeball
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, dialamah said:

People in hospitals are free to leave if they want, even against medical advice.  People in prisons are not.  

Therefore.........that isn't the same, is it?

 

Review our exchanges so you'll be on the same page with us.

 

 

Edited by betsy
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, eyeball said:

The difference is that incarceration implies a certain moral prejudice against the incarcerated. This is where social conservatives, especially the religious, are practically useless when it comes to discussing mental illness. Far too many people still think that mental illness, like schizophrenia for example, is a moral failing as opposed to an organic disease.

What it "implies," is subjective.  To you, it implies a MORAL PREJUDICE. 

To others, it simply implies what it says - that certain people like the greyhound bus beheader - are incarcerated because they pose a danger to society!  To some - reading it as such is purely based on common sense!

 

Holy smokes!  Who would've thought you'd be using the usage of the term "incarceration,"  as your rationale!   Perhaps, you have your own prejudice to deal with? :)

Edited by betsy
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, betsy said:

To others, it simply implies what it says - that certain people like the greyhound bus beheader - are incarcerated because they pose a danger to society!  To some - reading it as such is purely based on common sense!

When you go to a hospital you are processed in a section that has a sign that says Admitting not Incarcerating.  You are then taken into a hospital ward that is locked so that you can't pose a danger to yourself.

Patients like Vincent Li are normally released from after they've been treated and medical experts have determined that he no longer poses a danger to himself or others.  Common sense and morality, especially that of public amateurs, has nothing to do with how medical experts come to their conclusions.

 

 

Edited by eyeball
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/25/2018 at 1:28 PM, jbg said:

I would call it terrorism rather than mental illness if he was a functioning member of the Muslim or Islamist subgroup of society. If not, then I'd call it mental illness. If he is a coping member of such a group he made a conscious decision to butcher people to promote a cause. If his level of social functioning was limited to meowing, barking or biting then I would consider it mental illness.

So just because they would be Muslim you automatically go with terrorism?  What if it was a Muslim who did it but had no connections to any extremist group? You'd still call it terrorism?  That seems to be a problem with your worldview more than it would be an issue with Islam. But as an atheist I find all you forms/versions of god lovers mentally deranged.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, eyeball said:

When you go to a hospital you are processed in a section that has a sign that says Admitting not Incarcerating.  You are then taken into a hospital ward that is locked so that you can't pose a danger to yourself.

Patients like Vincent Li are normally released from after they've been treated and medical experts have determined that he no longer poses a danger to himself or others.  Common sense and morality, especially that of public amateurs, has nothing to do with how medical experts come to their conclusions.

 

 

We both aren't talking about treatment in regular hospitals.....therefore, you're bringing up something irrelevant. 

We're talking about institutions that deal with the dangerous, criminally insane.  Criminals like Vincent Li, aren't allowed to go out!   We're not talking about the time when they are set free - even regular criminals are set free at some point, depending on their sentence!  We're talking about the time they received their sentence and are confined!  The only difference between their incarceration is the place - one is a hospital institution for the criminally insane!  Yes, it's a place for treatment, but they aren't given the choice whether they want to go there, or not!

 

Sure, you can use your preferred politically-correct term other than "incarceration" - that's a liberal trait it seems (putting up some nice packaging on reality), whereas cons tend to say it as it is.  At the end of the day, it still boils down to being confined - INCARCERATEDINVOLUNTARILY - behind a secured area!  You can call it "treatment" or whatever that may make you feel good........ but nevertheless this "treatment" is the result of a court trial - the consequence of a brutal act that made the court decide that the criminal shouldn't be roaming around free with the public!

 

Here....be brave and venture from your comfort zone, and take a hard look at reality:
 

Quote

 

In his book, Seager describes his first year at one of Napa State Hospital’s high-risk units: a fenced-in “secure treatment area,” reminiscent on the outside of a “sprawling prisoner-of-war-camp in a World War II movie,” and on the inside of the fictional Baltimore State hospital depicted in The Silence of the Lambs.

Of the approximately 12,000 patients living at Napa State—the majority of them rapists, killers, and mass murderers who have been deemed by a judge not guilty by reason of insanity or unfit to stand trial—it’s the real “bad actors” who are housed in the secure treatment area.

Despite being assured at orientation that new hires wouldn’t be assigned “inside the fence,” Seager is thrown directly into one of these high-risk units, and quickly learns that the use of the word “secure” to describe this treatment area is little more than hyperbole.

 

 

 

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/inside-a-hospital-for-the-criminally-insane

 

 

 

Edited by betsy
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, betsy said:

We both aren't talking about treatment in regular hospitals.....therefore, you're bringing up something irrelevant. 

How so? You didn't know that hospitals have psychiatric wards alongside cancer wards cardiac wards and even pediatric wards? Hospitals are for people that are ill, prisons are where criminals go.

Quote

Criminals like Vincent Li, aren't allowed to go out!

Vincent Li was not a criminal he is a patient.

Quote

We're not talking about the time when they are set free - even regular criminals are set free at some point, depending on their sentence!  We're talking about the time they received their sentence and are confined!

Or to put it another once they are diagnosed and restrained for their own protection.  You really need to put more effort into appreciating the difference between treatment and punishment.

Quote

The only difference between their incarceration is the place - one is a hospital institution for the criminally insane!  Yes, it's a place for treatment, but they aren't given the choice whether they want to go there, or not!

Can you name a single institution that bills itself as a "Hospital for the Criminally Insane"? How about a recent court ruling that reads "such and such is found guilty of being criminally insane and is sentenced to the such and such Hospital for the Criminally Insane?  The term criminally insane is as outmoded, dated and inane as using the term vapours to describe your hysteria.

Quote

Sure, you can use your preferred politically-correct term other than "incarceration" - that's a liberal trait it seems (putting up some nice packaging on reality), whereas cons tend to say it as it is.

There it is...Its discussions like this that make me aware of just how far more Christian I am in outlook than so many of the Christians I know.  These are not simply politically correct terms I'm using, they are medical and legal terms that need to be to use to counter the deliberately malignant attitudes that too many people insist on clinging to. Like yourself. 

Quote

At the end of the day, it still boils down to being confined - INCARCERATEDINVOLUNTARILY - behind a secured area!  You can call it "treatment" or whatever that may make you feel good........ but nevertheless this "treatment" is the result of a court trial - the consequence of a brutal act that made the court decide that the criminal shouldn't be roaming around free with the public!

I call it that to draw the poisonous crap running thru your head Out Of The Shadows - to shine a light on the sick ugliness that you fricken people embody whenever and wherever you spew forth about mental illness.  Its pretty clear the misbegotten disgusting morality that informs you is still as depraved as it was when it instructed people to burn the mentally ill to death for witchcraft and possession by demons.

All that courts rule on is criminal responsibility, decisions about treatment and confinement are then the responsibility of doctors, not priests and especially not socially conservative Christians. 

Quote

Here....be brave and venture from your comfort zone, and take a hard look at reality:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/inside-a-hospital-for-the-criminally-insane

This is why I said way up the thread that medieval attitudes about mental illness result in institutions that look like something out of medieval times.  Is this the sort of setting you'd prefer for ill people?

BTW would you punish your kids when they come home with the flu?  Why not?

Edited by eyeball
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, eyeball said:

How so? You didn't know that hospitals have psychiatric wards alongside cancer wards cardiac wards and even pediatric wards? Hospitals are for people that are ill, prisons are where criminals go.

Vincent Li was not a criminal he is a patient.

Or to put it another once they are diagnosed and restrained for their own protection.  You really need to put more effort into appreciating the difference between treatment and punishment.

Can you name a single institution that bills itself as a "Hospital for the Criminally Insane"? How about a recent court ruling that reads "such and such is found guilty of being criminally insane and is sentenced to the such and such Hospital for the Criminally Insane?  The term criminally insane is as outmoded, dated and inane as using the term vapours to describe your hysteria.

There it is...Its discussions like this that make me aware of just how far more Christian I am in outlook than so many of the Christians I know.  These are not simply politically correct terms I'm using, they are medical and legal terms that need to be to use to counter the deliberately malignant attitudes that too many people insist on clinging to. Like yourself. 

I call it that to draw the poisonous crap running thru your head Out Of The Shadows - to shine a light on the sick ugliness that you fricken people embody whenever and wherever you spew forth about mental illness.  Its pretty clear the misbegotten disgusting morality that informs you is still as depraved as it was when it instructed people to burn the mentally ill to death for witchcraft and possession by demons.

All that courts rule on is criminal responsibility, decisions about treatment and confinement are then the responsibility of doctors, not priests and especially not socially conservative Christians. 

This is why I said way up the thread that medieval attitudes about mental illness result in institutions that look like something out of medieval times.  Is this the sort of setting you'd prefer for ill people?

BTW would you punish your kids when they come home with the flu?  Why not?

So what if no hospitals carry that specific name - people who sentence criminals to such places do know what they are for!  Like as if that makes a difference!

I'm not spewing anything about mental illness other than to correct your mistaken notion about the term "incarceration!"    Incarceration also means confinement!  What are you on about?  You're so touchy about it (or at least, that's what you seem to want me to think)......you must be projecting your own ugly ideas about mental illness.

Furthermore, I asked you if you think people like Li should be roaming around freely right after he beheaded someone - you said, no!  In other words, you want him to be confined!  Lol.  You don't know what you're arguing for! :lol:

Edited by betsy
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I'm arguing against the unforgiving persecuting nature of the treatment you prescribe.

 What did I prescribe????    wow-smiley-emoticon.gif  

What's "unforgiving" about treatments?

 

You seem to want to think ill of people - painting them how you want to paint them -  and you get yourself all worked up, and get carried away by your thoughts that you see them as facts!   Some may say  you could be having some hallucinations......and before we know it, you might be claiming you hear me talking. :lol:

Edited by betsy
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, eyeball said:

You prescribe treating mental illness the way you cons see it which is sick, depraved and medieval.

And what is that so-called "prescription"  that's supposed to be  "sick,"  "depraved" and "medieval?"  Be specific.

 

As far as I now, I didn't "prescribe" anything to people like Li anything unlike what you yourself want - that the dangerously insane people like Li shouldn't be free to roam around with the public.  

 

This is where you seem to be so confused.   If you say, they shouldn't be free, you actually mean they should be confined.  

How is that any different from what I said?  Are you arguing with yourself? :D

 

 

Quote

I'm arguing against the unforgiving persecuting nature of the treatment you prescribe.

And you seem to be rambling.   You're making comments that don't make any sense.  

Again, what do you mean by "unforgiving?'   What's "unforgiving" about treatments?

Edited by betsy
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/26/2018 at 2:30 PM, GostHacked said:

So just because they would be Muslim you automatically go with terrorism? 

Many think this way.  Barbara Key has been criticized as disliking Muslims more than killers because she said she would have 'preferred' the killer be a Muslim extremist.

----

It comes down to the idea that people of a certain group are irredeemable, which is to say not like all other groups, which is to say that are not really people like us.  That's called de-humanization.  What these people also miss is that their views play into those of violent separatists and are anti-pluralism and anti-western.


  

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

It comes down to the idea that people of a certain group are irredeemable, which is to say not like all other groups, which is to say that are not really people like us.  That's called de-humanization.  What these people also miss is that their views play into those of violent separatists and are anti-pluralism and anti-western.  

No shit, Sherlock. But don't they (Islamists) look at others in exactly the same way? The bleeding hearts seem to overlook that fact. Yes, they are the same as us, and so are just as capable of ruthless violence as we are. Only we've got the bigger guns. But they're not exactly the same either- let's not forget, culturally, they don't believe in mercy. That's why they can be even more ruthless, not only toward others but even amongst themselves, to their own sons and daughters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

1. But don't they (Islamists) look at others in exactly the same way? The bleeding hearts seem to overlook that fact.

2. Yes, they are the same as us, and so are just as capable of ruthless violence as we are. Only we've got the bigger guns. But they're not exactly the same either- let's not forget, culturally, they don't believe in mercy. That's why they can be even more ruthless, not only toward others but even amongst themselves, to their own sons and daughters.

1. The Terrorists ?  Sure.  I think that saying that condemns the viewpoint from both sides.

2. Who are the same as us ?  The terrorists ?  Speak for yourself.  I am not the same as a terrorist.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. Who are the same as us ?  The terrorists ?  Speak for yourself.  I am not the same as a terrorist.

And yet you seek to have us "re-humanize" them. On what grounds?
I said Islamists but if you insist.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Many think this way.  Barbara Key has been criticized as disliking Muslims more than killers because she said she would have 'preferred' the killer be a Muslim extremist.

----

It comes down to the idea that people of a certain group are irredeemable, which is to say not like all other groups, which is to say that are not really people like us.  That's called de-humanization.  What these people also miss is that their views play into those of violent separatists and are anti-pluralism and anti-western.

I think you are missing the point. JBG wanted the perp to be Muslim. His other threat which he deleted, and then end up getting locked, shows what he was really thinking. This OP is a way for him to get around the original notion he had in his head. Now he's had to do damage control to make it look like he is not hating on all Muslims, which in fact he is. I know I get raked over the coals with anything regarding Israel calling me anti-semite when there is no proof of it. But yet we have proof right here of JBGs original though AND then trying to change that with this post. The original post was in Canada Politics, but now this down here in this section. Would be interesting to hear JBGs reasoning for moving it here.

So I question the honesty of the post talking about mental illness (something which I have been saying along with a few others.)  His other reply in this thread also shows that he desperately wanted this perp to be Muslim.  Since that was not the case we get this new thread. I am not buying into the notion. I think the OP is a veiled attempt to smear all Muslims, which he did in his other replies.  He would also call it terrorism if the perp is Muslim, otherwise he goes with the mental illness bit.

Anyways, those mentally ill people do need help. Yes they are dangerous, but they should be kept away from society. Not in prisons, but in very secure hospitals where they may be spending the rest of their days in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

 So I question the honesty of the post talking about mental illness (something which I have been saying along with a few others.)  His other reply in this thread also shows that he desperately wanted this perp to be Muslim. 

I see.  You think he's being disingenuous and is actually thinking like Kay is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I see.  You think he's being disingenuous and is actually thinking like Kay is.

I am not thinking he is disingenuous,  he IS 100% disingenuous. This second post trying to counter his original desire of this perp to be Muslim proves that without a doubt.  His hate towards Muslims seem to get a pass with you, but as soon as someone would say something critiquing Israel, the anti-semite card comes out.  Why can't people see this is just as dangerous as antisemitism?

Edited by GostHacked
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

1) I am not thinking he is disingenuous,  he IS 100% disingenuous. 

2) His hate towards Muslims seem to get a pass with you, but as soon as someone would say something critiquing Israel, the anti-semite card comes out. 

3) Why can't people see this is just as dangerous as antisemitism?

1) So he's disingenuous but you don't think he is ?  Ok.

2) I disagree with that kind of hate, but did he claim to hold that kind of hate ?  One thing I don't do is dismiss claims outright.

3) I agree.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Michael Hardner said:

1) So he's disingenuous but you don't think he is ?  Ok.

What is hard to comprehend here?  Let me clarify,  I do not think he is being disingenuous, I know he is being disingenuous. The simple fact is this second thread that he created to counter his original stance of wanting the perp to be Muslim. So there is no sense in engaging the conversation when the OP is doing this because he got caught outright. I would rather go after the reasoning behind the need to create this second thread.  No one else is calling him out on it? Why?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...