There have been few particularly disturbing cases in the news over the last 10 years where basically someone consents to being killed and eaten by an acquaintance.

The fuck goes on in Britbongistan?

Quote from: Statefarm on October 30, 2014, 08:49:27 PM

You aren't of sound body and mind if you are allowing yourself to be eaten.

I agree, but I don't see how that gives anyone the capability to deny them their rights.

It's way too late for me to get into this one, but society has a responsibility to look after those unable to look after themselves properly. Letting the mentally ill commit suicide or consent to cannibalism violate this and is just straight up wrong.

Remind me to get back to this in the morning.

Quote from: Mr Psychologist on October 31, 2014, 11:03:02 AM

You think it's worse to section people who are mentally ill for treatment than to allow them to commit suicide and be eaten by other people?

Yes, in the sense I will die to defend freedom and prevent tyrants from taking it away.

*sigh*

I understand that, but the 'tyrants' are doctors and they have the responsibility to treat people who are not of sound mind. I hate pulling the experience card, but in this case it really is relevant.
Have you ever seen a section carried out? Have you ever sat and talked to someone who used to carry them out?

The people who get taken to the hospital aren't well, and they are always a danger to others or themselves. There was one case that my grandfather worked on, where they were sent to bring one gentleman in for treatment and they found him walking down the road carrying a sofa over his head because it was raining. It should be fairly obvious why that dangerous, to have a man of that kind of stature and strength with their mind in a mess is dangerous.

There are other cases where people who are sectioned have been found trying to ram a pair of scissors into a child's face because of the 'demons in their head'. It's not done to simply deprive people of their liberties but it's done to prevent them harming or killing themselves and others. Once they get better, they are released into community care and their family.

It really isn't some tyrannical regime out to lock up anyone who is a bit funny ._.

Quote from: Mr Psychologist on November 01, 2014, 02:14:13 PM

Quote from: Camnator on October 31, 2014, 03:13:47 PM

Quote from: Mr Psychologist on October 31, 2014, 11:03:02 AM

You think it's worse to section people who are mentally ill for treatment than to allow them to commit suicide and be eaten by other people?

Yes, in the sense I will die to defend freedom and prevent tyrants from taking it away.

*sigh*

I understand that, but the 'tyrants' are doctors and they have the responsibility to treat people who are not of sound mind. I hate pulling the experience card, but in this case it really is relevant.
Have you ever seen a section carried out? Have you ever sat and talked to someone who used to carry them out?

The people who get taken to the hospital aren't well, and they are always a danger to others or themselves. There was one case that my grandfather worked on, where they were sent to bring one gentleman in for treatment and they found him walking down the road carrying a sofa over his head because it was raining. It should be fairly obvious why that dangerous, to have a man of that kind of stature and strength with their mind in a mess is dangerous.

There are other cases where people who are sectioned have been found trying to ram a pair of scissors into a child's face because of the 'demons in their head'. It's not done to simply deprive people of their liberties but it's done to prevent them harming or killing themselves and others. Once they get better, they are released into community care and their family.

It really isn't some tyrannical regime out to lock up anyone who is a bit funny ._.

But suicide is illegal here, and I never said anything about harming others, which in itself is infringement no one is allowed to do. I don't deny mentally disturbed people exist, and wish everything for them to do better. Yes, I've known people that have committed suicide. My passion and principle can not be broken, though. I'd stand there trying to help them and stop anyone else from infringing upon them at the same time by letting them kill themselves if it is their decision. It's the same thing as despising what the Westboro Baptist Church does while still defending their freedom of speech.

"The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society."

"It is strangely absurd to suppose that a million of human beings, collected together, are not under the same moral laws which bind each of them separately."

"It is better to tolerate that rare instance of a parent's refusing to let his child be educated, than to shock the common feelings by forcible transportation and education of the infant against the father's will."

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
-Thomas Jefferson

That doesn't mean we can't make things a lot better, or that making suicide illegal is a good approach in the first place.

I think you are missing the point here, this isn't about the majority oppressing the individual and no amount of quotes from Jefferson can change that some people need to be taken to hospital to be given the treatment they need. If it was about those with a physical affliction being forcibly given treatment then that would be a problem because for all points and purposes they are compos mentis. However the people in question are not, they aren't of sound enough mind to make decisions about their own welfare or healthcare. If they are ignored, they end up either stabbing someone (UK) or shooting up places (USA). In both cases, it's preventable and in both cases innocents are harmed and probably will die.

Whether or not you agree about the state's rights vs those of the individual isn't really the point here, it's about people who are seriously unwell and suffering hallucinations or intrusive thoughts that are a hazard to those around them, or to themselves.

Do you understand me? :l

Quote from: Mr Psychologist on November 01, 2014, 02:44:14 PM

I'm simply addressing the fact that mutually agreeing adults performed an action in the original post and in the end someone was arrested. I don't feel that particular arrest was justified, nor do I see how someone's state of mind matters to their accountability. If you want to kill yourself in a disturbed state I support that right, just as I don't let it excuse those disturbed to do harm to others, and would hold such actions accountable.

I can't say I agree with the last sentence. At all.
I have to ask, you do understand compos mentis right? I think it's wrong to judge people as if they were accountable when they clearly are not able to make rational decisions for their actions.

Quote from: Mr Psychologist on November 01, 2014, 02:50:15 PM

I can't say I agree with the last sentence. At all.
I have to ask, you do understand compos mentis right? I think it's wrong to judge people as if they were accountable when they clearly are not able to make rational decisions for their actions.

I believe you are always responsible for your actions. If you can't control yourself you need to be restrained regardless of the reasons why you acted in such a way. I'm not against giving them help, either.

Expanding on that, it's why you can't use "I was drunk" as a legal defense. You're accountable for your actions even while impaired.

Being drunk is the result of your idiotic choices, you aren't responsible for becoming mentally ill.