This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Camnator
Pages: 1 ... 767778 7980 ... 132
2311
« on: November 01, 2014, 05:06:06 PM »
Its the new Anarchy, and you need the nameplate to access it, Cheat should have given it to you, if not I can give you access.
Huh, it's up to you. I'm not sure what this nameplate thing is.
You should have access now.
What the? Now my ability to like posts is gone! I was going to like yours. Thank you, nonetheless!
2312
« on: November 01, 2014, 05:05:18 PM »
Oh, you got my message?
2313
« on: November 01, 2014, 05:03:48 PM »
Its the new Anarchy, and you need the nameplate to access it, Cheat should have given it to you, if not I can give you access.
Huh, it's up to you. I'm not sure what this nameplate thing is.
2314
« on: November 01, 2014, 05:02:44 PM »
Someone needs to post more!
If I did that, I'd have to move this to Penguin Party.
Says it's off-limits to me. 
get the nameplate moron
Why are you holding a mirror? And what's a nameplate?
2315
« on: November 01, 2014, 05:02:03 PM »
Who?
Who?
Who?
Of course you'd leave me out. Homo sapien.
2316
« on: November 01, 2014, 05:00:51 PM »
Someone needs to post more!
If I did that, I'd have to move this to Penguin Party.
Says it's off-limits to me.
2317
« on: November 01, 2014, 05:00:08 PM »
Someone needs to post more!
If I did that, I'd have to move this to Penguin Party.
Wait, is that Anarchy? Have I been missing out! I didn't even notice it there!
2318
« on: November 01, 2014, 04:56:52 PM »
Ah good, well yes this isn't just random deprivations of liberty <.<
I'm quite relieved.
Just out of curiosity lets say someone was extremely depressed but caused no one any problems. They went through life despising and hating it. Let's say some new pill made him completely happy with no side-effects and for some reason he was just against taking pills. Would it be alright for a government to shove that pill down his throat? Let's even say he was glad and happy with the results and took the pill willingly after.
You probably won't like my answer, but I would say it is justifiable.
I'm not all for it and I'm not running out to grab the funnel and the feeding tube but I think that if you are able to treat someone who is in that state of mind, then if they are opposed to it because they are in that state of mind then forcing it upon them and subsequently curing them results in the optimum outcome.
The alternate one is to leave them alone until their inevitable suicide, I don't think it's right to stand by and allow that to happen if it's preventable. Life is precious and if people consider taking their own because of the fixable situation they are in then it's abhorrent and should be prevented <.<
In that case, I'd like to hear your stance on abortion. I'm not attempting to ridicule or anything, I just genuinely enjoy these discussions and debates.
2319
« on: November 01, 2014, 04:53:22 PM »
2320
« on: November 01, 2014, 04:53:05 PM »
Someone needs to post more!
2321
« on: November 01, 2014, 04:52:36 PM »
Who is that?
2322
« on: November 01, 2014, 04:50:30 PM »
Ah good, well yes this isn't just random deprivations of liberty <.<
I'm quite relieved.
Just out of curiosity lets say someone was extremely depressed but caused no one any problems. They went through life despising and hating it. Let's say some new pill made him completely happy with no side-effects and for some reason he was just against taking pills. Would it be alright for a government to shove that pill down his throat? Let's even say he was glad and happy with the results and took the pill willingly after.
2323
« on: November 01, 2014, 04:43:44 PM »
http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/healthadvice/problemsdisorders/beingsectionedengland.aspx
Have a read through this, I know it's for britbongistan but see what you make of it.
Are people's liberties being infringed by this system?
I think the subject of prisons is an entirely different matter. Trust me, I have my problems there as well even with just normal people prisons. Things should be drastically different than they are now. We could discuss the countless variables like drug and prostitution prohibition all day long. All I was concerned with here is that a free person causing harm to no one but themselves isn't deprived their due process of law.
2324
« on: November 01, 2014, 04:40:40 PM »
You can still hold them responsible for doing something wrong, otherwise disturbed people could murder whomever they wish and constantly get away with it. Obviously, but you don't hold them responsible in the same way as you would someone who is of sound mind.
Their 'punishment' is actually to get them sent to appropriate help to make them well enough so they don't randomly kill people, or if that's not possible then to keep them in a safe place where they cannot do harm to others.
That is when people ought to be restrained, and only WHEN proven to be irresponsible, which you'd still need to show someone is not mentally sound.
...Which is exactly what happens in a sectioning. They don't just grab them off the street willynilly .-.
If they are determined a danger to others, then the section is authorised and carried out to take them to a hospital for treatment. There has to be proof they are unwell, proof that they are dangerous and proof that they need treatment. This is then evaluated and acted upon <.<
That's all I ever asked for.
2325
« on: November 01, 2014, 04:39:21 PM »
You can still hold them responsible for doing something wrong, otherwise disturbed people could murder whomever they wish and constantly get away with it.
Not being morally or criminally responsible doesn't entail a lack of consequences. . .
That's like saying we shouldn't put down rabid dogs because we can't hold them responsible.
Rabid dogs are a danger... How is that relevant? If you have consequences that is being held responsible. And to address a point earlier, plenty of schizophrenic people live perfectly normal and productive lives. Another point. I could argue the Westboro Baptist Church is clearly psychologically damaged due to their asinine beliefs. Does that give me the authority to silence them with force?
2326
« on: November 01, 2014, 04:08:45 PM »
I don't see why the difference matters, and it may not be the drunk person's "choice." They may be physically addicted to alcohol. In that case they're mentally ill. That's what addiction is, and you can't hold people responsible for something they do resulting out of a fault in their perception. It's certainly more diffuse with alcoholics, since they are in control of their faculties but motivated by an anomaly, much like psychopaths, and have made the conscious, rational choice to consume that substance prior to the development of their illness in the knowledge that such was a possibility.
However, schizophrenics - and often depressives - aren't in proper control of their faculties. That's why we call schizophrenics psychotics and why schizophrenia translates as "split mind" - they aren't connected to reality. Such people can't exercise liberty. If you can defer responsibility for children to an authority, you can certainly do the same for the delusional.
Not everyone knowingly became alcoholics realizing it was physically addictive, and in some cases it's psychologically addictive as well. You can still hold them responsible for doing something wrong, otherwise disturbed people could murder whomever they wish and constantly get away with it. They do have liberty unless they infringe upon another, though. That seems to be where the people arguing with me seem to be confused upon. No one has the liberty to be irresponsible, even mentally sound people. That is when people ought to be restrained, and only WHEN proven to be irresponsible, which you'd still need to show someone is not mentally sound. These facts don't hurt my argument, but only agree with them. Children are not immune to responsibility, either, the parents simply have an obligation to care for them.
2327
« on: November 01, 2014, 03:54:07 PM »
Because a drunk person claiming to be the King of Denmark is being an idiot as a result of his choices. A schizophrenic person invariably and actually believes they are the king of Denmark.
If you want me to regress further, it's like expecting children to be legally responsible in the choices they make. You can't call a schizophrenic dumb for the statements they espouse, because their perception is so warped as to stop making sense. That's the point of classifying people as insane in the first place.
I don't see why the difference matters, and it may not be the drunk person's "choice." They may be physically addicted to alcohol. That's why your argument really has no basis. It's sad they may not be in the best state of control, all I am saying is that does NOT deny them their liberties nor does it excuse them from being held responsible for their own actions. If they need to chain themselves to a log in the wild 23 hours a day to not harm others then so be it. A child's parent is responsible for their actions.
2328
« on: November 01, 2014, 03:50:25 PM »
I'm arguing with a libertarian here. I figured I'd just allow him that.
I don't label myself libertarian.
2329
« on: November 01, 2014, 03:49:57 PM »
I've yet to hear good reason as to how that matters.
That's like saying a schizophrenic person should be held intellectually responsible.
Why shouldn't they? Just as much as a drunk.
2330
« on: November 01, 2014, 03:47:57 PM »
It's not freewill when an individual's mental state causes them to take their own life.
You could argue that is the strongest freedom there is.
When that choice is made by an individual of sound mental state.
However in reality it is demonstrably true that most people that take their own lives are in fact not of sound mental state.
I've yet to hear good reason as to how that matters. Of course someone killing themselves is most likely disturbed, but it's still their right.
2331
« on: November 01, 2014, 03:47:09 PM »
People become physically dependent on cigarettes which cause them massive harm. People are free to do this even when they can't help themselves. It would still be tyranny for a government to prohibit smoking in the disguise as help.
2332
« on: November 01, 2014, 03:42:11 PM »
It's not freewill when an individual's mental state causes them to take their own life.
You could argue that is the strongest freedom there is.
2333
« on: November 01, 2014, 03:26:01 PM »
in some cases it is necessary to carry out a section on them which deprives their liberty
That I will never agree with, nor does anyone have such authority.
*sigh*
Well then I have to say it's a good thing such decisions aren't down to you. But I can see this is going nowhere, so I'll leave you be.
You may learn one day tyranny, no matter how good the intention, will always be counterproductive. Either a society is free or it isn't. If they can take away some liberties then you have no rights, but temporary privileges, How long until we have people consenting to what we say before we say it and punishing those for speaking? It's already happened. It's not up to anyone but nature. As I said in the beginning abusing our strength is far more disgusting than the people we accuse of exercising freedoms in a way we disagree.
2334
« on: November 01, 2014, 03:20:01 PM »
in some cases it is necessary to carry out a section on them which deprives their liberty
That I will never agree with, nor does anyone have such authority.
2335
« on: November 01, 2014, 03:13:59 PM »
Well clearly, but mental illness isn't something that can be controlled like that. It just simply isn't, people in that sort of condition have their mental state warped and altered by the illness and as such they cannot make the same rational choices that anyone else who is unaffected could.
I agree, and it's an unfortunate reality. I'm not sure what that has to do with liberty, though, and the right to life.
2336
« on: November 01, 2014, 03:08:30 PM »
Being drunk is the result of your idiotic choices, you aren't responsible for becoming mentally ill.
You are responsible with managing your mentality, we all are. As long as you're not harming others without consent you're fine.
2337
« on: November 01, 2014, 02:52:17 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.
2338
« on: November 01, 2014, 02:48:45 PM »
Yeeeeeeees!
2339
« on: November 01, 2014, 02:47:35 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. Of course I recognize the details are gruesome and appalling to some. 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. And how does one determine if one is not in a sound state of mind?
2340
« on: November 01, 2014, 02:43:39 PM »
Yum 
Pages: 1 ... 767778 7980 ... 132
|
Show Posts