Time to ban the mentally ill

Originally posted by spangledbanner

Are you just going after scizophrics? Or right through to the autistic? That wont make alot of mothers happy. Have conservatives considered this? How many people are depressed? How many of them can you offend?

A few weeks ago some kid with asbergers killed his father because he blamed him for his condition so maybe.

Still even if every last American is ill that's several hundred million fewer items to keep track of than say firearms and Americans are already registered and logged.

Being born is enough to get a death sentence, why not just be done with it and kill everyone?

Originally posted by truthermantwo
If they were hearing voices telling them to do that or something might happen to them, how do you control that? .

neuroleptic

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
More often than not the perpetrator of acts of violence is sick in the head.

The knife attacks in China yesterday were committed by a schizophrenic. The shooter in CT yesterday was allegedly schizophrenic and on meds as were the Aurora theater, Loughner, Cho, and virtually all the others.

Can you point to some (reputable) links to the stories where it states that the attack in China yesterday and the Connecticut shooter are schizophrenics. I'm asking because I can't find any. There's reports about the state of their mental health but I can't find anything that says they were schizophrenics. Most of the things I've read about Lanza are suggesting that he had some form of autism.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Oh, you're serious. I'll bite.

Let's start with the practical implications of your idea, disregarding every other problem with it, what could go wrong if we implemented your systematic isolation project today.

As a previous poster said "we are all mentally ill" - I think he or she was very sloppy with his or her delivery, but the point stands, normalcy is defined on a scale compared to the overwhelming social average, mental illness can be categorised in several ways, one of the most common being the Deviation from Social Norms criteria.

The primary concern raised by your idea is "who decides how crazy you have to be to be crazy?"

The DSM changes regularly, schizophrenia (now defunct, known as schizoeffective disorder which encompasses schizoid personality, manic episodes and other abnormalities) used to be regularly assigned as a misnomer to patients with multiple personality disorder (see someone else's link above) due to similar behavioural traits exhibited by sufferers even though they're completely different disorders requiring different treatment and management.

If we lock up all the schizophrenics, what happens when we change our definitions in a few years, and half of the people in the complex are no longer schizophrenic, by definition, and half of the people living productive and happy lives on meds are now schizophrenic? If we allow case by case leeway for exceptional cases, what kind of guidelines would you suggest for exemption from the house for a schizophrenic?

Who diagnoses the schizophrenics? Doctors? How many doctors? 1? 2? 6? Does this mean that these schizophrenics have no right to peer jury? Would these mental trials be closed to the press and public due to data protection acts? What then, is stopping corrupt officials using these trials to lock up political or personal opponents forever?

Do these schizophrenics have a right of appeal? If they do, what happens if they're released? If one doctor says they're nuts, and another says they're not, who's right? Can the state appeal the appeal? When does it end?

How much would your idea cost? Who would pay for it? How would you balance the excessive costs of this scheme against the massive loss of revenue caused by taking schizophrenics out of work/stopping them paying for their own medication?

I can't be bothered doing the ethical implications of your hair brained scheme. I'm going to have a cup of tea.

I'd like to congratulate you OP, I've never been actually angered by something I've read online before. I've seen a lot of stupid ideas, but this is the worst. As a scientist, I strive to remain emotionally detached and dispassionate at all times in order to preserve my impartiality, as a person I try to be polite no matter what the situation. I cannot do either of those things because of your post.

Your backward and bigoted thinking is like a caricature of the entire 1950s views on mental health. You do not understand the subject matter and you have no right to talk about it.

As an aside, I don't know where you're from, but maybe you have a few old timey mental wards near you (read: shutter island type, that film was not far off the truth of the wards in the 90s) and I'd advise you to visit them before you think about broaching this subject with anyone again.

Originally posted by Zeta Reticulan

Originally posted by truthermantwo
If they were hearing voices telling them to do that or something might happen to them, how do you control that? .

neuroleptic

I was/am on them, and i can tell you firsthand that if the voices get evil enough the first time you experience that is basicly an uncontrollable situation. These voices can predict our movements, say when i have to go to the bathroom, i think about it first, but sometimes before i even think ill hear 'dont do that". medications dont work but to alter brain physicality and chemistry so you shake and feel lazy.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Ban them from what exactly?

Originally posted by ThisToiletEarth
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

Ban them from what exactly?

Life. The OP wants to put all schizophrenics in a big apartment complex and let them live out their days there to protect us from them.

Originally posted by Dispo

Originally posted by ThisToiletEarth
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

Ban them from what exactly?

Life. The OP wants to put all schizophrenics in a big apartment complex and let them live out their days there to protect us from them.

If he does, I'll happily break out and kill him to 'prove' his point.

Originally posted by Merriman Weir

Can you point to some (reputable) links to the stories where it states that the attack in China yesterday and the Connecticut shooter are schizophrenics.

No, I cant. Several that refer to them as "mentally ill" and even "mental patients" but not specifically schizophrenia.

Shouldnt I be granted the same level of authoritative ignorant certainty that so many reporters and pundits are granted when they discuss firearms? I've learned that I dont need to know anything about what I am complaining about to be taken as an authoritative source. I just need to scan Twitter and read scary numbers that make no sense like "two hundred and twenty three caliber" rifle.

It doent matter if Im talking out of my ass because afraid people will listen and believe and politicians will in turn enact legislation based on what the people believe.

reply to post by Merriman Weir

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Register them, house them in a complex, make their families take out insurances to protect the rest of us from them.

Originally posted by Dispo

Originally posted by ThisToiletEarth
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

Ban them from what exactly?

Life. The OP wants to put all schizophrenics in a big apartment complex and let them live out their days there to protect us from them.

Geeez, why stop there? Maybe we can evaluate everyone and send those who are deemed unfit on a one way rocket to the sun.

Originally posted by Dispo
reply to post by Merriman Weir

 

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Register them, house them in a complex, make their families take out insurances to protect the rest of us from them.

Whud you do, go and join the little hitlers club when you were young? I say get rid of voices and anyone with severe symptoms or other signs of violence, put through some sort of treatment/counseling program before they get to the point they snap. The potential offenders can be stopped, but only with the right help from others. denial and rejections come back to bite ya.

So you want to protect pieces of metal instead of your citizens with a disability.

Can we ban you too?

So we're so desparate for answers, another witch hunt is in order? With Obama, and the rest of the whackos running this country as the inquisitors?

Come on, talk about the patients running the asylum.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


"Hey, that guy is #ting in the corner, I SHOULD ALSO BE ALLOWED TO # IN THE CORNER BECAUSE I ALSO ENJOY #TING IN CORNERS."

As for your analogy to gun control, guns are as you said, inanimate objects. Mentally ill people are people. See the difference?

If you see a misinformed debate taking place, join it and bring information to the table. Educate people. That is your responsibility as a human being.

What you shouldn't do is make a troll thread expressing a controversial opinion, string people along and then say "LOL GUYS SEE IT WAS A RIDICULOUSLY TENUOUS ANALOGY THAT ONLY MAKES SENSE IN MY HEAD BTW JOKE'S ON YOU I WAS ONLY PRETENDING TO BE STUPID."

Originally posted by nixie_nox
So you want to protect pieces of metal instead of your citizens with a disability.

Can we ban you too?

I want to protect society and this is more efficient and will result in more net benefits than going after pieces of metal.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by Merriman Weir

Can you point to some (reputable) links to the stories where it states that the attack in China yesterday and the Connecticut shooter are schizophrenics.

No, I cant. Several that refer to them as "mentally ill" and even "mental patients" but not specifically schizophrenia.

Shouldnt I be granted the same level of authoritative ignorant certainty that so many reporters and pundits are granted when they discuss firearms? I've learned that I dont need to know anything about what I am complaining about to be taken as an authoritative source. I just need to scan Twitter and read scary numbers that make no sense like "two hundred and twenty three caliber" rifle.

It doent matter if Im talking out of my ass because afraid people will listen and believe and politicians will in turn enact legislation based on what the people believe.

I get the point you're making but you're actively spreading lies and smearing an already maligned demographic to make a point. A point that hadn't even been challenged until my post.

So, in this context, yeah it does matter if you're talking out of your ass.

This is a terrible idea, you can't punish someone before they commit a crime.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by nixie_nox
So you want to protect pieces of metal instead of your citizens with a disability.

Can we ban you too?

I want to protect society and this is more efficient and will result in more net benefits than going after pieces of metal.

Make up your mind. You're talking about being 'efficient' in this post, but in the other you're basically admitting you're wrong about the demographic you want to lock up. Not a great way to be efficient.

You must be really scared of having your gun taken away to be trolling as badly as this.