Schizophrenic customer making me nervous...

[Qre:us]

That's not a definition, but ok . . . how does this mean that society victimizes people by not providing for every need?

You wanted me to copy and paste a dictionary definiton of society? How unoriginal. Are you being mentally and physically lazy and trying to get me to do the work?

Try again?

 

[INA]

First you tell me what you think the role of society is to the people within it. Tit for tat, m'dear.

How are my entire politics relevant? On your very sparse description, you haven't created a case for why failure to help everyone's every need victimizes people.

Given that we're CHOOSING which groups to help (more or less) versus others...yes, then it slides more into societal hegemonic norms and thus, the field of 'moral' and 'logic' better meet.

Why is it victimization to choose to help some but not others?

 

[INA]

You wanted me to copy and paste a dictionary definiton of society? How unoriginal. Are you being mentally and physically lazy and trying to get me to do the work?

Try again?

I am sorry, I think I must not have been sufficiently clear for you. My question is not what the dictionary definition of society is, but where you get the idea that it is such that failure to assist with one set of problems where "society" assists with another set of problems is equivalent to society's "victimization" of the unassisted set. You said there was a logical reason for it but you have not given it. Instead you have danced around it and resorted to desperate accusations.

 

[Qre:us]

How are my entire politics relevant?

Your entire politics? Again, why are you assuming this is what I'm asking? Can you quote where I'm asking this of you, please?

I just want to know what you see the role of society to be because it hinges on our discussion as if I cannot understand your position, I thus, cannot comment on any ideas spurring from that position. Hence, my wanting to know.

Example:

It's not mutually exclusive if society actually drove the insane to mental illness (e.g. terrorizing a person into PTSD). But that's not the sense indicated there.

You see culpability of society only if it DROVE to inducing mental illness. I thus, want to know more about what exactly you see society as.

You think of society as your parent? Have you reworked the meaning of victim, too?

By this quote, it really makes me wonder, if you can assume me to think society as a parent, what your take on it is?

Is declining to nurture or help victimizing? If you pass a man on the street who could use help and do not offer it, have you victimized him?

Again, is this how you see society? As a random man passing another on the street without any further association? Unlike you, I don't want to assume dichotomy in extremes in your thought, hence, me asking you to clarify.

What kind of obligation do you assume is at work here, such that a failure to provide all medicine to all ill people is society's victimization of the people?

What kind of obligation do you assume should NOT be at work here?

Again....to better understand your ideas, I want to figure out your position for terms that are revelant to our discussion: what you think the role of society is.

Why don't you want to answer?

On your very sparse description, you haven't created a case for why failure to help everyone's every need victimizes people.

Again, why are you assuming everyone? Everyone means at a very individual basis, you'd probably be more accurate in how you assume your position about me, if you talked in terms of groups. Not every Tom, Dick and, Sally with Sx, but, Sx as a group...yes.

And, every need, again...please quote me on exactly where you're getting these conclusions about my argument. Please.

And, like I responded to AJ, it's not about failure to help everyone, but, the justification of that failure is relevant, it's practically impossible to target everyone, but, it is not practically impossible to explain why some are left behind while some others are chosen. And, within that critique of said justification, sides can claim 'fair'/'unfair'

Why is it victimization to choose to help some but not others?

Answered this already, at least three times.

 

[Qre:us]

I am sorry, I think I must not have been sufficiently clear for you. My question is not what the dictionary definition of society is, but where you get the idea that it is such that failure to assist with one set of problems where "society" assists with another set of problems is equivalent to society's "victimization" of the unassisted set.

It's victimization if there's no logical justification of why ONE set is chosen OVER the other set...not only logical, but, morality and hegemonic norms, and stigma attitudes of society, and the whole shebang then comes into play.

You said there was a logical reason for it but you have not given it.

That's not what I said, actually. See above of when I said logic and morality intersects in this discussion.

Instead you have danced around it and resorted to desperate accusations.

It sucks eh, having one's position so blatantly and juvenilely twisted? I emphathize

 

[INA]

You see culpability of society only if it DROVE to inducing mental illness. I thus, want to know more about what exactly you see society as.

And this is the crux of the problem. In assessing victimization, I am actually interested in what it means to victimize. I try to see if society victimized people first by . . . wait for it . . . seeing if someone has been victimized before finding out "whodunnit."

Again, is this how you see society? As a random man passing another on the street without any further association? Unlike you, I don't want to assume dichotomy in extremes in your thought, hence, me asking you to clarify.

I'm not sure you understand the meaning of dichotomy here. Or else there's been a failure of comprehension. I should have spelled this out for you. This is about the concept of what constitutes victimization. You seem to want to have very little to do with the concept while accusing ephemeral society of it.

What kind of obligation do you assume should NOT be at work here?

I don't assume that society has a duty to take care of all needs or that a ranking of priorities that leaves some needs unfulfilled while others are fulfilled is the equivalent of victimization. The hierarchies should be logical, but if they are not, it's at worst unfortunate, not an instance of victimization.

And, like I responded to AJ, it's not about failure to help everyone, but, the justification of that failure is relevant, it's practically impossible to target everyone, but, it is not practically impossible to explain why some are left behind while some others are chosen. And, within that critique of said justification, sides can claim 'fair'/'unfair'

Sides can claim anything, including fair and unfair. However many claims are meritless, and even if they have merit unfairness is not a synonym for victimization.

Answered this already, at least three times.

In that case, I'm afraid your answer is that you have no answer, as it has not accomplished what you set out to do . . . If it's that you deem a setting of priorities/recognizing hierarchies of needs as = victimization, you haven't made the case for why that is. Maybe the priorities are logical. Maybe they are not. But that is beside the point.

 

[ajblaise]

One pie, pieces get divided around the table, those that are ignored from a piece must be rationalized in terms of why: (1) they are not part of the table, and/or (2) why their piece is not important. Otherwise, the word 'unfair' could very well be applied...and from there, such words as boo-hoo victims.

Can you justify either 1 and/or 2, or, counter why 'unfair' isn't relevant then?

It's definitely not fair, but that alone is never enough of a reason to legislate fairness. There is an unlimited amount of unfair aspects to life, we can't mandate fairness for all of them.

But we can take the logical argument that the healthiest nations in the world all have universal health care, with America being the last developed nation not to have it, and with other nations able to do so at half the price we currently spend for our public-private mess and our skyrocketing insurance costs. I like that argument better.

 

[Qre:us]

And this is the crux of the problem. In assessing victimization, I am actually interested in what it means to victimize. I try to see if society victimized people first by . . . wait for it . . . seeing if someone has been victimized before finding out "whodunnit."

I don't understand how you can apply that to evaluating society's role. As victimizing can have more than one form, depending on the AGENT of victimization. By your line of thought, an example: It's all nice and sugary to find out that a person is dead before trying to see who murdered him, because well, murder of a human is a concretely physical thing, but, I don't understand how that logic applies to 'victimization' (marginalization, discrimination, hindrance in access to efficient health care, housing opportunities, employment opportunities, etc) by society?

Unless you think there's is NO way society is capable of victimization, in any form? That'd be interesting to discuss.


E.g., the form of 'victimization' - an individual victimizing another will look very different than a society victimizing an individual, as, well, you know, society isn't a human.

For me, I see society's victimization as - an obligation that is unfulfilled without justification.

What do you see as victimization by society? And, do you even believe society can ever victimize?

I'm not sure you understand the meaning of dichotomy here. Or else there's been a failure of comprehension. I should have spelled this out for you. This is about the concept of what constitutes victimization. You seem to want to have very little to do with the concept while accusing ephemeral society of it.

From YOUR end towards ME it may be about victimization (you just made that clear now in this post), from MY END towards YOU it was about finding out what you think the role of society is (which I asked you to clarify more than once - still no response).

I answered yours (see above), you have yet to tell me what you see the role of society to be. Again, why are you not answering and deflecting?

EDIT: I found a better way to put our different perspectives. I want to know who before I perscribe a what that is uniquely relevant to them. Hence, me wanting to know 'who' you think society is. You want to know 'what' is victimization where I argue that, in this case, 'what' is contingent on first outlining the boundaries of 'who' (their capacities), only then can we understand what they do/did or didn't do.

I don't assume that society has a duty to take care of all needs or that a ranking of priorities that leave some needs unfulfilled while others are fulfilled is the equivalent of victimization.

Do you assume that it's logically sound how that ranking of priorities is undertaken? Can you tell me how that ranking of priorities is done?

Sides can claim anything, including fair and unfair. However many claims are meritless, and even if they have merit unfairness is not a synonym for victimization.

It's only meritless of they're responding to something that has been thoroughly justified.

Are you assuming that the ranking are thoroughly justified without any place/space for any commetary, criticisms?

In that case, I'm afraid your answer is that you have no answer, as it has not accomplished what you set out to do . . . .

Again, assuming my position, how about trying to assume your own position, this time around?

Is it that you deem a setting of priorities/recognizing hierarchies of needs as = victimization

Simply: no, this is not my position, at all. Never was.

I'm not sure you understand my argument (said more than a few times already, tried again), I don't know how more clearly I can spell it out for you.

 

[INA]

I don't understand how you can apply that to evaluating society's role. As victimizing can have more than one form, depending on the AGENT of victimization. It's all nice and sugary to find out that a person is dead before trying to see who murdered him, because well, murder of a human is a concretely physical thing, but, I don't understand how that logic applies to 'victimization' (marginalization, discrimination, hindrance in access to efficient health care, housing opportunities, employment opportunities, etc) by society?

Finally! So your idea of societal victimization is (marginalization, discrimination, hindrance in access to efficient health care, housing opportunities, employment opportunities, etc). Even with your examples, do you not see how it makes sense to find out, first of all, if there's been discrimination and marginalization of purported victims (i.e. if there's been victimization) BEFORE you find out who's the person/entity who caused the sad state of affairs?

Unless you think there's is NO way society is capable of victimization, in any form? That'd be interesting to discuss.

Evidence number 99909 you're not really reading. I gave an example in my first response to you of how the mentally ill could be a victim of society.

E.g., the form of 'victimization' - an individual victimizing another will look very different than a society victimizing an individual, as, well, you know, society isn't a human.

For me, I see society's victimization as - an obligation that is unfulfilled without justification.

This much is clear. I've only asked repeatedly HOW you came to think this and why you think keeping people sane is one of these obligations. This is another of the obligations you apparently have assumed just like that (along with housing and jobs, etc.).

From YOUR end towards ME it may be about victimization (you just made that clear now in this post), from MY END towards YOU it was about finding out what you think the role of society is (which I asked you to clarify more than once - still no response).

Well, I don't see how you can get away with ignoring the concept of victimization. As I clarified several posts ago

I don't assume that society has a duty to take care of all needs or that a ranking of priorities that leaves some needs unfulfilled while others are fulfilled is the equivalent of victimization. The hierarchies should be logical, but if they are not, it's at worst unfortunate, not an instance of victimization.

Do you assume that it's logically sound how that ranking of priorities is undertaken? Can you tell me how that ranking of priorities is done?

I assume nothing of the sort; I prefer to look at each instance of hierarchy on a case by case basis. Do you purport to know how it is done? Nevertheless, again, to me it is irrelevant, because I don't think society has an obligation to keep me sane and healthy. It's what I would deem a privilege, not a right.

It's only meritless of they're responding to something that has been thoroughly justified.

Or if they have no claim to what they demanded in the first place.

I'm not sure you understand my argument (said more than a few times already, tried again), I don't know how more clearly I can spell it out for you.

Nope. I believe, as I wrote before -

The hierarchies should be logical, but if they are not, it's at worst unfortunate, not an instance of victimization.

 

[Qre:us]

It's definitely not fair, but that alone is never enough of a reason to legislate fairness. There is an unlimited amount of unfair aspects to life, we can't mandate fairness for all of them.

We cannot mandate fairness for all (it's not practical) but the very premise of unfairness means that it is a relevant AND real issue - victimization. What should be done about the victimization and to what degree, and if not, why not, can only then be addressed. If one doesn't address an issue, it cannot be aimed to be resolved. First is addressing. Hence me wanting to outline why I believe there *is* victimization by society. If you ask me, do you think we can eradicate all victimizations of society? I'd say, practically speaking? No...but it is a step if we can address its reality.

There are many vicious cycles in pockets of American society. One extreme example are the ghettos and the lifestyles of generations and generations because of said cycle. Are they ONLY the victim of their circumstance? No.

Nothing in society, is ever hardly linear with one cause and one effect.

But we can take the logical argument that the healthiest nations in the world all have universal health care, with America being the last developed nation not to have it, and with other nations able to do so at half the price we currently spend for our public-private mess and our skyrocketing insurance costs. I like that argument better.

Actually, there's some debate that two-tiered health care system may be most efficient than single-tiered universal health care.

My main issue is with policy makers, and how public health policy gets determined...there's many shadiness embedded within that system, one of which is, paper to practice are not always upheld so whatever money is put in, is irrevelant if programs mandated by policies are not kept up. Another is the political climate of the moment and what the 'it' issues are of the times. Third is, knowledge mobilization which becomes more like knowledge (mis)translation.....the govt asks for research to make a case for a policy, but, often times, the policy aim dictates the slant of research, versus research dictating the direction of policy change. Agenda, agenda, agenda.

 

[INA]

For clarity's sake:

vic⋅tim⋅ize
  /ˈvɪktəˌmaɪz/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [vik-tuh-mahyz] Show IPA
Use victimize in a Sentence
–verb (used with object), -ized, -iz⋅ing.
1. to make a victim of.
2. to dupe, swindle, or cheat: to victimize poor widows.
3. to slay as or like a sacrificial victim.

 

[Qre:us]

Finally! So your idea of societal victimization is (marginalization, discrimination, hindrance in access to efficient health care, housing opportunities, employment opportunities, etc). Even with your examples, do you not see how it makes sense first of all to find out, first of all, if there's been discrimination and marginalization of purported victims (i.e. if there's been victimization) BEFORE you find out who's the person/entity who caused the sad state of affairs?

What makes you think I didn't find out BEFORE I spoke of such victimizations? Unlike you, I'm making a claim based on reality.

Nevertheless, here's some relevant research:
Employment
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/542517
http://economics.ca/cgi/jab?journal=cpp&view=v31s1/CPPv31s1p059.pdf

Low SES is risk for mental illness:
http://www.apa.org/journals/releases/ort7513.pdf

Housing
Barriers to Housing for Deinstitutionalized Psychiatric Patients -- Alisky and Iczkowski 41 (1): 93 -- Hosp Community Psychiatry
PsycNET

Access to health services
Mental Disorders and Access to Medical Care in the United States -- Druss and Rosenheck 155 (12): 1775 -- Am J Psychiatry
Barriers to the Care of Persons With Dual Diagnoses: Organizational and Financing Issues -- Ridgely et al. 16 (1): 123 -- Schizophrenia Bulletin

One of the main reasons: stigma

If you would like, I can refer you to many studies on the reality of the stigma of mental illness in society and the barriers imposed therein.

Evidence number 99909 you're not really reading. I gave an example in my first response to you of how the mentally ill could be a victim of society.

I prolly missed that, sorry, if you would be kind enough to direct again? Thanks.

This much is clear. I've only asked repeatedly HOW you came to think this and why you think keeping people sane is one of these obligations.

Keeping people sane? Do you know what mental illness is? Mental illness is treatable not curable. You can't make one sane...just manage their symptoms better.

This is another of the obligations you apparently have assumed just like that (along with housing and jobs, etc.).

Well, considering government sees it as their OBLIGATION to provide job opportunities (Economics 101 - productivity of each unit within society leads to increase in society's economic standings). E.g., look at any govt action-plans, especially those spurred forth by the recent bankruptcy of major automobile corporations. For housing, subsized-housing, welfare cheques are given to account for housing costs as well....
I don't understand how you are ignoring that government, as representative of the society, have and do fulfill such obligations..it's not my imagination. Hence, asking again what exactly you mean by society, because I don't know what real society you speak of.

I assume nothing of the sort; I prefer to look at each instance of hierarchy on a case by case basis.

This doesn't logically make sense. Heirarchy means a comparative standing, how do you look at such things on a case by case?

Do you purport to know how it is done?

Yes, I'm in the field of public health policy.

Nevertheless, again, to me it is irrelevant, because I don't think society has an obligation to keep me sane and healthy. It's what I would deem a privilege, not a right.

Government does have an obligation to keep its people healthy (as for your 'sane' comment, again see my above point about 'sanity')...otherwise, it loses productivity of its unit by increasing disability-adjusted life years. It's not about a moral standing, and the bleeding heart of the government, but a logical and an economical one. Government, as a representation of society, are awarded that power to maintain society's productivity....each unit (human) therefore is part of that equation. Again, economics 101. And, thus, maintaining, as best as feasibly possible, each unit's productivity which is inversely correlated to failings in health.

The hierarchies should be logical, but if they are not, it's at worst unfortunate, not an instance of victimization.

I didn't see it the first round, was this an edited add in?
Regardless, I'm asking for an even basic answer/question....what and how are the heirarchies determined? If you cannot understand how such heirarchies are determined what makes you comment whether it's just an 'unfortunate circumstance' versus 'victimization'?

 

[INA]

What makes you think I didn't find out BEFORE I spoke of such victimizations? Unlike you, I'm making a claim based on reality.

Um . . . I actually didn't say that. I think your passion for the subject is getting the better of you. I posted that it makes sense to find out if there's victimization. You said, I quote

Idon't understand how you can apply that to evaluating society's role.

And I gave an example of how you could apply the "find out first" approach to "societal victimization."

I prolly missed that, sorry, if you would be kind enough to direct again? Thanks.

In a hurry. As I said. It was the first or so response to you.

Keeping people sane? Do you know what mental illness is? Mental illness is treatable not curable. You can't make one sane...just manage their symptoms better.

I had a schizophrenic relative, thanks for the silly flourish. I meant keeping them medicated so they're less of a danger to themselves and others, not attacking people like crazy Betsy, but my bad - I forget some people are more literal than others.

Well, considering government sees it as their OBLIGATION to provide job opportunities.

It's a goal, not a promise or a vested right.

This doesn't logically make sense. Heirarchy means a comparative standing, how do you look at such things on a case by case?

Your not understanding does not make it nonsensical. How do you do comparisons without taking particular rankings to compare into account? Do you not compare positions in a hierarchy and see if the rankings make sense?

Government does have an obligation to keep its people healthy

Government is not society, but I digress.
Government has many obligations (personal security) and also lofty goals. It cannot fulfill them all. That does not, ipso facto, mean that a person's insanity is an instance of victimhood. Insanity as here (schizophrenia) is not caused by the governments action, because the government did not "cause" the insane to have the illness. Even if we define victimization extremely broadly, the government further did not dupe, swindle, or cheat the insane. The insanity of the insane is not a result of the government's action or inaction. While it is an admirable goal to have medication for all who need it, it's not an inalienable right - not in the U.S., and failure to provide to some who need it constitutes no deception, swindle or cheat, because the government simply made no promise, even in any mandate to provide health care, that your medication will be covered if you cannot afford it. Nor did it promise that the reason for failure to provide the medication would be sounded out for logical infallibility. Nor that you would be given a reason for it. Here, it is set as a goal to give the privilege of affordable health care, not a right. If I have no right to something, I am not victimized for not getting it, unfair as it might be.

Each human is not as productive as the next. As you so facetiously stated, the mentally insane are not cured, and as someone who has represented them in the past, even when they have medication - they often still get financial support because they are functional with meds, not exactly stellar producers. You'd need to get hard numbers go beyond Econ 101. But still no assaulted schizophrenic "victims" of the gov - just neglected ones.

 

[Jaguar]

^ Is that what you two ladies call: "The Vagina Dialogues"?

 

[Mole]

An illness is caused by a lesion or an infectious agent.

And as far as I know schizophrenia is not caused by a lesion or an infectious agent. So schizophrenia is not an illness.

Schizophrenia is called an illness purely for historical reasons.

At first schizophrenia was called an illness to save schizophrenics from prison. But today schizophenia is called an illness to invalidate the schizophrenic.

And for the future, the question is not how can we make society safe from schizophrenics, but how can we make society safe for schizophrenics.

 

[ceecee]

And for the future, the question is not how can we make society safe from schizophrenics, but how can we make society safe for schizophrenics.

Everyone else should adapt to the needs of the mentally...if they aren't ill what term would you prefer was used?

 

[Mole]

Everyone else should adapt to the needs of the mentally...if they aren't ill what term would you prefer was used?

This is an interesting question, Ceecee.

Particularly as we don't know what consciousness is, and schizophrenia is a form of consciousness. So of course we don't know what schizophrenia is.

We do know though it is not criminal nor pathological.

All we know is that schizophrenics are conscious, just like us.

And just as socially excluding us is immediately painful and does long term damage, so socially excluding schizophrenics is immediately painful to them and does them long term damage.

Unfortunately we live in Benjamin Franklin's society where, as he said, "God helps those who help themselves", when we could be living in a society where we loved our neighbour as ourselves, and where we did unto others as we would like them to do unto us.

So schizophrenic people provide us with a golden opportunity rather than a problem to be removed.

 

[Jaguar]

And for the future, the question is not how can we make society safe from schizophrenics, but how can we make society safe for schizophrenics.

I used to be a member of a forum for about 8 years or so.
One of my favorite posters had such a fascinating way of looking at things.
I knew something was different about the guy, but I couldn't put my finger on it.
He had a very visual mind, and would post images to illustrate his thoughts.
Now, I was one of the few who understood this guy.
I could take one look at his images and jump from A to Z.

Frankly, I thought the guy was brilliant.
Turned out, he was also schizophrenic.
He was highly functioning, spoke of his illness openly.

Schizophrenia doesn't automatically= violence.
Anyone can be violent.
But not just anyone, has a gifted mind.

There is a fine line between genius and madness.
Perhaps some have forgotten the film, 'A Beautiful Mind.'
It was based on the life of Nobel Prize Winner, John Forbes Nash Jr.

"In 1948, in Nash's application to Princeton’s mathematics department,
Nash's advisor and former Carnegie Tech professor, R.J. Duffin,
wrote a letter of recommendation consisting of a single sentence:
"This man is a genius."

That genius, was also a schizophrenic.

 

[statuesquechica]

So schizophrenic people provide us with a golden opportunity rather than a problem to be removed.

So very true, thanks Victor for your powerful words.

 

[Ism]

You should probably tell someone because of the threat she may pose. Clearly, she has talked about hurting others. Whether or not she'd go through with it is a different story, but with their minds in another realm you can't garuntee anything.

My mom's boyfriend has a coworker who was/is schizophrenic, and he had to talk to her because she was scaring her fellow employees and customers. I'm not sure if they baker-acted her yet, but it's probably coming.

My grandmother has a lot of schizophrenic tendencies- delusions, hallucinations, word-salad and the like. With her, unless she didn't take her medication, she was alright and didn't do anything. Without it, and when she had a nervous breakdown, she went around the apartment building and knocked on random doors and accused my mom's old boyfriend of being Hitler (which was actually kind of funny) when we were out near the lake during her manic stage.

Either way, tell your boss, tell the local police, but act normal around the lady, haha.