Schizophrenic customer making me nervous...

[INA]

In either case, it's a creative definition.

 

[ajblaise]

Being fucked + extenuating circumstances CAN = "victim of society" My meaning of that term means that this chemical imbalance plus lack of universal health care can and does lead these people to become homeless. Thus being ignored by society.

Yeah "victim" probably isn't the best word. When there's a victim, there is usually an aggressor and the victim is taken advantage of. If society collectively threw rocks at and stole from schizophrenics whenever they saw them, then they'd be victims. They are victims of circumstance if anything, not society.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

^ It's a term. I'm not going to nit pick it. I used the words of the previous poster for expediency (and I clarified the term and explained what I meant by that term) If I were to redefine every term that's thrown about then we'd be here all day. I'd rather everyone focus on the general idea behind my posts rather than one word in it. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[INA]

Yeah "victim" probably isn't the best word. When there's a victim, there is usually an aggressor and the victim is taken advantage of. If society collectively threw rocks at and stole from schizophrenics whenever they saw them, then they'd be victims. The are victims of circumstance, not society.

Yes. I'm all for getting affordable mental health medication to those who need it, but the use of the "victim" label for all and sundry sorts of unfortunate situations is out of control.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

Now I know why we don't have a great health care system. A bunch of INTP's are still talking about what the new system should be named.

 

[INA]

Some even wonder if it's a great idea in the first place. They're looking into meanings and costs and benefits as you wait, victimized by their deliberation.

 

[ajblaise]

Now I know why we don't have a great health care system. A bunch of INTP's are still talking about what the new system should be named.

A lot of health reform is going to be passed in the next couple years, the plans to cut costs and increase efficiency have broad support, right now people are mostly debating on whether to include a public option or not.

 

[Qre:us]

Being fucked = you're a victim of society? Certainly it is unfortunate and calls for a solution but how does this create victims of society (rather than of bad biochemistry) out of the mentally unstable.

Why is your post assuming them to be mutually exclusive? Can one not be, to a degree, a victim of society AND a 'victim' of bad biochemistry?

 

[INA]

Why is your post assuming them to be mutually exclusive? Can one not be, to a degree, a victim of society AND a 'victim' of bad biochemistry?

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.

 

[Qre:us]

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.

There's more than one role a society can play. You only assume as a cause. What about maintenance? Or exacerbating? By your line of thought, it's a debate of nature VERSUS nurture....do you have any reasoning for why you are negating nurture - of a more global scale, say, society?

 

[INA]

There's more than one role a society can play. You only assume as a cause. What about maintenance? Or exacerbating? By your line of thought, it's a debate of nature VERSUS nurture....do you have any reasoning for why you are negating nurture - of a more global scale, say, society?

You think of society as your parent? Have you reworked the meaning of victim, too? How do you get out of a cause if you're claiming victimization?

 

[Qre:us]

You think of society as your parent?

Are parents the only one that nurtures inclinations in children?

 

[INA]

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?

 

[Qre:us]

Is declining to nurture or help victimizing?

Yes, only if your role assumes some obligation. A society, esp. one that assumes governance means a representative of the people, hence, by its very definition, has obligations. E.g., things such as Charter of Rights, etc., would then be obsolete if we didn't understand society to play the role that it did.

Unless you can provide me with what you think a society means....

If you pass a man on the street who could use help and do not offer it, have you victimized him?

I don't understand the relevance of this analogy...see above.

 

[ajblaise]

There's more than one role a society can play.

Yeah but expanding health coverage can be justified without needing characterize people as victims who have a societal right to health care.

I never liked how some people make it into a giant moral issue and a play on people's emotions. I think we can support it on purely logical grounds.

 

[INA]

Yes, only if your role assumes some obligation.

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?

Unless you can provide me with what you think a society means....

How about you go into that, as you have some positive ideas of society and its duties and roles?

I don't understand the relevance of this analogy...see above.

Well, try to think of the building blocks of society, rather than just the idea of an amorphous superentity there to offer succor and aid wherever you may need it. You are a member of society, are you not?

 

[Qre:us]

Yeah but expanding health coverage can be justified without needing characterize people as victims who have a societal right to health care.

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?

I never liked how some people make it into a giant moral issue and a play on people's emotions. I think we can support it on purely logical grounds.

Why do you assume it's a moral ground I'm expounding? And, not a logical one? Or, even, that a moral ground cannot be supported by logic?

 

[Qre:us]

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

All? Did I say all? I'm asking you to justify 'ANY' obligation at all.

How about you go into that, as you have some positive ideas of society and its duties and roles.

Nice diverting....I already explained what I saw the role of society to be, again, attempt 2:

A society, esp. one that assumes governance means a representative of the people, hence, by its very definition, has obligations. E.g., things such as Charter of Rights, etc., would then be obsolete if we didn't understand society to play the role that it did.

Your turn.

Well, try to think of the building blocks of society, rather than just the idea of an amorphous superentity there to offer succor and aid wherever you may need it.

It's not a question of not offering aid wherever you may need it, but, failing to do so, when aid is offered for others in 'peril' (e.g., welfare).

Edit: as for the building blocks of society versus amorphous superentity...you are assuming a lot of dichotomies on my behalf. Imo, I'd say neither, society is a dynamic process.

 

[INA]

Why do you assume it's a moral ground I'm expounding? And, not a logical one? Or, even, that a moral ground cannot be supported by logic?

Not to speak for ajblaise, but: because you haven't provided one, perhaps. i'd be interested to see it.

It's not a question of not offering aid wherever you may need it, but, failing to do so, when aid is offered for others in 'peril' (e.g., welfare).

So spell out how failing to help is "victimizing" if help is offered to others. Should we never help anybody given that we can't help everybody? Or just accept that we're victimizing those we don't help?

A society, esp. one that assumes governance means a representative of the people, hence, by its very definition, has obligations. E.g., things such as Charter of Rights, etc., would then be obsolete if we didn't understand society to play the role that it did.

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

 

[Qre:us]

Not to speak for ajblaise, but: because you haven't provided one, perhaps. i'd be interested to see it.

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

So spell out how failing to help is "victimizing" if help is offered to others. Should we never help anybody given that we can't help everybody?

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.