Schizophrenic customer making me nervous...

[ChocolateMoose123]

ajblaise and InaF3157

You have complete tunnel vision here. Enough with the semantics.

You do understand that "victim of society" is not a LITERAL device?! It's an idiom, for god's sake. My goodness. It is figurative. Like, "kick the bucket."

Would you argue that you shouldn't say this because when dying you don't actually kick buckets? Judging by this thread I think that you would! Because that's how inane this thread reads.


I'm done

Peace! (This is a farewell greeting. Not to be confused with some personal commentary on the state of Israel and Palestine)

 

[Alwar]

MDP2525 told me earlier to put on my shoes and socks to go bowhunting. So I put on my shoes, then put on my socks over them as instructed. BEEP BOOP BEEP

Edit: Anything come of this Jewelchild?

 

[Wiley45]

Owners are away on business, so we'll see what happens when they return.

Haven't seen Betsy yet, so things are uneventful at the moment, but hey, this thread's excitement enough for me.

 

[Qre:us]

Um . . . I actually didn't say that.

I know you didn't but it was a great segueway to put some hard evidence, rather than idle chatter, into the context of our discussion. I used those words as a jump-off, it doesn't change the validity of the research evidence, nor their applicability to our discussion.

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

Qre:us - Idon't understand how you can apply that to evaluating society's role.

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

This is an interesting point, as I found your example irrelevant to the context of evaluating victimization by society, and I even gave reasoning for why I think your example didn't work. You've yet to counter to this.

Again, to put my quote in context:

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.

[...]
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.

Counter?

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, literal interpretations are, imo, way more conducive than irrelevant and intellectually dishonest extrapolated interpretation of extreme dichotomies of the other's thoughts/words. I can live with myself. How about you?

Btw, what does you having a schizophrenic relative have to do with anything? Are you suggesting that I automatically assume that you are properly educated on the topic because you had a relative with it, or 'represented them in the past' [whatever that means]? (I rather look at your ideas rather than assume your [lack of] authority on this matter). That's like me believing a person making a homophobic comment didn't mean it as such because they have a cousin who's gay. Um...good for you?

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

It is a vested interest actually, and a goal assumes an 'obligation' to be fulfilled, because goal means effort is directed towards said thing, and government does not make an effort unless they have a stake (vested interest) in it and/or it is their role, e.g., to direct a stable economy...which means jobs (i.e., obligation). I can't give you more lessons on the workings of government than this.

Your not understanding does not make it nonsensical.

No, it's nonsensical beause it doesn't follow logic, not my logic, or yours or the Madhatter's, as logic is objective.

How do you do comparisons without taking particular rankings to compare into account?

You answered your own question. Hint: plural. A comparison cannot be done by focusing in on an isolated case...this makes the word, comparison, redundant (your words, case by case - my inference to this: look at each as a contained unit, unrelated to the next).

Do you not compare positions in a hierarchy and see if the rankings make sense?

Um...yes, this is my point and why I said your point didn't make sense, because one COMPARES, hence, your point of 'case by case' makes any kind of comparison obsolete (hence, illogical within the context).

Here's a definition of what case by case means:
Adj. 1. case-by-case - separate and distinct from others of the same kind; "mark the individual pages"; "on a case-by-case basis"
item-by-item, individual
independent - free from external control and constraint; "an independent mind"; "a series of independent judgments"; "fiercely independent individualism"

Here's where I pointed out your logical inconsistency:

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

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

I don't know how more literally to point out what I'm trying to say.

Government is not society, but I digress.

Really? Government is not society? Seriously? Never knew that....

Is your passion getting the better of you so that you are now following in my footsteps and missing parts of my posts because of your hurry? Imitation is the greatest form of flattery.

Here, once again, since you missed it on your first go:

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.

Btw, you still haven't told me what you believe society to be (my 10th? time of asking?)....is it because that will make your case fall on slippery slopes?

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.

A couple of those intellectually dishonest extrapolation of my thoughts that I was speaking of earlier:
- I'm not advocating universal health care (quote me to prove me otherwise)
- I'm not equating victimization to government not providing medication (quote me to prove me otherwise)
- I've never said government 'caused' the 'insanity', actually, our initial conversation, I challenged you on this (quote me to prove me otherwise)
- I've never advocated that government practically has to target ALL/Everyone, actually, I have said more than few times, that this is practically impossible (quote me to prove me otherwise).

So, um...thanks for that soliloquy, but, I don't understand how that's addressing *any* of my point? Please help me see the light connection.

Again, I repeat, my point is in questioning why certain groups gets aid from government (in whatever form) while certain others do not....and questioning the methodology in how these groups are determined, placed on the heirarchy of aid, within which, we can make a case for victimization due to apparent marginalization....(see the evidence I provided) - housing, employment opportunities, access to health care, the still prevalent stigma of mental illness within society.
Btw, it's a RIGHT, not a PRIVILEDGE, to have protection under the law and equal access to governmental services without any prejudice/discrimination/marginalization due to mental illness, or any other inherent differences. If there's hindrance to such equal access - the individual is 'victimized'. There have been cases in US where communities had banned together to protest a group home for the mentally ill being put up in their neighbourhood, and they won. This is the manifestation of the stigma of mental illness - this is what leads to being victims of society by society due to hindrance to integration.

Each human is not as productive as the next.

As you so facetiously assume of my thought...I never said they were. Did I? Point it out, if I did.

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.

Did you know that neglect is considered child abuse, just as actively beating the child is child abuse. They all make that child a victim of said adult. Imagine that...inaction has recognized consequences.

 

[Qre:us]

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

I think it's hella better than the Cock-&-bullBall Dialogues, as you guys are half blind, what with one eye and all.

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.

This is a sociological perspective - aka, the social model of disability theory, introduced by M. Oliver in the late 70s-early 80s, where it's proposed that we're all *differently abled* but that society's normative, homogeneous drive allows certain individuals/groups to be seen as deviant and thus, DISabled. I.e., society creates the DISability. (it's the opposing school of thought to the medical model, whereby the disability is within the individual, and not as any manifestation of societal structures). Btw, there's quite a few holes in the social model of disability theory.....

 

[ajblaise]

ajblaise and InaF3157

You have complete tunnel vision here. Enough with the semantics.

You do understand that "victim of society" is not a LITERAL device?! It's an idiom, for god's sake. My goodness. It is figurative. Like, "kick the bucket."

Would you argue that you shouldn't say this because when dying you don't actually kick buckets? Judging by this thread I think that you would! Because that's how inane this thread reads.


I'm done

Peace! (This is a farewell greeting. Not to be confused with some personal commentary on the state of Israel and Palestine)

Betsy? Is that you?

 

[INA]

ok, this has gotten boring.

I know you didn't but it was a great segueway to put some hard evidence

So in other words, you don't really care what I say to answer a direct question. You are only asking questions and misrepresenting positions in order to launch into asides that are not responsive but that you feel passionately about discussing. That and/or you don't even understand yourself what you're asking. In order for evidence to be relevant - to say nothing of hard - it must be responsive to the issue at hand. Pretty basic. Something may be worth reading without being responsive, as someone with an appreciation for distinctions could recognize.

This is an interesting point, as I found your example irrelevant to the context of evaluating victimization by society, and I even gave reasoning for why I think your example didn't work. You've yet to counter to this.

Not only did you not at all say it was irrelevant as an example of societal victimization, your point was that it was but one way society could victimize. At the very least I would hope you could understand your own arguments. As it is, you constantly switch the topic, misrepresent your own questions, deem on point responses to the questions "idle chatter" (which you nevertheless get very heated about) and point to a mountain of information that is not responsive.

Well, literal interpretations are, imo, way more conducive than irrelevant and intellectually dishonest extrapolated interpretation of extreme dichotomies of the other's thoughts/words. I can live with myself. How about you?

I'm sure you can, with the aid no doubt of subsidized medication for your paranoid schizophrenia.

It is a vested interest actually, and a goal assumes an 'obligation' to be fulfilled, because goal means effort is directed towards said thing, and government does not make an effort unless they have a stake (vested interest) in it and/or it is their role, e.g., to direct a stable economy...which means jobs (i.e., obligation). I can't give you more lessons on the workings of government than this.

Except I said vested right not a "vested interest"
You should probably school yourself before you presume to school anyone on anything else. First thing you should look into: reading comprehension. Second thing you should do is find a dictionary and look up the words "interest", "right" and, especially "distortion," which you toss about inaccurately with wild abandon while practicing it yourself.

The next you should do is go learn about your government and your rights. You do not have a "right" to have your every need covered or a "right" to a logically infallible account of why you don't have your health covered, though you certainly have freedom to seek out what works for you or to get legal redress if a legal right has been infringed. You are not victimized by not being given what you have no right to. This is not rocket science.

You answered your own question. Hint: plural. A comparison cannot be done by focusing in on an isolated case...this makes the word, comparison, redundant (your words, case by case - my inference to this: look at each as a contained unit, unrelated to the next).

Oh i said "isolated" case now. what's that word again.
And here we get to why you have such difficulties with comprehension. You do not care for the meaning of words of their contexts. If I say I look at each example of hierarchy on a case by case basis, the clear meaning is that I look at each example of a comparison or ranking of 2 or more things on a case by case basis, as a hierarchy presumes relationships. A relationship of one thing to another requires two things, does it not, and yet, each such relationship can be classified as a case. You can look at a relationship as a case in itself. You can look at a comparison as a case. I have to wonder if you are yourself imbalanced .

Again, I repeat, my point is in questioning why certain groups gets aid from government (in whatever form) while certain others do not....and questioning the methodology in how these groups are determined, placed on the heirarchy of aid

And as I've responded repeatedly, people are free to make whatever claim, but the lack of infallible reasons for the hierarchy is not in itself a victimization.

we can make a case for victimization due to apparent marginalization.

victimization is marginalization is having logically fallible reasons for not providing house, jobs, meds, etc. is looking at you wrong because you are crazy is . . . is . . . is. So many victims so little time.

Btw, it's a RIGHT, not a PRIVILEDGE, to have protection under the law and equal access to governmental services without any prejudice/discrimination/marginalization due to mental illness, or any other inherent differences.

Except the government didn't offer a guarantee of mental health coverage as a government service. I do not see why this basic premise is so difficult to grasp.

If there's hindrance to such equal access - the individual is 'victimized'.

Ok Now it's the government's "hindrance" that's the victimization. Is that your 25th redefinition of victimization? If the government is unlawfully stopping people from freely going out to buy the medication, surgery, sex-change, boob-job, etc. they need to feel mentally whole (or terrorizing someone into PTSD), well then . . .

Did you know that neglect is considered child abuse, just as actively beating the child is child abuse. They all make that child a victim of said adult. Imagine that...inaction has recognized consequences.

at inapt analogies.
I never wanted 2 moms
Still, neglected, and therefore "victimized" lawns everywhere sing your praises.

Betsy? Is that you?

Nah Man. Betsy is the feral nut's sidekick. Look a couple posts above.

 

[Qre:us]

When a crazy converses with a retard....

So in other words, you don't really care what I say to answer a direct question. You are only asking questions and misrepresenting positions in order to launch into asides that are not responsive but that you feel passionately about discussing. That and/or you don't even understand yourself what you're asking. In order for evidence to be relevant - to say nothing of hard - it must be responsive to the issue at hand. Pretty basic. Something may be worth reading without being responsive, as someone with an appreciation for distinctions could recognize.

Slowly now, stay with me, those links, with the research? They didn't address directly just one point of your post, but, that was giving evidence of 'vicitimization by society'. Now, here's where it gets trippy because one has to connect. "Victimization by society" is what our conversation, as a whole, is about. This is what one calls - relevance. Got it?
(dear lord, I hope so!)

Not only did you not at all say it was irrelevant as an example of societal victimization,

Actually, I did, but, I was being nice. I think niceness means a lot of subtle association that must be beyond the comprehension of those afflicted with intellectual disability.

I'll try again (I'm crazy but compassionate):

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

[Then I try to explain why it's not understandable....]

Meaning....me saying I don't understand and explaining why is a 'nice' way of saying, "I don't understand how that's relevant" aka, "This is irrelevant and this is why".

[/At the very least I would hope you could understand your own arguments.

Not only am I trying to understand my own arguments, in between the voices in my head, but, trying to help you understand YOURS and MINE. Cut me some slack, will ya? I'm suffering the crazies and taking care of a retard.

As it is, you constantly switch the topic, misrepresent your own questions, deem on point responses to the questions "idle chatter" (which you nevertheless get very heated about) and point to a mountain of information that is not responsive.

I will have you know I only get heated when the voices in my head does Elvis impressions! For the 'special olympics' folks, I have nothing but patience and compassion. As evidenced by our conversation.

I'm sure you can, with the aid no doubt of subsidized medication for your paranoid schizophrenia.

Are you trying to represent me or slyly breaking the news to me that you're my long-lost cousin? Either scenario makes me uncomfortable.

Except I said vested right not a "vested interest"

Hope for you yet! You're right, I did mis-read that as vested interest. However, that doesn't change its relevance to my argument.

Qre:us - It is a vested interest actually, and a goal assumes an 'obligation' to be fulfilled, because goal means effort is directed towards said thing, and government does not make an effort unless they have a stake (vested interest) in it and/or it is their role, e.g., to direct a stable economy...which means jobs (i.e., obligation). I can't give you more lessons on the workings of government than this.

Pointing out the role of the government for its people, and why they do it, vested interest in increasing productivity, such that, when they start cherry-picking who to skew such vested interest towards, without good justification...it is, tying back to our discussion, marginalization (which can make for victims).

You should probably school yourself before you presume to school anyone on anything else. First thing you should look into: reading comprehension. Second thing you should do is find a dictionary and look up the words "interest", "right" and, especially "distortion," which you toss about inaccurately with wild abandon while practicing it yourself.

I promise to do that, if you promise to do the same for such things as 'case by case', 'right' VERSUS 'priviledge', 'government', 'stigma', 'marginalization', etc.

The next you should do is go learn about your government and your rights.

Back atcha!

You do not have a "right" to have your every need covered or a "right" to a logically infallible account of why you don't have your health covered, though you certainly have freedom to seek out what works for you or to get legal redress if a legal right has been infringed. You are not victimized by not being given what you have no right to. This is not rocket science.

Again, with reiterating claims about me that I never made. I know there's slow, but you give molasses a run for its money.

I'll repeat my previous assertion (repeating with you, seems to be a trend):

A couple of those intellectually dishonest extrapolation of my thoughts that I was speaking of earlier:
- I'm not advocating universal health care (quote me to prove me otherwise)
- I'm not equating victimization to government not providing medication (quote me to prove me otherwise)
[...]
- I've never advocated that government practically has to target ALL/Everyone, actually, I have said more than few times, that this is practically impossible (quote me to prove me otherwise).

So, um...thanks for that soliloquy, but, I don't understand how that's addressing *any* of my point? Please help me see the light connection.

And as I've responded repeatedly, people are free to make whatever claim, but the lack of infallible reasons for the hierarchy is not in itself a victimization.



victimization is marginalization is having logically fallible reasons for not providing house, jobs, meds, etc. is looking at you wrong because you are crazy is . . . is . . . is. So many victims so little time.

Except the government didn't offer a guarantee of mental health coverage as a government service. I do not see why this basic premise is so difficult to grasp.


Ok Now it's the government's "hindrance" that's the victimization. Is that your 25th redefinition of victimization? If the government is unlawfully stopping people from freely going out to buy the medication, surgery, sex-change, boob-job, etc. they need to feel mentally whole (or terrorizing someone into PTSD), well then . . .

Sigh. Maybe concretely talking about it will be more conductive to your level of comprehension. When I talk of 'hindrance' or 'marginalization' or 'inaction' on the part of the government and how that can be a case of victimization.
Example, say for employment: EEOC - U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Comission along with ADA (Americans with Disability Act) - this one is pertinent to us both, my special olympics butterfly.

And, the cases that gets filed with EEOC, outlining discrimination based on such disability as mental illness, and the audacious lack of follow-through from policy on paper to practice, is.....governmental neglect, which propagates marginalization, leading to victims. They have obligations (it's part of the act and the reason for the commision) but not following through on them, is, a bad, bad, thing, esp. when there's a systematic trend being seen through independent research (I would bust out the links again, outlining such research, but one crazy is enough, I can't imagine what crazy on top of a retard may look like).

If I say I look at each example of hierarchy on a case by case basis, the clear meaning is that I look at each example of a comparison or ranking of 2 or more things on a case by case basis, as a hierarchy presumes relationships. A relationship of one thing to another requires two things, does it not, and yet, each such relationship can be classified as a case. You can look at a relationship as a case in itself. You can look at a comparison as a case.

Well, you see, I understood that heirarchy meant a relationship, hence pointing out why what you most likely meant by 'case by case', given the context/sentiment of the rest of your post, was illogical.

In one of your posts, you said something along the lines of, "The heirachy may be logical. Or may not. But that's besides the point."



And, this is again with me repeatedly asking you to justify *why* the evaluation of heirarchy, using comparisons, was 'besides the point'. So, I guessed, that you meant you look at something in its contained self, meaning its comparative level of standing, and WHY/HOW such level was achieved was irrelevant...I mean...besides the point.

I have to wonder if you are yourself imbalanced .

Quite, hence me retiring from tight-rope walking.

at inapt analogies.

You not getting it hardly has ANY commentary on its inapt/inept-ness. You know, given your...condition....

Nah Man. Betsy is the feral nut's sidekick. Look a couple posts above.

Tomorrow, we'll work on counting...if you behave yourself, missy!

 

[INA]

I'm going to try to ignore most of your childish tantrums for your sake, because you clearly have a way to go . . . in many respects
.

They didn't address directly just one point of your post, but, that was giving evidence of 'vicitimization by society'. Now, here's where it gets trippy because one has to connect. "Victimization by society" is what our conversation, as a whole, is about. This is what one calls -

[sigh] I already pointed out that the question to which I responded was where you said it was not possible to verify beforehand whether there's societal victimization at hand before finding the cause. Do you understand this? I don't know which is worse: the idea that you do not grasp this or the idea that you do grasp this but believe you can get away from the fact of having tied yourself in knots by saying something was not possible but then, on being shown how it is possible, coming up with a ton of deflection. I'm trying to remain respectful in tone but seriously - you cannot be that insensible. You were wrong. Grow up and admit it then we can get somewhere.

I will have you know I only get heated when the voices in my head does Elvis impressions! For the 'special olympics' folks, I have nothing but patience and compassion. As evidenced by our conversation.

I know. It does take a lot to deal with all the challenged folks in your head. Kind of you to let them speak for you. This is where I step aside from Typo C's very own crazy betsy and let the wardens place you in a padded cell.

Hope for you yet! You're right, I did mis-read that as vested interest. However, that doesn't change its relevance to my argument.

It's symptomatic. It's all over the thread. Your constant failure to read and your much-evidenced practice of not making distinctions is symptomatic of a very real distortion. This is why you repeatedly confuse rights with interests, unfairness with victimization, ad nauseum. These failings make discussion pointless.

And, the cases that gets filed with EEOC, outlining discrimination based on such disability as mental illness, and the audacious lack of follow-through from policy on paper to practice, is.....governmental neglect, which propagates marginalization, leading to victims. I can't imagine what crazy on top of a retard may look like).

Got a mirror?
Good. Now Employment discrimination. My aren't we all over the map. Can you see how your right to not be discriminated against when you are seeking a job is not equal to a right to logically infallible grounds for not providing for all your mental health care? Do you see how far you've come? Why stop there - go all the way back to the government allowing (oh my!) people being born to poor people "leading" (I know you love that word) to more kids than they can take care of on their own "leading" the even more people wanting resources than necessary "leading" to gov having to bite the bullet and decide who to help leading to a very angry, red Qre:us not getting enough meds "leading" to shitty reasoning all over the thread?

Well, you see, I understood that heirarchy meant a relationship, hence pointing out why what you most likely meant by 'case by case', given the context/sentiment of the rest of your post, was illogical.

This reeks of pure desperation. You should look up illogical, too.
Pro tip: If you can talk about "a" relationship, you can talk about a "case" of a relationship. I don't know who besides yourself is this impervious to reason.

In one of your posts, you said something along the lines of, "The heirachy may be logical. Or may not. But that's besides the point. "

Well, yes it is. It is beside the point because you are not made a victim of mental illness by the government's not having perfect reasons for why you are not at the front of the line for this particular hand-out.

You not getting it hardly has ANY commentary on its inapt/inept-ness. You know, given your...condition....

Oh I got it just fine. To you, amorphous society is your mommy.

 

[Qre:us]

I'm going to try to ignore most of your childish tantrums for your sake, because you clearly have a way to go . . . in many respects

Love the fact that you first initiate it by calling me crazy and then become petulant when someone meets you at your level. Mighty mature of ya....sulking when you get a taste of your own medicine.

[sigh] I already pointed out that the question to which I responded was where you said it was not possible to verify beforehand whether there's societal victimization at hand before finding the cause. Do you understand this? I don't know which is worse: the idea that you do not grasp this or the idea that you do grasp this but believe you can get away from the fact of having tied yourself in knots by saying something was not possible but then, on being shown how it is possible, coming up with a ton of deflection. I'm trying to remain respectful in tone but seriously - you cannot be that insensible. You were wrong. Grow up and admit it then we can get somewhere.

I said first you must recognize WHO then, WHAT. Who is most likely capable of victimizing, then, what kind of victimizing. E.g., one's environment that has an actively dynamic role - like....society. And, THEN, what they are doing. E.g., by looking at one's interaction with society. Given that society has certain active obligations if we account for this concept of a 'government'. So, WHO is likely to be relevant to the mentally ill? Government, as representatives of society. What are they doing? And, we evaluate...but to you 'that's besides the point'.

I'm not grasping your idea because it is NOT WHAT I AM SAYING...regardless of how many times you want to 'corner' me and my words to seem that I am.

I know. It does take a lot to deal with all the challenged folks in your head. Kind of you to let them speak for you. This is where I step aside from Typo C's very own crazy betsy and let the wardens place you in a padded cell.

You'll let me share your room?

It's symptomatic. It's all over the thread. Your constant failure to read and your much-evidenced practice of not making distinctions is symptomatic of a very real distortion. This is why you repeatedly confuse rights with interests, unfairness with victimization, ad nauseum. These failings make discussion pointless.

If you don't understand my point, I can see how it would be hard to grasp how these concepts can connect.

Good. Now Employment discrimination. My aren't we all over the map. Can you see how your right to not be discriminated against when you are seeking a job is not equal to a right to logically infallible grounds for not providing for all your mental health care?

All over the map? Not my fault you can't keep up.

Wait, wait.....what *all* health care? And you call ME deflecting? So, you agree that there's employment discrimination...and, don't agree that this can't be seen as 'victimization' how? Also, AGAIN, where have I said *all*. I keep telling you I never spoke of *all*. Even ONE instance of employment discrimination proves my point, they are being victimized (in that aspect). Victimized in EVERY aspect is a very broad term and I've never spoken of that. All it takes is ONE example of an act that shows an example of an obligated agency failing to properly enact said 'power' is a case of victimization towards the 'receipient'. I.e., even JUST employment discrimination proves my case that a person can be a victim of society.

Have you been understanding my position to be that whining about *wants* is the same as demanding one's legal rights be met? When I speak of the heirarchy, I'm assuming that they're ALL being recognized as necessary aids by the government, aka, government has SAID THEY WILL TAKE THAT RESPONSIBILITY (what hell else did you think I meant when I kept talking of obligation??), yet, some get placed higher, while others systematically ignored (a trend seen in X group - say, those with mental illness) in certain arenas (esp. even when policy mandates it so). And, questioning THIS WHY will lead us to understanding how 'victimization' is relevant and apparent.

This reeks of pure desperation. You should look up illogical, too.
Pro tip: If you can talk about "a" relationship, you can talk about a "case" of a relationship. I don't know who besides yourself is this impervious to reason.

Your failing to understand my argument does not make me illogical.

Well, yes it is. It is beside the point because you are not made a victim of mental illness by the government's not having perfect reasons for why you are not at the front of the line for this particular hand-out.

If for those 'hand-outs' it's a legal right of yours, yes it is.

You, when speaking with MDP2525 made a statement questioning how someone can be a 'victim of society', which piqued my interest in responding to you. She specifically was talking of help with medication and universal care. I have not been. I wanted to explore the term 'victim of society' in a broad sense. Either I've initially misunderstood your position (maybe you were only specifically referring to universal health care) and that you DO believe that there can be victims of society in other senses or you can't understand how the term 'victim of society' is realistically applicable?

But, I've been debating with you assuming that you do not believe a person can become a victim of society (not just in regards to universal health care). As such, I can't understand how you now acknowledge employment discrimination, but, cannot see how there's a victim in such situation?

Btw, the crux of my argument directed at you: How the heirarchy for aid/support across different groups is determined given an obligated maintenance of a right (e.g., equal access to housing, employment, etc), and how policy to practice works (and the gaps within, and WHY those gaps occur), should and needs to be questioned because it raises issues that would be relevant to us in understanding how 'victims of society' can occur. If you would be so kind to address this, rather than sweeping it off as 'besides the point'. Also, even looking at it 'case by case' - I don't understand really how *even* that evaluation doesn't produce evidence of marginalization and 'victims of society' (given the results of current research).

Oh I got it just fine. To you, amorphous society is your mommy.

Only if it is obligated to be my mommy in certain areas (given, policy and basic rights) and fails to do so, yes, I think one should have the right to cry for that bottle.

 

[wildcat]

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.

Yes. You are right there.

Multiple projection. The society is ill.
There exists six times the average amount of schizophrenia among the very poor.

It would be cheaper to give the schizophrenics a hand.
Market economy is not about the real cost of things. It is about the whose cost.
The who is the idle rich.

The rich are active. But they do not work.
They are supported by people who work.
The police is there for the rich. The rich do not cover the costs for the police, though.
The rich do not cover any costs.

Yes, the rich may even pay taxes. That is, some of them occasionally do.
With stolen money. Stolen money does not belong to the thief.
It belongs to the owner. The working man.
Money is the produce of labour.

The working man would build institutions and hospitals for the schizophrenics. Give them shelter and medicine and food and clean clothes. But he cannot.
His money is being stolen.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

Betsy? Is that you?

Less than mediocre. With practice you'll do better.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

ok, this has gotten boring.

That tends to happen when you don't have any other valid points to argue.

Ok Now it's the government's "hindrance" that's the victimization. Is that your 25th redefinition of victimization? If the government is unlawfully stopping people from freely going out to buy the medication, surgery, sex-change, boob-job, etc. they need to feel mentally whole (or terrorizing someone into PTSD), well then . . .

Yes. That can be used as a definition of "victimization". You are comparing getting medication with sex changes and boob-jobs? It's best to keep on topic. As the whole point of good debate is not to throw apples in with the oranges. Because, after all, one has nothing to do with the other. Obviously.

 

[Afkan]

Put a little note in the bottom of her coffee that says, "They are watching your every move. Meet me at the bus station tonight at 11pm. <Signed>A Friend."

ROTFL.

 

[INA]

Love the fact that you first initiate it by calling me crazy and then become petulant when someone meets you at your level.

Um no. You have been very petulant from the beginning. You are simply at a crescendo now. Go back and try to read from the beginning and see who keeps ratcheting it up. And all it does is highlight the emotionality and the lack of basis in legal fact of your many whines.
Not only that, but you try this dead end and the next and then become very angry at your own silly diversions.

Even ONE instance of employment discrimination proves my point, they are being victimized (in that aspect). Victimized in EVERY aspect is a very broad term and I've never spoken of that. All it takes is ONE example of an act that shows an example of an obligated agency failing to properly enact said 'power' is a case of victimization towards the 'receipient'. I.e., even JUST employment discrimination proves my case that a person can be a victim of society.

Not quite. I will keep it really simple for you, because otherwise you will have another episode and supplant your arguments with more caca than ever. You constantly bring up points that you obviously have a very tenuous understanding of and then fail to make the link to show what it is you want to show.

You mention, for example, the equal protection clause as guaranteeing rights against non-discrimination and then apply it to all and sundry actions by anyone. All it does is limit the state's abridgment of rights that you have. Not ones that you think you should have or that would be nice to have. The state can't pass laws or take actions that take away your given freedoms. The state cannot unlawfully discriminate against you with regard to any of those. This is your right. It is your right to take your case to court if you have been deprived of your right - under ADA or analogous state law.
However, the state cannot guarantee that there will be no stigma attached to you for whoever you are and whatever you do. It made no such promise, and not fulfilling an unmade promise is not victimization.

Discrimination by itself is not victimization, as you myopically state. Were that the case everybody would be victimized all the time. Employers may rightfully discriminate between one candidate and the next. You may discriminate between one man (or antipsychotic) and the next. You are not victimized every time there is a discrimination. There is lawful and unlawful discrimination. Some lawful discrimination is unfair, but it is not by that fact victimization unless you broaden the meaning of victimization. Some is bred of stigma, but still legal. Mental health status is not a suspect class. The government is not victimizing you by upholding the law because all it did was grant you equal protection of existing rights under the law.

If you are discriminated against unlawfully, you are free to exercise your rights to seek legal redress - like everybody else. Were you to claim that the state or fed government targeted you, as an insane person, to disallow purchase of medicine or eligibility to receive other benefits like everybody else, then you could claim victimization. If you were to state that the government is refusing you access to legal aid to enforce your rights under ADA or whatever and this aid is generally available to everyone else, then you could claim victimization. Simply stating that you don't have meds and/or can't get or keep a job/housing/etc. because you are crazy is not an appropriate use of the term victimization.
You could use victimization creatively (as I said early in the thread) and say that social stigma is the reason you are beset by all these woes, true. E.g. Someone "victimizes" crazy Betsy by not renting to her because he doubts her fitness as a tenant, and rents instead to someone he trusts more. The government can't save you from humanity. Still, what one person calls "victimization" by stigma another would call good sense.

 

[Jaguar]

I need 5 rolls of toilet paper to wipe up all the bullshit in this thread.

 

[Verfremdungseffekt]

Some of the responses to this thread are bizarre. It reminds me of a conversation I had a while ago; a regular at the cafe around the corner, a gentle professorial fellow, had recently been mugged just two blocks from here. And there had been another mugging the night before, that time with a gun. Normally this neighborhood is pretty safe, by Oakland standards, so I was expressing some concern. An acquaintance burst in and (in effect) accused me of being bourgeois and racist, for suddenly being afraid of being mugged now that I live in Oakland.

Dude. Guy I know, mugged, two fucking blocks from here. On a route I walk every day. Concern is not an unreasonable response. I mean, I'm not paralyzed with fear here. I'm just saying, heck, this is worrisome. What do you expect from me? If you want to get into a discussion about socioeconomic discrimination, go ahead and do that elsewhere. It's no use projecting.

 

[Halla74]

Can you ban someone completely from a public place without going to court and all that jazz?

Have you ever seen this sign:

"Management reserves the right to refuse service to ANYONE."

Private ownership is the bomb.

 

[Wiley45]

Usually the only signs I pay attention to are the ones that say stuff like, "Hippies use back door" ...



So an owner could just decide not to serve customers who, say, drive blue vehicles, and that would be perfectly legally acceptable? Something about that doesn't seem right.

 

[iwakar]

It's a coffee-shop, not big government. A private business doesn't owe you (as an individual) squat. It is the responsibility of the community to support businesses whose practices they support.