On 4/14/24 2:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <20240414115816.00002f6c@example.com>,
> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 23:20:47 -0700
>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 16:22:48 -0400, Rhino
>>> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If the homeless were allowed agency, there would inevitably be
>>>> pressure to hold them accountable for their actions. That would
>>>> undermine the "progressive" Saviours who are going to fix everything
>>>> with vast new and expensive - and almost certainly futile - programs
>>>> to help the poor darlings. It's far better to just declare them all
>>>> to be helpless captives of their addictions and mental health so
>>>> that "help" can be applied in whatever fashion the government and
>>>> their agents in the civil service deem necessary. Many many billions
>>>> of tax dollars can then be wasted on schemes that won't solve the
>>>> problem but WILL enrich the agencies that run the schemes.
>>>>
>>> You're suggesting forcible confinement in mental health facilities
>>
>> Actually, no, I was not even *thinking* of doing that.
>
> You may not be, but I am. If you're violently mentally ill, walking
> around threatening people and attacking them, you need to be removed
> from society. If your illness is such that treatment is ineffective,
> then you stay there forever. But there's no reason the rest of us should
> have to run the risk of being attacked, stabbed, set on fire, whatever
> your delusions are telling you to do just going about our daily lives.

Oh for sure, and let us not forget right wing assholes helped this along
by giving everyone easy access to guns.

On Apr 15, 2024 at 2:19:28 AM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 04:45:23 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> You may not be, but I am. If you're violently mentally ill, walking
>>> around threatening people and attacking them, you need to be removed
>>> from society. If your illness is such that treatment is ineffective,
>>> then you stay there forever. But there's no reason the rest of us should
>>> have to run the risk of being attacked, stabbed, set on fire, whatever
>>> your delusions are telling you to do just going about our daily lives.
>>>
>>
>> So, MAGA, then. Good idea!
>
> No - hardly.

That's all Effa has. Silly ad homs. He knows he can't defend what his fellow
travelers have done to the big blue cities in this country, so he just burps
out protest signs about Trump, even though Trump has zero to do with why there
are vagrants downloading onto the sidewalks and setting commuters on fire on
the subway trains.

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 04:45:23 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/14/24 3:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article <20240414115816.00002f6c@example.com>,
>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 23:20:47 -0700
>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 16:22:48 -0400, Rhino
>>>> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If the homeless were allowed agency, there would inevitably be
>>>>> pressure to hold them accountable for their actions. That would
>>>>> undermine the "progressive" Saviours who are going to fix everything
>>>>> with vast new and expensive - and almost certainly futile - programs
>>>>> to help the poor darlings. It's far better to just declare them all
>>>>> to be helpless captives of their addictions and mental health so
>>>>> that "help" can be applied in whatever fashion the government and
>>>>> their agents in the civil service deem necessary. Many many billions
>>>>> of tax dollars can then be wasted on schemes that won't solve the
>>>>> problem but WILL enrich the agencies that run the schemes.
>>>>>
>>>> You're suggesting forcible confinement in mental health facilities
>>>
>>> Actually, no, I was not even *thinking* of doing that.
>>
>> You may not be, but I am. If you're violently mentally ill, walking
>> around threatening people and attacking them, you need to be removed
>> from society. If your illness is such that treatment is ineffective,
>> then you stay there forever. But there's no reason the rest of us should
>> have to run the risk of being attacked, stabbed, set on fire, whatever
>> your delusions are telling you to do just going about our daily lives.
>>
>
>So, MAGA, then. Good idea!

It sounds like you're actually being critical of the idea that
mentally ill people (and "ordinary") criminals should not be free to
wreak havock on innocent people.

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 04:50:26 -0500, trotsky <gmsingh@email.com> wrote:

>On 4/14/24 2:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article <20240414115816.00002f6c@example.com>,
>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 23:20:47 -0700
>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 16:22:48 -0400, Rhino
>>>> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If the homeless were allowed agency, there would inevitably be
>>>>> pressure to hold them accountable for their actions. That would
>>>>> undermine the "progressive" Saviours who are going to fix everything
>>>>> with vast new and expensive - and almost certainly futile - programs
>>>>> to help the poor darlings. It's far better to just declare them all
>>>>> to be helpless captives of their addictions and mental health so
>>>>> that "help" can be applied in whatever fashion the government and
>>>>> their agents in the civil service deem necessary. Many many billions
>>>>> of tax dollars can then be wasted on schemes that won't solve the
>>>>> problem but WILL enrich the agencies that run the schemes.
>>>>>
>>>> You're suggesting forcible confinement in mental health facilities
>>>
>>> Actually, no, I was not even *thinking* of doing that.
>>
>> You may not be, but I am. If you're violently mentally ill, walking
>> around threatening people and attacking them, you need to be removed
>> from society. If your illness is such that treatment is ineffective,
>> then you stay there forever. But there's no reason the rest of us should
>> have to run the risk of being attacked, stabbed, set on fire, whatever
>> your delusions are telling you to do just going about our daily lives.
>
>
>Oh for sure, and let us not forget right wing assholes helped this along
>by giving everyone easy access to guns.

Yeah that's the problem...

<eyeroll>

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>Sat, 13 Apr 2024 23:20:47 -0700 The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>:

>>>>. . .

>>>You're suggesting forcible confinement in mental health facilities

>>Actually, no, I was not even *thinking* of doing that.

>You may not be, but I am. If you're violently mentally ill, walking
>around threatening people and attacking them, you need to be removed
>from society. If your illness is such that treatment is ineffective,
>then you stay there forever. But there's no reason the rest of us should
>have to run the risk of being attacked, stabbed, set on fire, whatever
>your delusions are telling you to do just going about our daily lives.

It is unfortunate that these cases aren't handled that way. The local
prosecutor could have a specialized team of assistant prosecutors that
take these cases directly to equity rather than criminal court, seeking
such an order.

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 17:19:45 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>Sat, 13 Apr 2024 23:20:47 -0700 The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>:
>
>>You may not be, but I am. If you're violently mentally ill, walking
>>around threatening people and attacking them, you need to be removed
>>from society. If your illness is such that treatment is ineffective,
>>then you stay there forever. But there's no reason the rest of us should
>>have to run the risk of being attacked, stabbed, set on fire, whatever
>>your delusions are telling you to do just going about our daily lives.
>
>It is unfortunate that these cases aren't handled that way. The local
>prosecutor could have a specialized team of assistant prosecutors that
>take these cases directly to equity rather than criminal court, seeking
>such an order.

I've said repeatedly that I as a taxpayer would happily triple the
budget for mental health services for addicts if the policy was
confinement until cure (and I do realize that something like a third
of addicts relapse) rather than maintenance.

I especially object to tax dollars going for "safe supply" which
essentially makes the general population pay for addicts' drugs with
zero effort going to getting them clean.

Contrary to numerous politicians who argue to the contrary, heroin and
fentanyl have nothing to do with insulin - for one thing most
diabetics "use" at home not in medical clinics and insulin certainly
isn't lethal in doses (I know it's possible to do damage to oneself
with insulin but not with dosages most would consider reasonable)

And the kicker is that diabetics using insulin think they're getting
off lucky if it only costs them $100/month vs "safe supply" addicts
who freely get their drugs along with the associated paraphenalia to
take them.

Nor do diabetics routinely divert drugs to unintended purposes like
"safe supply" addicts do which is how a lot of kids get caught these
days.

On 4/14/2024 3:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <20240414115816.00002f6c@example.com>,
> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 23:20:47 -0700
>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 16:22:48 -0400, Rhino
>>> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If the homeless were allowed agency, there would inevitably be
>>>> pressure to hold them accountable for their actions. That would
>>>> undermine the "progressive" Saviours who are going to fix everything
>>>> with vast new and expensive - and almost certainly futile - programs
>>>> to help the poor darlings. It's far better to just declare them all
>>>> to be helpless captives of their addictions and mental health so
>>>> that "help" can be applied in whatever fashion the government and
>>>> their agents in the civil service deem necessary. Many many billions
>>>> of tax dollars can then be wasted on schemes that won't solve the
>>>> problem but WILL enrich the agencies that run the schemes.
>>>>
>>> You're suggesting forcible confinement in mental health facilities
>>
>> Actually, no, I was not even *thinking* of doing that.
>
> You may not be, but I am. If you're violently mentally ill, walking
> around threatening people and attacking them, you need to be removed
> from society. If your illness is such that treatment is ineffective,
> then you stay there forever. But there's no reason the rest of us should
> have to run the risk of being attacked, stabbed, set on fire, whatever
> your delusions are telling you to do just going about our daily lives.

Actually, there is *some* reason we run such risks: we give personal
freedom the benefit of doubt under necessarily imperfect diagnoses.

In article
<17c68b3bbff3bbdb$39147$3340453$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com>,
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:

> On 4/14/2024 3:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <20240414115816.00002f6c@example.com>,
> > Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 23:20:47 -0700
> >> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 16:22:48 -0400, Rhino
> >>> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> If the homeless were allowed agency, there would inevitably be
> >>>> pressure to hold them accountable for their actions. That would
> >>>> undermine the "progressive" Saviours who are going to fix everything
> >>>> with vast new and expensive - and almost certainly futile - programs
> >>>> to help the poor darlings. It's far better to just declare them all
> >>>> to be helpless captives of their addictions and mental health so
> >>>> that "help" can be applied in whatever fashion the government and
> >>>> their agents in the civil service deem necessary. Many many billions
> >>>> of tax dollars can then be wasted on schemes that won't solve the
> >>>> problem but WILL enrich the agencies that run the schemes.
> >>>>
> >>> You're suggesting forcible confinement in mental health facilities
> >>
> >> Actually, no, I was not even *thinking* of doing that.
> >
> > You may not be, but I am. If you're violently mentally ill, walking
> > around threatening people and attacking them, you need to be removed
> > from society. If your illness is such that treatment is ineffective,
> > then you stay there forever. But there's no reason the rest of us should
> > have to run the risk of being attacked, stabbed, set on fire, whatever
> > your delusions are telling you to do just going about our daily lives.
>
> Actually, there is *some* reason we run such risks: we give personal
> freedom the benefit of doubt under necessarily imperfect diagnoses.

A mentally ill guy diagnosis himself perfectly when he violently attacks
someone. At that point we know something must be done about him that
involves removing him from society. The only question is whether that
removal is permanent or not.

On 4/15/24 3:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article
> <17c68b3bbff3bbdb$39147$3340453$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com>,
> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/14/2024 3:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <20240414115816.00002f6c@example.com>,
>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 23:20:47 -0700
>>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 16:22:48 -0400, Rhino
>>>>> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If the homeless were allowed agency, there would inevitably be
>>>>>> pressure to hold them accountable for their actions. That would
>>>>>> undermine the "progressive" Saviours who are going to fix everything
>>>>>> with vast new and expensive - and almost certainly futile - programs
>>>>>> to help the poor darlings. It's far better to just declare them all
>>>>>> to be helpless captives of their addictions and mental health so
>>>>>> that "help" can be applied in whatever fashion the government and
>>>>>> their agents in the civil service deem necessary. Many many billions
>>>>>> of tax dollars can then be wasted on schemes that won't solve the
>>>>>> problem but WILL enrich the agencies that run the schemes.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You're suggesting forcible confinement in mental health facilities
>>>>
>>>> Actually, no, I was not even *thinking* of doing that.
>>>
>>> You may not be, but I am. If you're violently mentally ill, walking
>>> around threatening people and attacking them, you need to be removed
>>> from society. If your illness is such that treatment is ineffective,
>>> then you stay there forever. But there's no reason the rest of us should
>>> have to run the risk of being attacked, stabbed, set on fire, whatever
>>> your delusions are telling you to do just going about our daily lives.
>>
>> Actually, there is *some* reason we run such risks: we give personal
>> freedom the benefit of doubt under necessarily imperfect diagnoses.
>
> A mentally ill guy diagnosis himself perfectly

Could you speak English please? You sound worse than a Trump.

when he violently attacks
> someone. At that point we know something must be done about him that
> involves removing him from society. The only question is whether that
> removal is permanent or not.

On 4/15/24 9:13 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Apr 15, 2024 at 2:19:28 AM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 04:45:23 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> You may not be, but I am. If you're violently mentally ill, walking
>>>> around threatening people and attacking them, you need to be removed
>>>> from society. If your illness is such that treatment is ineffective,
>>>> then you stay there forever. But there's no reason the rest of us should
>>>> have to run the risk of being attacked, stabbed, set on fire, whatever
>>>> your delusions are telling you to do just going about our daily lives.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So, MAGA, then. Good idea!
>>
>> No - hardly.
>
> That's all Effa has.

Sure, and meanwhile you continue to be too scared shitless to respond to
my posts. I like it!

Silly ad homs. He knows he can't defend what his fellow
> travelers have done to the big blue cities in this country, so he just burps
> out protest signs about Trump, even though Trump has zero to do with why there
> are vagrants downloading onto the sidewalks and setting commuters on fire on
> the subway trains.
>
>

On 4/15/2024 4:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article
> <17c68b3bbff3bbdb$39147$3340453$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com>,
> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/14/2024 3:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <20240414115816.00002f6c@example.com>,
>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 23:20:47 -0700
>>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 16:22:48 -0400, Rhino
>>>>> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If the homeless were allowed agency, there would inevitably be
>>>>>> pressure to hold them accountable for their actions. That would
>>>>>> undermine the "progressive" Saviours who are going to fix everything
>>>>>> with vast new and expensive - and almost certainly futile - programs
>>>>>> to help the poor darlings. It's far better to just declare them all
>>>>>> to be helpless captives of their addictions and mental health so
>>>>>> that "help" can be applied in whatever fashion the government and
>>>>>> their agents in the civil service deem necessary. Many many billions
>>>>>> of tax dollars can then be wasted on schemes that won't solve the
>>>>>> problem but WILL enrich the agencies that run the schemes.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You're suggesting forcible confinement in mental health facilities
>>>>
>>>> Actually, no, I was not even *thinking* of doing that.
>>>
>>> You may not be, but I am. If you're violently mentally ill, walking
>>> around threatening people and attacking them, you need to be removed
>>> from society. If your illness is such that treatment is ineffective,
>>> then you stay there forever. But there's no reason the rest of us should
>>> have to run the risk of being attacked, stabbed, set on fire, whatever
>>> your delusions are telling you to do just going about our daily lives.
>>
>> Actually, there is *some* reason we run such risks: we give personal
>> freedom the benefit of doubt under necessarily imperfect diagnoses.
>
> A mentally ill guy diagnosis himself perfectly when he violently attacks
> someone. At that point we know something must be done about him that
> involves removing him from society. The only question is whether that
> removal is permanent or not.

If "violent behavior" were an absolute indicator of mental illness, we
wouldn't have, e.g., the movie industry we do. My point is that we
willingly endure some of the risk you speak of, choosing to err on the
side of protecting individual weirdness. Sure, instances at either
extreme will be clear, but there'll always be the continuum between.

On 4/15/2024 4:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article
> <17c68b3bbff3bbdb$39147$3340453$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com>,
> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/14/2024 3:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <20240414115816.00002f6c@example.com>,
>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 23:20:47 -0700
>>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 16:22:48 -0400, Rhino
>>>>> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If the homeless were allowed agency, there would inevitably be
>>>>>> pressure to hold them accountable for their actions. That would
>>>>>> undermine the "progressive" Saviours who are going to fix everything
>>>>>> with vast new and expensive - and almost certainly futile - programs
>>>>>> to help the poor darlings. It's far better to just declare them all
>>>>>> to be helpless captives of their addictions and mental health so
>>>>>> that "help" can be applied in whatever fashion the government and
>>>>>> their agents in the civil service deem necessary. Many many billions
>>>>>> of tax dollars can then be wasted on schemes that won't solve the
>>>>>> problem but WILL enrich the agencies that run the schemes.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You're suggesting forcible confinement in mental health facilities
>>>>
>>>> Actually, no, I was not even *thinking* of doing that.
>>>
>>> You may not be, but I am. If you're violently mentally ill, walking
>>> around threatening people and attacking them, you need to be removed
>>> from society. If your illness is such that treatment is ineffective,
>>> then you stay there forever. But there's no reason the rest of us should
>>> have to run the risk of being attacked, stabbed, set on fire, whatever
>>> your delusions are telling you to do just going about our daily lives.
>>
>> Actually, there is *some* reason we run such risks: we give personal
>> freedom the benefit of doubt under necessarily imperfect diagnoses.
>
> A mentally ill guy diagnosis himself perfectly when he violently attacks
> someone. At that point we know something must be done about him that
> involves removing him from society. The only question is whether that
> removal is permanent or not.

If "violent behavior" were an absolute indicator of mental illness, we
wouldn't have, e.g., the movie industry we do. My point is that we
willingly endure some of the risk you speak of, choosing to err on the
side of protecting individual weirdness. Sure, instances at either
extreme will be clear, but there'll always be the continuum between.

On 4/15/2024 4:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article
> <17c68b3bbff3bbdb$39147$3340453$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com>,
> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/14/2024 3:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <20240414115816.00002f6c@example.com>,
>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 23:20:47 -0700
>>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 16:22:48 -0400, Rhino
>>>>> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If the homeless were allowed agency, there would inevitably be
>>>>>> pressure to hold them accountable for their actions. That would
>>>>>> undermine the "progressive" Saviours who are going to fix everything
>>>>>> with vast new and expensive - and almost certainly futile - programs
>>>>>> to help the poor darlings. It's far better to just declare them all
>>>>>> to be helpless captives of their addictions and mental health so
>>>>>> that "help" can be applied in whatever fashion the government and
>>>>>> their agents in the civil service deem necessary. Many many billions
>>>>>> of tax dollars can then be wasted on schemes that won't solve the
>>>>>> problem but WILL enrich the agencies that run the schemes.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You're suggesting forcible confinement in mental health facilities
>>>>
>>>> Actually, no, I was not even *thinking* of doing that.
>>>
>>> You may not be, but I am. If you're violently mentally ill, walking
>>> around threatening people and attacking them, you need to be removed
>>> from society. If your illness is such that treatment is ineffective,
>>> then you stay there forever. But there's no reason the rest of us should
>>> have to run the risk of being attacked, stabbed, set on fire, whatever
>>> your delusions are telling you to do just going about our daily lives.
>>
>> Actually, there is *some* reason we run such risks: we give personal
>> freedom the benefit of doubt under necessarily imperfect diagnoses.
>
> A mentally ill guy diagnosis himself perfectly when he violently attacks
> someone. At that point we know something must be done about him that
> involves removing him from society. The only question is whether that
> removal is permanent or not.

If "violent behavior" were an absolute indicator of mental illness, we
wouldn't have, e.g., the movie industry we do. My point is that we
willingly endure some of the risk you speak of, choosing to err on the
side of protecting individual weirdness. Sure, instances at either
extreme will be clear, but there'll always be the continuum between.

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 13:32:52 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>In article
><17c68b3bbff3bbdb$39147$3340453$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com>,
> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/14/2024 3:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> > In article <20240414115816.00002f6c@example.com>,
>> > Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 23:20:47 -0700
>> >> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 16:22:48 -0400, Rhino
>> >>> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> If the homeless were allowed agency, there would inevitably be
>> >>>> pressure to hold them accountable for their actions. That would
>> >>>> undermine the "progressive" Saviours who are going to fix everything
>> >>>> with vast new and expensive - and almost certainly futile - programs
>> >>>> to help the poor darlings. It's far better to just declare them all
>> >>>> to be helpless captives of their addictions and mental health so
>> >>>> that "help" can be applied in whatever fashion the government and
>> >>>> their agents in the civil service deem necessary. Many many billions
>> >>>> of tax dollars can then be wasted on schemes that won't solve the
>> >>>> problem but WILL enrich the agencies that run the schemes.
>> >>>>
>> >>> You're suggesting forcible confinement in mental health facilities
>> >>
>> >> Actually, no, I was not even *thinking* of doing that.
>> >
>> > You may not be, but I am. If you're violently mentally ill, walking
>> > around threatening people and attacking them, you need to be removed
>> > from society. If your illness is such that treatment is ineffective,
>> > then you stay there forever. But there's no reason the rest of us should
>> > have to run the risk of being attacked, stabbed, set on fire, whatever
>> > your delusions are telling you to do just going about our daily lives.
>>
>> Actually, there is *some* reason we run such risks: we give personal
>> freedom the benefit of doubt under necessarily imperfect diagnoses.
>
>A mentally ill guy diagnosis himself perfectly when he violently attacks
>someone. At that point we know something must be done about him that
>involves removing him from society. The only question is whether that
>removal is permanent or not.

Again a LOT of dangerous mentally ill individuals ARE perfectly safe
when on their meds. The problem is that many become ticking time bombs
when off their meds and when they are not institutionalized there is
no way of ensuring that they ARE actually on their meds.

People end up in forensic psychiatric units because they've done
something awful - and in my former IT career I once got stuck in a
forensic psychiatric unit during a lockdown. (Which was caused by
somebody off his meds "acting out") While they immediately locked all
doors and windows in and out of the unit, I headed for the main
nursing station, grabbed a pile of chairs to make myself as
unreachable as possible from the outside of the nursing station and
(a) tried to look invisible and (b) prayed. It was definitely a very
real and definitely NOT funny version of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's
Nest.

My super took me to coffee afterwards and said "I hear you had some
excitement in psychiatric this morning, tell me what happened....."
and was told getting myself safe and looking as invisible as possible
that I had done the right thing and that had the staff thought I
could have helped they would have asked for my help. (Given his
personality this was equivalent to giving me a medal!)

Bottom line is that if a forensic patient goes off their meds for
whatever reason all bets are off and pretty much any kind of behaviour
is possible. At that point they are very definitely a danger to the
public if they are out on the street.

[Of course it wasn't quite as scary for me as installing equipment in
the neonatal ICU when my wife was 7 months pregnant with our first but
that was more "Lord don't let my little one look anything like these"
since preemies don't look soft and cuddly but rather shriveled and
wan]

On 4/15/24 10:13 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Apr 15, 2024 at 2:19:28 AM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 04:45:23 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> You may not be, but I am. If you're violently mentally ill, walking
>>>> around threatening people and attacking them, you need to be removed
>>>> from society. If your illness is such that treatment is ineffective,
>>>> then you stay there forever. But there's no reason the rest of us should
>>>> have to run the risk of being attacked, stabbed, set on fire, whatever
>>>> your delusions are telling you to do just going about our daily lives.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So, MAGA, then. Good idea!
>>
>> No - hardly.
>
> That's all Effa has. Silly ad homs. He knows he can't defend what his fellow
> travelers have done to the big blue cities in this country, so he just burps
> out protest signs about Trump, even though Trump has zero to do with why there
> are vagrants downloading onto the sidewalks and setting commuters on fire on
> the subway trains.
>
>

Spare me. Your buddy maimed over 140 police officers, has inspired bomb
threats, and attacks on FBI offices.

Go tell your fellow cultists about how bad the cities are. That should
distract them from all the damage your Dear Leader did.

First ex President to face criminal trial in history.
First President to be impeached twice.
First President to be found liable for rape by a court of law.
First President whose incompetence led to the deaths of a million Americans.

Sure, you keep talking about vagrants and "troons". Because if you had
to talk about important things, you'd choke to death.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 4/15/24 6:06 PM, trotsky wrote:
> On 4/15/24 9:13 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> On Apr 15, 2024 at 2:19:28 AM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <lcraver@home.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 04:45:23 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>   You may not be, but I am. If you're violently mentally ill, walking
>>>>>   around threatening people and attacking them, you need to be removed
>>>>>   from society. If your illness is such that treatment is ineffective,
>>>>>   then you stay there forever. But there's no reason the rest of us
>>>>> should
>>>>>   have to run the risk of being attacked, stabbed, set on fire,
>>>>> whatever
>>>>>   your delusions are telling you to do just going about our daily
>>>>> lives.
>>>>
>>>> So, MAGA, then. Good idea!
>>>
>>> No - hardly.
>>
>> That's all Effa has.
>
>
> Sure, and meanwhile you continue to be too scared shitless to respond to
> my posts.  I like it!
>
>
> Silly ad homs. He knows he can't defend what his fellow
>> travelers have done to the big blue cities in this country, so he just
>> burps
>> out protest signs about Trump, even though Trump has zero to do with
>> why there
>> are vagrants downloading onto the sidewalks and setting commuters on
>> fire on
>> the subway trains.
>>
>>
>

"Boo-hoo! I saw a vagrant!"
Fucking snowflake.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 4/15/24 6:00 PM, trotsky wrote:
> On 4/15/24 3:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article
>> <17c68b3bbff3bbdb$39147$3340453$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com>,
>>   moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/14/2024 3:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> In article <20240414115816.00002f6c@example.com>,
>>>>    Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 23:20:47 -0700
>>>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 16:22:48 -0400, Rhino
>>>>>> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the homeless were allowed agency, there would inevitably be
>>>>>>> pressure to hold them accountable for their actions. That would
>>>>>>> undermine the "progressive" Saviours who are going to fix everything
>>>>>>> with vast new and expensive - and almost certainly futile - programs
>>>>>>> to help the poor darlings. It's far better to just declare them all
>>>>>>> to be helpless captives of their addictions and mental health so
>>>>>>> that "help" can be applied in whatever fashion the government and
>>>>>>> their agents in the civil service deem necessary. Many many billions
>>>>>>> of tax dollars can then be wasted on schemes that won't solve the
>>>>>>> problem but WILL enrich the agencies that run the schemes.
>>>>>> You're suggesting forcible confinement in mental health facilities
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, no, I was not even *thinking* of doing that.
>>>>
>>>> You may not be, but I am. If you're violently mentally ill, walking
>>>> around threatening people and attacking them, you need to be removed
>>>> from society. If your illness is such that treatment is ineffective,
>>>> then you stay there forever. But there's no reason the rest of us
>>>> should
>>>> have to run the risk of being attacked, stabbed, set on fire, whatever
>>>> your delusions are telling you to do just going about our daily lives.
>>>
>>> Actually, there is *some* reason we run such risks: we give personal
>>> freedom the benefit of doubt under necessarily imperfect diagnoses.
>>
>> A mentally ill guy diagnosis himself perfectly
>
>
> Could you speak English please?  You sound worse than a Trump.
>
>
>
> when he violently attacks
>> someone. At that point we know something must be done about him that
>> involves removing him from society. The only question is whether that
>> removal is permanent or not.
>

He is worse than Trump. Trump is mentally ill.
Trump can't help it, he's damaged.

This fucker knows exactly what he's doing.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 4/15/24 4:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article
> <17c68b3bbff3bbdb$39147$3340453$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com>,
> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/14/2024 3:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <20240414115816.00002f6c@example.com>,
>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 23:20:47 -0700
>>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 16:22:48 -0400, Rhino
>>>>> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If the homeless were allowed agency, there would inevitably be
>>>>>> pressure to hold them accountable for their actions. That would
>>>>>> undermine the "progressive" Saviours who are going to fix everything
>>>>>> with vast new and expensive - and almost certainly futile - programs
>>>>>> to help the poor darlings. It's far better to just declare them all
>>>>>> to be helpless captives of their addictions and mental health so
>>>>>> that "help" can be applied in whatever fashion the government and
>>>>>> their agents in the civil service deem necessary. Many many billions
>>>>>> of tax dollars can then be wasted on schemes that won't solve the
>>>>>> problem but WILL enrich the agencies that run the schemes.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You're suggesting forcible confinement in mental health facilities
>>>>
>>>> Actually, no, I was not even *thinking* of doing that.
>>>
>>> You may not be, but I am. If you're violently mentally ill, walking
>>> around threatening people and attacking them, you need to be removed
>>> from society. If your illness is such that treatment is ineffective,
>>> then you stay there forever. But there's no reason the rest of us should
>>> have to run the risk of being attacked, stabbed, set on fire, whatever
>>> your delusions are telling you to do just going about our daily lives.
>>
>> Actually, there is *some* reason we run such risks: we give personal
>> freedom the benefit of doubt under necessarily imperfect diagnoses.
>
> A mentally ill guy diagnosis himself perfectly when he violently attacks
> someone. At that point we know something must be done about him that
> involves removing him from society. The only question is whether that
> removal is permanent or not.
>

Kinda like attacking cops with flagpole spears? Like that kind of
violent attacks?

Or beating cops with fire extinguishers and cutting off fingers and
gouging out eyes? That kind of mental illness?

Because you're not going to believe this! There's a guy who wants to
let a thousand of those violent mentally ill CRIMINALS back out on the
street.

I know! Hard to believe, isn't it?

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

In article <uvlpcv$u7hv$4@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 4/15/24 4:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article
> > <17c68b3bbff3bbdb$39147$3340453$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com>,
> > moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 4/14/2024 3:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> In article <20240414115816.00002f6c@example.com>,
> >>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 23:20:47 -0700
> >>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 16:22:48 -0400, Rhino
> >>>>> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> If the homeless were allowed agency, there would inevitably be
> >>>>>> pressure to hold them accountable for their actions. That would
> >>>>>> undermine the "progressive" Saviours who are going to fix everything
> >>>>>> with vast new and expensive - and almost certainly futile - programs
> >>>>>> to help the poor darlings. It's far better to just declare them all
> >>>>>> to be helpless captives of their addictions and mental health so
> >>>>>> that "help" can be applied in whatever fashion the government and
> >>>>>> their agents in the civil service deem necessary. Many many billions
> >>>>>> of tax dollars can then be wasted on schemes that won't solve the
> >>>>>> problem but WILL enrich the agencies that run the schemes.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> You're suggesting forcible confinement in mental health facilities
> >>>>
> >>>> Actually, no, I was not even *thinking* of doing that.
> >>>
> >>> You may not be, but I am. If you're violently mentally ill, walking
> >>> around threatening people and attacking them, you need to be removed
> >>> from society. If your illness is such that treatment is ineffective,
> >>> then you stay there forever. But there's no reason the rest of us should
> >>> have to run the risk of being attacked, stabbed, set on fire, whatever
> >>> your delusions are telling you to do just going about our daily lives.
> >>
> >> Actually, there is *some* reason we run such risks: we give personal
> >> freedom the benefit of doubt under necessarily imperfect diagnoses.
> >
> > A mentally ill guy diagnoses himself perfectly when he violently attacks
> > someone. At that point we know something must be done about him that
> > involves removing him from society. The only question is whether that
> > removal is permanent or not.
> >
> Kinda like attacking cops with flagpole spears? Like that kind of
> violent attacks?

They were actually arrested and put them in prison, weren't they?

If only our Democrat 'leaders' in California would do the same to our
violent nutbags. I guess arrest only comes when the violent attacker has
different politics than a leftist. If you're down with the Agenda, you
can do whatever you want in Democrat-controlled California.

On 4/16/24 2:08 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <uvlpcv$u7hv$4@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/15/24 4:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <17c68b3bbff3bbdb$39147$3340453$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com>,
>>> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/14/2024 3:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <20240414115816.00002f6c@example.com>,
>>>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 23:20:47 -0700
>>>>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 16:22:48 -0400, Rhino
>>>>>>> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If the homeless were allowed agency, there would inevitably be
>>>>>>>> pressure to hold them accountable for their actions. That would
>>>>>>>> undermine the "progressive" Saviours who are going to fix everything
>>>>>>>> with vast new and expensive - and almost certainly futile - programs
>>>>>>>> to help the poor darlings. It's far better to just declare them all
>>>>>>>> to be helpless captives of their addictions and mental health so
>>>>>>>> that "help" can be applied in whatever fashion the government and
>>>>>>>> their agents in the civil service deem necessary. Many many billions
>>>>>>>> of tax dollars can then be wasted on schemes that won't solve the
>>>>>>>> problem but WILL enrich the agencies that run the schemes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're suggesting forcible confinement in mental health facilities
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, no, I was not even *thinking* of doing that.
>>>>>
>>>>> You may not be, but I am. If you're violently mentally ill, walking
>>>>> around threatening people and attacking them, you need to be removed
>>>>> from society. If your illness is such that treatment is ineffective,
>>>>> then you stay there forever. But there's no reason the rest of us should
>>>>> have to run the risk of being attacked, stabbed, set on fire, whatever
>>>>> your delusions are telling you to do just going about our daily lives.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, there is *some* reason we run such risks: we give personal
>>>> freedom the benefit of doubt under necessarily imperfect diagnoses.
>>>
>>> A mentally ill guy diagnoses himself perfectly when he violently attacks
>>> someone. At that point we know something must be done about him that
>>> involves removing him from society. The only question is whether that
>>> removal is permanent or not.
>>>
>> Kinda like attacking cops with flagpole spears? Like that kind of
>> violent attacks?
>
> They were actually arrested and put them in prison,

Can you have someone translate this into English please?

weren't they?
>
> If only our Democrat 'leaders' in California would do the same to our
> violent nutbags. I guess arrest only comes when the violent attacker has
> different politics than a leftist. If you're down with the Agenda, you
> can do whatever you want in Democrat-controlled California.

On 4/16/24 3:08 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <uvlpcv$u7hv$4@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/15/24 4:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <17c68b3bbff3bbdb$39147$3340453$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com>,
>>> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/14/2024 3:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <20240414115816.00002f6c@example.com>,
>>>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 23:20:47 -0700
>>>>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 16:22:48 -0400, Rhino
>>>>>>> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If the homeless were allowed agency, there would inevitably be
>>>>>>>> pressure to hold them accountable for their actions. That would
>>>>>>>> undermine the "progressive" Saviours who are going to fix everything
>>>>>>>> with vast new and expensive - and almost certainly futile - programs
>>>>>>>> to help the poor darlings. It's far better to just declare them all
>>>>>>>> to be helpless captives of their addictions and mental health so
>>>>>>>> that "help" can be applied in whatever fashion the government and
>>>>>>>> their agents in the civil service deem necessary. Many many billions
>>>>>>>> of tax dollars can then be wasted on schemes that won't solve the
>>>>>>>> problem but WILL enrich the agencies that run the schemes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're suggesting forcible confinement in mental health facilities
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, no, I was not even *thinking* of doing that.
>>>>>
>>>>> You may not be, but I am. If you're violently mentally ill, walking
>>>>> around threatening people and attacking them, you need to be removed
>>>>> from society. If your illness is such that treatment is ineffective,
>>>>> then you stay there forever. But there's no reason the rest of us should
>>>>> have to run the risk of being attacked, stabbed, set on fire, whatever
>>>>> your delusions are telling you to do just going about our daily lives.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, there is *some* reason we run such risks: we give personal
>>>> freedom the benefit of doubt under necessarily imperfect diagnoses.
>>>
>>> A mentally ill guy diagnoses himself perfectly when he violently attacks
>>> someone. At that point we know something must be done about him that
>>> involves removing him from society. The only question is whether that
>>> removal is permanent or not.
>>>
>> Kinda like attacking cops with flagpole spears? Like that kind of
>> violent attacks?
>
> They were actually arrested and put them in prison, weren't they?
>
> If only our Democrat 'leaders' in California would do the same to our
> violent nutbags. I guess arrest only comes when the violent attacker has
> different politics than a leftist. If you're down with the Agenda, you
> can do whatever you want in Democrat-controlled California.
>

Not the people BEHIND it. They're either in office, or running for office.

So, the answer is "no". They weren't arrested and put in prison. The
flunkies and patsies were... and not even most of them.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 12:08:01 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>If only our Democrat 'leaders' in California would do the same to our
>violent nutbags. I guess arrest only comes when the violent attacker has
>different politics than a leftist. If you're down with the Agenda, you
>can do whatever you want in Democrat-controlled California.

Guess I should be grateful Mom + Dad moved me out of California
(Richmond which is N of SF which I hear is one of the wokest part of
California these days) when I was 2!

On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 08:40:07 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:

>> If only our Democrat 'leaders' in California would do the same to our
>> violent nutbags. I guess arrest only comes when the violent attacker has
>> different politics than a leftist. If you're down with the Agenda, you
>> can do whatever you want in Democrat-controlled California.
>>
>
>Not the people BEHIND it. They're either in office, or running for office.
>
>So, the answer is "no". They weren't arrested and put in prison. The
>flunkies and patsies were... and not even most of them.
>
So if I understand you correctly we should be grateful they weren't
taken to City Hall and given medals...