Has everyone already forgotten Question Mark?

[mercury14]

I'm pretty sure that is guy probably had all sorts of access to mental health care.

What services do you think he had access to?

 

[mercury14]

What does sympathy have to do with the topic?

Personalizing the discussion to bring emotion in to triumph over reason?



Emotion over reason is why so many really troubled people are left to their own devices...

HOW MANY TIMES were the cops called to deal with this kid and, like immigration, we just kept doing a catch and release until he did something really horrible and we finally had reasonable cause to forcibly treat him?

Number of times cops were called is not a reason for locking someone up in a psychiatric institution. Pretty sure nobody had an idea that he was going to go on a shooting spree in broad daylight. If there was evidence of such a plan then yes he could have been locked up.

 

[Karen Kraft]

The problem wasn't the gun.

The problem was the ACLU, the Left, the loonies and the absolute total hysterical fear of violating someone's civil rights...

It's why the insane homeless are allowed to wander the streets of our cities.

It's why our stalker/shooter wasn't in therapy and why he was allowed to get so close to his target; everyone was afraid of him but political correctness had them fawkin' paralyzed!

And then the same damned fools turn around and want to play "I told you so" over GUN control!

How about a little NUT CONTROL!!!

Funny 'tis...

... how the same left wingers who are shocked to learn that crazy people walk our streets armed with lawfully purchased weapons are the very same left wingers who ranted and raved against institutionalization, making it nearly impossible to perfect an involuntary commitment in many places.

... plus their logical misstep is never clearer when it comes to selective cause and effect: Bozo took a cab to Safeway. Ergo, (from Lefty's POV) it would make sense to outlaw taxis. "But he used a gun, not a cab," they blunder. "Right you are, Padawan Poo Eater... but you would still want to ban guns if he ran over everyone in the Safeway parking lot instead of shooting them..."

* snicker *

What if he used battery acid? Ban guns!
What if he used anthrax? Ban guns!
What if Colonel Mustard used his dick in the drawing room? Ban Talk Radio.

* smirk *

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

You say your views are black and white and then you twist them using pretzel logic and nuance to prove the opposite.

What you post just doesn't make logical sense. You make up terms and twist the meanings as you go along, all to substantiate your hatred.

I'm not your enemy, the person looking back at you in the mirror is.

You're just spouting.

Show me that I'm in a gray area...

It should be easy. But so far, you've gotten no where near it.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Ever notice the similarities between AJ's incoherent rambling illogic and that video by the Tucson shooter?

Me, too.

You gonna shoot us another one of your hollow-point bullet proofs?
Or are you just hateful, angry rhetoric?
One of Dem inspirational and motivational speakers?

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

What's this "demanding" stuff? The shooter was kicked out of community college and told by the school to get a mental health assessment. And his family tried to get him help for years.

After that, if a patient is not trying to kill himself or others, there's nothing that can be done to keep him in the hospital. Just... what are you suggesting should be done? Are you suggesting that people should be locked up because someone thinks they *might* become a threat at some point?

Also, who do you think should pay for these lock-up services? Like you said, we're broke.

But, he did not.

Law enforcement was REPEATEDLY called, his parents knew, and no one, NO ONE, tried to get him into at least 30 days observation. His mother had a job, I assume she had health insurance, it was a public-sector job, and I'm sure somehow, they could have found a way to pay for it.

How would we PAY for it?

Well, like we pay for anything else, by making some hard decisions. Maybe, for example, if the Federal Government wasn't focused on funneling so much money and resource in aiding and abetting illegals and SUING Arizona, we could have freed up some funds for our actual citizens. Maybe guys like you could offer to do some PRO BONO instead of siding with the ACLU and giving every nut job on the planet a hall pass in exchange for the promise of good behavior and the solemn oath to remain on their meds....

As for COP calls, yes, it SHOULD be a reason to at lest submit them to 30 days. That's a helluva lot cheaper that what we got this past weekend!




And yeah Karen, that's what I began pointing out on pages one and two.

First we unleash the loonies, and then we rail, FALSELY, about the "voices" that set them off. As per my other thread, the "voices" talking to this guy were on the Left and in his head, but the people who freed the nuts insist it's the voices of us who say lock them up for their own well-being...

 

[unregistered]

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Can you imagine somebody listening to Maxine Waters then calling the cops for a 30 day psychological observation? Hey wait a minute ....

Paul Krugman...

 

[Recidiva]

But, he did not.

Law enforcement was REPEATEDLY called, his parents knew, and no one, NO ONE, tried to get him into at least 30 days observation. His mother had a job, I assume she had health insurance, it was a public-sector job, and I'm sure somehow, they could have found a way to pay for it.

How would we PAY for it?

Well, like we pay for anything else, by making some hard decisions. Maybe, for example, if the Federal Government wasn't focused on funneling so much money and resource in aiding and abetting illegals and SUING Arizona, we could have freed up some funds for our actual citizens. Maybe guys like you could offer to do some PRO BONO instead of siding with the ACLU and giving every nut job on the planet a hall pass in exchange for the promise of good behavior and the solemn oath to remain on their meds....

As for COP calls, yes, it SHOULD be a reason to at lest submit them to 30 days. That's a helluva lot cheaper that what we got this past weekend!

And yeah Karen, that's what I began pointing out on pages one and two.

First we unleash the loonies, and then we rail, FALSELY, about the "voices" that set them off. As per my other thread, the "voices" talking to this guy were on the Left and in his head, but the people who freed the nuts insist it's the voices of us who say lock them up for their own well-being...

I've had any number of members of my family institutionalized for schizophrenia. They go on meds or they learn how to "fake it" and then they are released after those 48 hours or those 30 days.

You're really missing the procedural aspect of this. When someone is admitted for psychiatric service, they are stabilized and then released. On medication they will appear and can act stable, they might even BE stable. But if they wish to be released and don't say "Don't let me out, I know I'll hurt someone'" they are released, they promise to continue medication. Most often the medication either loses effectiveness over time and the person regresses.

Unless you are actively violent and have done harm, this is always a voluntary process. He did not volunteer for treatment. Unless someone is dedicated to their recovery, there is no way it will work. Same as an addict is not going to be reached through therapy and will only be permanently put away if they've done harm under the influence.

Threats are a common symptom of schizophrenia and are a result of the paranoid aspect. There are innumerable harmless people who are threatening compared to people who carry out their threats.

"Locked up permanently" only ever happens on a non-voluntary basis after a person has proven themselves to be a clear and persistent threat to self or others.

There is nothing the medical community can do for a schizophrenic who does not choose to be treated. There is only something they can do AFTER the illness causes harm to another, and then it's the medical community in conjunction with the penal code.

 

[unregistered]

 

[RobDownSouth]

Bullet points? We got plenty of them!

You gonna shoot us another one of your hollow-point bullet proofs?
Or are you just hateful, angry rhetoric?
One of Dem inspirational and motivational speakers?

You, more than anyone else, have more in common with the Tucson shooter.
It must've felt like a part of you died when he got caught...
These past few days must've been a nightmare for you

• The shooter was a librul in his youth...just like you
• The shooter then declared he was an "independent", while embracing the fringe right...just like you
• The shooter listed an Ayn Rand book as one of his favorites...just like you
• The shooter had a rambling, incoherent, inconsistent libertarian philosophy...just like you
• The shooter nonetheless was militantly anti-abortion...just like you
• The shooter despised the federal government..particularly the Fed...just like you
• The shooter loved shootin' guns..just like you
• The shooter admitting having an intense desire to foment chaos...just like you

So very much in common!

 

[zipman]

You're just spouting.

Show me that I'm in a gray area...

It should be easy. But so far, you've gotten no where near it.

Actually I already have. Let's start with your initial statement:

Everything is black and white. When you accept the premis that there is a gray, then everything tends to black.

When someone tells me, "You just see things in black and white, the issue is more nuanced than that," then the redneck translator tells me what they are saying is, "If you were a more nuanced thinker, you would see that I am right and you are wrong!"
A_J, the Stupid

Perhaps your problem is that you don't understand the meaning of the word "everything." Everything is an absolute and saying Everything is black and white is also an absolute. There is no possibility for deviation from it. Well, except to you because then you begin to nuance this position at the same time as saying you aren't.

I used killing as an example and your first reaction was to nuance that by asking if I meant killing or murder. Murder is a subset of killing and you were desperately trying to get to a more "nuanced" gray position. When I clarified I was speaking of killing you said:

I'm talking about the state and the limitations on it.

Again, you are trying to get to the gray area which is in direct contrast to your view that Everything is black and white. But your next response was even better:

zip, if I don't have your goat, then why are you being troll stupid?

My view has always been black and white and will remain so.

The State should never take the life of a citizen. It should have no hesitation in taking the lives of clear and present dangers to the state and hence its citizens.Justifiable homicide falls under this not one wit. It has nothing to do with anything other than Objective Law, which I am also a HUGE fan of...

Stop being obtuse on purpose. You're no where near as good as Throb at it.

Do you not see that saying "The State should never take the life of a citizen." is completely contradicted by the very next sentence you typed which was "It should have no hesitation in taking the lives of clear and present dangers to the state and hence its citizens"

That's not black and white at all. That's completely gray due to the fact that you are using context to differentiate when killing is okay and when it is not.

Maybe American Thinker uses a different definition of "everything" than the rest of the world.

 

[zipman]

You, more than anyone else, have more in common with the Tucson shooter.
It must've felt like a part of you died when he got caught...
These past few days must've been a nightmare for you

• The shooter was a librul in his youth...just like you
• The shooter then declared he was an "independent", while embracing the fringe right...just like you
• The shooter listed an Ayn Rand book as one of his favorites...just like you
• The shooter had a rambling, incoherent, inconsistent libertarian philosophy...just like you
• The shooter nonetheless was militantly anti-abortion...just like you
• The shooter despised the federal government..particularly the Fed...just like you
• The shooter loved shootin' guns..just like you
• The shooter admitting having an intense desire to foment chaos...just like you

So very much in common!

The shooter also had a fixation on ad hominem attacks, but didn't really understand them either. Now who does that sound like?

 

[Karen Kraft]

It is said that we will be the most politically correct people in the cemetery.

What do you want to bet the shooter voted for Obama?

 

[Recidiva]

What do you want to bet the shooter voted for Obama?

"Baiting dumbass strategy 342. Engaged."

 

[zipman]

Good morning A_J!

I hope you have a wonderful day.

 

[RobDownSouth]

"Baiting dumbass strategy 342. Engaged."

"DERP factor 7, Mr. Sulu, take us out of here!"

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

You are clearly operating based on a flawed premise. The world is not black and white no matter how much you may try and "nuance" yourself into believing that it is.

Critical thinking involves the ability to recognize and analyze context, not just assign ideas as absolutes.

Take killing for example. According to you, killing is either wrong and unacceptable under any circumstance or right and acceptable under any circumstance. I think we can all agree that killing isn't always right and acceptable, especially to anyone who professes to be a libertarian. However, if you look at killing based on self-defense, it is part of the world of gray that you deny exists. It is based on the context of the situation.

Nowhere here is there a cogent thought. It's all false association and ad Hominem by circumstance (class).

There is no "gray" in self defense if the discussion is to hinge on Libertarian principle.

zip, if I don't have your goat, then why are you being troll stupid?

My view has always been black and white and will remain so.

The State should never take the life of a citizen. It should have no hesitation in taking the lives of clear and present dangers to the state and hence its citizens.

Justifiable homicide falls under this not one wit. It has nothing to do with anything other than Objective Law, which I am also a HUGE fan of...

Stop being obtuse on purpose. You're no where near as good as Throb at it.

You're turning into a troll and sinking to Throb's level...


You gonna shoot us another one of your hollow-point bullet proofs?
Or are you just hateful, angry rhetoric?
One of Dem inspirational and motivational speakers?

Throb thread:
http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=745068

 

[zipman]

Nowhere here is there a cogent thought. It's all false association and ad Hominem by circumstance (class).

There is no "gray" in self defense if the discussion is to hinge on Libertarian principle.



You're turning into a troll and sinking to Throb's level...


You gonna shoot us another one of your hollow-point bullet proofs?
Or are you just hateful, angry rhetoric?
One of Dem inspirational and motivational speakers?

Throb thread:
http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=745068

LOL, at least I could admit that ordinality was a word when I was corrected. I didn't have to use the made up "ad hominem by class" bulllshit that you use each time you get called on your flawed logic and ridiculous statements.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Nowhere here is there a cogent thought. It's all false association and ad Hominem by circumstance (class).

You're turning into a troll and sinking to Throb's level...

You gonna shoot us another one of your hollow-point bullet proofs?
Or are you just hateful, angry rhetoric?
One of Dem inspirational and motivational speakers?

You, more than anyone else, have more in common with the Tucson shooter.
It must've felt like a part of you died when he got caught...
These past few days must've been a nightmare for you

• The shooter was a librul in his youth...just like you
• The shooter then declared he was an "independent", while embracing the fringe right...just like you
• The shooter listed an Ayn Rand book as one of his favorites...just like you
• The shooter had a rambling, incoherent, inconsistent libertarian philosophy...just like you
• The shooter nonetheless was militantly anti-abortion...just like you
• The shooter despised the federal government..particularly the Fed...just like you
• The shooter loved shootin' guns..just like you
• The shooter admitting having an intense desire to foment chaos...just like you

So very much in common! (I wonder if the shooter had trouble calculatin' 130% of $1.00 like you do?)

 

[off2bed]

Liberals usually mistake nuance for a lack of moral direction. With no morals to guide them, everything can be nuanced into being good or bad as the situation dictates, sometimes both at once. How else can they justify abortion and condemn capital punishment? Only by throwing away the moral compass can they claim Islamic terrorists are justified to attack us, for example.

Nuance is the refuge of moral cowards.

 

[zipman]

Liberals usually mistake nuance for a lack of moral direction. With no morals to guide them, everything can be nuanced into being good or bad as the situation dictates, sometimes both at once. How else can they justify abortion and condemn capital punishment? Only by throwing away the moral compass can they claim Islamic terrorists are justified to attack us, for example.

Nuance is the refuge of moral cowards.

No, viewing "Everything as Balck and White" is the world of extremism.

Then again, as a far rightwing nut, that is your world. And "nuance" is a convenient tactic often used by A_J at the same time he denounces it.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

LOL, at least I could admit that ordinality was a word when I was corrected. I didn't have to use the made up "ad hominem by class" bulllshit that you use each time you get called on your flawed logic and ridiculous statements.

I've posted the links to it.

Now, show me the "Gray" area you've found in my philosophy, or can you now not even answer your own challenge?

__________________

How about the strict separation of english and stupidity?

Ordinality isn't a word.

 

[off2bed]

No, viewing "Everything as Balck and White" is the world of extremism.

That itself is a black and white statement.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Liberals usually mistake nuance for a lack of moral direction. With no morals to guide them, everything can be nuanced into being good or bad as the situation dictates, sometimes both at once. How else can they justify abortion and condemn capital punishment? Only by throwing away the moral compass can they claim Islamic terrorists are justified to attack us, for example.

Nuance is the refuge of moral cowards.

And the Superman Cape of the Tyrant in waiting to "rescue" a people lost in the gray seas of nuance.




(... or the gray seize)