Forced Psychiatric Treatment or Care

There is a problem when a certain type of people are stripped of there rights, no matter how seemingly legitimately. There lays a fact of argument that is lacking from any possible opposition, possibility becomes the reality and possibility becomes the certainty in their reasoning.

Rights are removed for If's, ways of being treated as if it was not their right to be a certain way of thought or being. Choice is fundamentally a valid freedom to assume and not that of the forced modifications some within society have warranted intrusion on. All of which warranted by possibilities absent of an individual’s subjective fact in real-reality, just by psychical possibility in presumption. The error existing beyond reasonable cause, rather just reasonable assumption that may or may not be true.

In part, it can be seen as over-protectionism, yet protectionism no matter the originating intent should not be so very violating as it is now.

Just assumption in If’s, try to critical reason with what I have said here.

I agree with you. I go further because I am against all "life without parole" sentences, against all force-feeding, etc. However, I do see that certain people are a risk to others. I don't believe people should be saved from themselves though.

The presentation is excellent and does not compare reasonably to any sort of implied stupidity.

I believe it is balanced, direct and cannot fit the mold of everyone’s expectations in how it is they believe, yet is greeting to the majority whom are already in opposition. Additionally to anyone that might not have ever considered the politics, it is assertive in a sense of personal freedom that cannot be reasonably ignored.

However, pharmaceutical companies and stock holders of those companies as well as those employed by such treatment facilities including unions would have problems certainly.

A congressman as well made a note concerning the site in sort of a compliment in a letter.

http://www.nathanyoung.net/turninginbig ... rfive.html



The right to treatment does not supersede the fundamental freedoms of choice.

NathanY wrote:The presentation is excellent and does not compare reasonably to any sort of implied stupidity.

You are misinterpreting his statement. There is a book, by Micheal Moore, a known political/social satirical writer. The book is called "Stupid White Men". He has also created the movies "Farenheit 911", and "Bowling for Columbine".

What verty is trying to say is that your presentation is similar to the style of Micheal Moore. There is no implication of stupidity.

I cannot say I can interpret the reasoning in any sort of way other then I'm a stupid white man or that my presenation is not good like his.

I’m very use to smart ass remarks, and then I usually reply making them seem foolish. I do not know about that author and I have never seen the movie.

Can anyone disagree or agree with these statements:

Governmental employees threatening and force drugging and holding captive non-criminal U.S citizens without reasonable need such as life or death circumstances is a threat to national security.


Agree
1. The war upon mental illness, or rather what is imagined into some as so, threatens the integrity of the government in a way in which can result in reduced trust in it’s establishment. Reducing trust disenables it's ability to reasonably conduct itself do to the psychosocial divide with it's citizens no matter how micro.

Oppositional
2. The war on mental illness, or rather what is observed as behaviors that are dangerous to society preserves national security yet violates rights in order to preserve societal securities.

Just when is it for security reasons ok to violate freedoms and when is it not? A sort of complicated discussion of national security and governmental behaviorisms.

NathanY wrote:I cannot say I can interpret the reasoning in any sort of way other then I'm a stupid white man or that my presenation is not good like his.

I’m very use to smart ass remarks, and then I usually reply making them seem foolish. I do not know about that author and I have never seen the movie.

If it is an attempt to call you a "Stupid White Man", it's hidden in subtext, and in the work of Micheal Moore that is chosen. That is reading the a bit deep however. He has also attempted to clarify this point with you.

Again, he compared your style to Micheal Moore. To some that might be a compliment, to others, an insult. It can also be taken as neither, and just a statement.

Here is some information:
Bowling for Columbine
Michael Moore's Website

Note:
If you believe that you are being mistreated on the forums, you can PM a moderator.

I'm not one to tell on other people. The person knows the true intent in which he or she undertook.

NathanY wrote:I'm not one to tell on other people. The person knows the true intent in which he or she undertook.

I am not concerned with "telling on" anyone. I am concerned with preventing escalation on this forum.

That's why I changed the subject.