dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
6024

Kardinal
Dei Gratina Regina
Mod
join:2001-02-04
N of 49th

1 edit

Kardinal to urbanriot

Mod

to urbanriot

Re: Kayla Bourque - Killer in the waiting

said by dirtyjeffer0:

(as most of the "Lib-Left" in here like to trumpet)

said by dirtyjeffer0:

there is no political rhetoric at all...when many of the "tough on crime" crowd bring up topics, we are often told about how prisons (and a modern society) should be more about rehabilitation and less about "rotting in jail".

Interesting that you don't see trotting out the stereotyping phrase of "Lib-Left" as rhetoric. I'll still take the high road and stay away from being equally political about where the "PUNISH THEM!" types sit on the political spectrum as it's the wrong forum for that sort of comment, to say nothing about the fact that it would contribute nothing to the ongoing debate.
said by urbanriot:

That's what you're saying right? Three years of therapy will cure someone that's tortured animals to death and has triggered specialist warnings that she'll kill again?

No it isn't. For one I don't use the word "cured" or terms like "fix her" with regard to mental illness, because it's much more complicated than a common cold or even something like cancer. They make a great sound bite and a pithy phrase for those who are trying to make a point, but that's about it.

The entire situation is complicated, and I don't believe that moving to a system of "unlimited detention until someone says you can get out" is the solution, to say nothing of the problems with the concept on a constitutional level as well as procedural, practical, and implementation levels. I'm not falling for the trap door of "well, you tell me the solution that'll work then" either, as I don't pretend to have all the answers.

I also don't believe on setting broad-based public policy based on emotional reactions to specific case decisions that displease. Turcotte, Li, Bourque.....they've all provoked the same sort of moral outrage because people didn't like what the system that would be depending on for their new solution of indefinite detention until "cured" decided to act. I don't see that displeasure going away anytime soon, but to propose a change as radical as "no more sentence lengths", as has been suggested in this thread, is not an idea I'm comfortable with as I don't see it being implementable, reasonable, or sustainable.

(edit = fixed typo)

Gone
Premium Member
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON

1 recommendation

Gone to urbanriot

Premium Member

to urbanriot
The point is that you can't "err on the side of caution" when it comes to one's right to liberty as outlined in Section 7 of the Charter. So long as the principals of fundamental justice are applied related to the specific crime they are charged with, there's nothing you can do beyond that. This becomes particularly evident when animal cruelty is an all-encompassing charge with varying levels including the aforementioned situations where one locks their dog in the car during the summer.

If the link were absolute - as in all who engage in animal cruelty will go on to commit violence against human beings - then a justification for depriving them of their freedom could possibly be made. Until then, the argument simply isn't strong enough.

urbanriot
Premium Member
join:2004-10-18
Canada

urbanriot to Kardinal

Premium Member

to Kardinal
said by Kardinal:

I'll still take the high road and stay away from being equally political about where the "PUNISH THEM!"

Good, because that's not what I'm saying. I'm suggesting we "KEEP AN EYE ON THEM!"

If we had zero repeat offenders or if behaviours were not proven to escalate in most criminals, I'd be just as passive on this topic; but when I hear on the news, "he had a history" of such behavours, it triggers an obvious flag that maybe we should be a little more involved in the lives of these people after their first conviction.
said by Kardinal:

I'm not falling for the trap door of "well, you tell me the solution that'll work then" either, as I don't pretend to have all the answers.

The only reason why I'm pushing you to respond is because the critical nature of your posts responding to others suggests that you have an alternative. You're not working with people in this thread, you're working against them.

Not riposting with an alternative solution is almost the same as saying, "I'm fine with things the way they are now and there's an acceptable loss for human life to allow criminals to maintain freedom." You may not have said that but it's how you're coming across.

I want to bandy about ideas because we have a current problem in our society and this case here is an example of an early indication that we'll have a problem down the road.

Are none of these ideas presented in this thread even a little workable with your ideologies? Could you not compromise and accept further sessions later in the life of a convicted criminal to ensure they're 'doing okay'? Sometimes just talking about a problem can aid a person and sometimes people won't seek out another person when they have a problem.
said by Kardinal:

they've all provoked the same sort of moral outrage

This is more than just moral outrage, it involves an analysis of the history of escalated behaviors of other criminals in North American society and working towards finding a solution to decreasing the loss of life in our society.

Kardinal
Dei Gratina Regina
Mod
join:2001-02-04
N of 49th

Kardinal

Mod

said by urbanriot:

said by Kardinal:

I'll still take the high road and stay away from being equally political about where the "PUNISH THEM!"

Good, because that's not what I'm saying. I'm suggesting we "KEEP AN EYE ON THEM!"

Heh.....I don't recall referring to you, nor was replying to a quote from you, but whatever.
said by Kardinal:

I'm not falling for the trap door of "well, you tell me the solution that'll work then" either, as I don't pretend to have all the answers.

said by urbanriot:

Not riposting with an alternative solution is almost the same as saying, "I'm fine with things the way they are now and there's an acceptable loss for human life to allow criminals to maintain freedom." You may not have said that but it's how you're coming across.

BZZZT! Cunning language alert! Key and subtle use of "almost", positioned to put words in-my-mouth-but-not-really-but-I-can-make-you-look-bad-for-almost-saying-it. Too bad it's a just another straw man argument.

I've been against the proposal since it was made because I don't like the idea of blanket indefinite detention for convicted offenders. I don't have to come up with an alternate that is palatable to others if I think the concept is bad, just to make them feel better. I've never, ever, said that the current system can't be improved; I've said only that the proposal won't work, and explained why. If those who insist it IS a good idea can't work within the reasons I've given for why it isn't to improve their concept, then don't expect me to take an idea I don't like and twist/turn/spiral it into something I might just to satisfy the opposite side of the discussion. What started with as hysteria against a very narrow focus of offenders (namely, Kayla Bourque and -esque types) has now broadened to include seemingly and and all repeat offenders and the proposal seems to be to detain indefinitely until they are "cured" (cured = not my words, but used upthread). Reign it in, change it, whatever, but I'm not about to change my position on the concept, as presented, because the reasons provided already are still valid as far as I'm concerned and there's been nothing presented to change my positioning on that.
said by urbanriot:

I want to bandy about ideas because we have a current problem in our society and this case here is an example of an early indication that we'll have a problem down the road.


Good. If you think there is an early indication of a problem, then come up with other ideas then, rather than accusing me of being stubborn because I won't move from my stance of a proposal being bad just because people keep pushing that it is good. I'm not here to do your work for you.

Anav
Sarcastic Llama? Naw, Just Acerbic
Premium Member
join:2001-07-16
Dartmouth, NS

Anav to Gone

Premium Member

to Gone
said by Gone:

The point is that you can't "err on the side of caution" when it comes to one's right to liberty as outlined in Section 7 of the Charter. So long as the principals of fundamental justice are applied related to the specific crime they are charged with, there's nothing you can do beyond that. This becomes particularly evident when animal cruelty is an all-encompassing charge with varying levels including the aforementioned situations where one locks their dog in the car during the summer.

If the link were absolute - as in all who engage in animal cruelty will go on to commit violence against human beings - then a justification for depriving them of their freedom could possibly be made. Until then, the argument simply isn't strong enough.

Well stated Urban, both Kardinal and Gone, quite frankly are stuck in the box and cant think of a different shape to the charter. I propose its time to stop answering their broken record mindless answers. Tis people with that mindset that thought women shouldnt vote or gays and lesbians should not be permitted to marry etc etc............. If you catch me wearing cement golashes please shoot me.

PS Kardinal much to my chagrin your sounding just like Gone, with a slightly different twist but essentially unwilling to explore.

Gone
Premium Member
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON

Gone

Premium Member

If you want to "explore" concepts like this you must also "explore" the wide-reaching ramifications of the associated Charter modifications that would be required for any of these proposals to be anywhere even remotely close to being legal.

Until then, this entire line of discussion is a waste of time and bandwidth because it would be impossible to ever achieve. Your quest for exploration accomplishes nothing except to self-gratify those who neither understand the law, nor those who would ever research and understand an issue in depth before responding.

Quite frankly, you're "exploring" nothing.
NCRGuy
join:2008-03-03
Ottawa, ON

1 recommendation

NCRGuy to Anav

Member

to Anav
said by Anav:

said by Gone:

The point is that you can't "err on the side of caution" when it comes to one's right to liberty as outlined in Section 7 of the Charter. So long as the principals of fundamental justice are applied related to the specific crime they are charged with, there's nothing you can do beyond that. This becomes particularly evident when animal cruelty is an all-encompassing charge with varying levels including the aforementioned situations where one locks their dog in the car during the summer.

If the link were absolute - as in all who engage in animal cruelty will go on to commit violence against human beings - then a justification for depriving them of their freedom could possibly be made. Until then, the argument simply isn't strong enough.

Well stated Urban, both Kardinal and Gone, quite frankly are stuck in the box and cant think of a different shape to the charter. I propose its time to stop answering their broken record mindless answers. Tis people with that mindset that thought women shouldnt vote or gays and lesbians should not be permitted to marry etc etc............. If you catch me wearing cement golashes please shoot me.

PS Kardinal much to my chagrin your sounding just like Gone, with a slightly different twist but essentially unwilling to explore.

This is one of the most ridiculous posts I think I have ever seen on this forum. A ridiculous proposition was made. The absence of a counter-proposal doesn't make it any less ridiculous, and to suggest otherwise is just plain ignorant.

urbanriot
Premium Member
join:2004-10-18
Canada

urbanriot to Kardinal

Premium Member

to Kardinal
said by Kardinal:

BZZZT! Cunning language alert! Key and subtle use of "almost", positioned to put words in-my-mouth-but-not-really-but-I-can-make-you-look-bad-for-almost-saying-it. Too bad it's a just another straw man argument.

... there's no buzzers or the overly used colloquial "straw man", I'm trying to relay to you how you're perceived. This isn't a right or wrong conveyance, it's a "this is how some see your commentary and this awareness may be helpful to you."

Based on your recent response, I'd eliminate 'almost' and the only way to interpret everything you've said is that you're willing to accept the loss of human life in trade for criminal freedoms.
said by Kardinal:


Good. If you think there is an early indication of a problem, then come up with other ideas then, rather than accusing me of being stubborn because I won't move from my stance of a proposal being bad just because people keep pushing that it is good. I'm not here to do your work for you.

If you'd written "I'm not here to do any work, other than critique everyone else" it would be more accurate to your role.

I've always felt that criticizing others plays a role in evaluating ideas but if you're unable to contribute ideas contrary to what's proposed, then you really are agreeing that the system that's in place is the system that's right for you.

Or in other words, "everyone else is wrong but I'm not willing to contribute my own opinion, just criticize."

So, again, does our system work well for you and you're satisfied with it... or not?
vue666 (banned)
Let's make Canchat better!!!
join:2007-12-07

1 edit

vue666 (banned) to Anav

Member

to Anav
said by Anav:

said by Gone:

The point is that you can't "err on the side of caution" when it comes to one's right to liberty as outlined in Section 7 of the Charter. So long as the principals of fundamental justice are applied related to the specific crime they are charged with, there's nothing you can do beyond that. This becomes particularly evident when animal cruelty is an all-encompassing charge with varying levels including the aforementioned situations where one locks their dog in the car during the summer.

If the link were absolute - as in all who engage in animal cruelty will go on to commit violence against human beings - then a justification for depriving them of their freedom could possibly be made. Until then, the argument simply isn't strong enough.

Well stated Urban, both Kardinal and Gone, quite frankly are stuck in the box and cant think of a different shape to the charter. I propose its time to stop answering their broken record mindless answers. Tis people with that mindset that thought women shouldnt vote or gays and lesbians should not be permitted to marry etc etc............. If you catch me wearing cement golashes please shoot me.

PS Kardinal much to my chagrin your sounding just like Gone, with a slightly different twist but essentially unwilling to explore.

Status quo will always hold back any progress in societal change... It's easier to criticize then be proactive...

To argue constitutions and charters can not be changed is ludicrous. They were conceived by mankind and can be change or modified by the same mankind... All it takes intestinal courage and a want for what is best...

The great Thomas Jefferson thought the US constitution should be rewritten every 20 years and said "the constitution is a contract with the living and not the dead"... I believe the same is true of our charter of freedoms & rights...

Gone
Premium Member
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON

Gone

Premium Member

I never said that things couldn't change. I simply said that unless you're willing to discuss the wide-reaching ramifications of the legal changes that would required for something like what has been proposed here to ever happen, all we're doing is wasting time, mental energy and bandwidth.

This will now be the, I believe, fourth or fifth time I've said exactly this.
Gone

Gone to NCRGuy

Premium Member

to NCRGuy
said by NCRGuy:

just plain ignorant.

Been a lot of that going around here, unfortunately.

urbanriot
Premium Member
join:2004-10-18
Canada

urbanriot

Premium Member

said by Gone:

said by NCRGuy:

just plain ignorant.

Been a lot of that going around here, unfortunately.

Well as everyone's admitted, there's a lot of stubborness involved and no one seems willing or wanting to discuss alternatives so I vote for 'case closed'.

Kardinal
Dei Gratina Regina
Mod
join:2001-02-04
N of 49th

1 recommendation

Kardinal to vue666

Mod

to vue666
said by vue666:

Status quo will always hold back any progress in societal change... It's easier to criticize then be proactive...

To argue constitutions and charters can not be changed is ludicrous. They were conceived by mankind and can be change or modified by the same mankind... All it takes intestinal courage and a want for what is best...

They only "arguments for status quo" have the the words put in the mouths of others -- I've yet to see ANYONE state that the way things are now is perfect. I've seen it accused, but not said. Big difference. Furthermore, not liking a bad idea doesn't make me want to stay where things are now, it means I don't like a bad idea. There's nothing more to it than that.

Tell you what: since 1982, how many changes have been proposed for the Constitution? How many have been popular and broad support? How many were much bigger deals than what has been proposed in this forum (eg/ distinct society for Quebec, Senate reform, etc)? How many have passed?

Huffing and puffing about "constitutions can change" is a true statement but only a minute possibility, so perhaps looking at another angle for change would be more productive than continuing to insist that what you want can happen when faced with the FACTS that it would be a wide-ranging change to civil rights that would be needed to make it a reality. Not liking the truth doesn't make it suddenly disappear or alter to your preference.

I'm always willing to look at an idea, but don't expect me to agree with it just because it's been proposed. That's not a debate, that's fawning obsequiousness.

urbanriot
Premium Member
join:2004-10-18
Canada

urbanriot

Premium Member

said by Kardinal:

Huffing and puffing about "constitutions can change" is a true statement but only a minute possibility

And at the same time, huffing and puffing about sections of charters and the rights of criminals won't quiet public discontent, especially now that the North American media is amplifying a new-found focus on the topic, so it looks like a stalemate - we have rules that enable people to continue killing, people like yourself that support those rules and we have people that aren't happy with those rules.

I suspect with so much media attention on both the effects of mental health issues tied to murder and American gun control, that something will change within our lifetime.

I found it ironic that earlier today, while listening to an NPR radio program covering gun control, that some of the people on the left were echoing my sentiments concerning post-release followups of convicts. I was also surprised to hear how high the post-release murder rates were of previously convicted felons.
vue666 (banned)
Let's make Canchat better!!!
join:2007-12-07

vue666 (banned)

Member

said by urbanriot:

And at the same time, huffing and puffing about sections of charters and the rights of criminals won't quiet public discontent, especially now that the North American media is amplifying a new-found focus on the topic, so it looks like a stalemate - we have rules that enable people to continue killing, people like yourself that support those rules and we have people that aren't happy with those rules.

I suspect with so much media attention on both the effects of mental health issues tied to murder and American gun control, that something will change within our lifetime.

I found it ironic that earlier today, while listening to an NPR radio program covering gun control, that some of the people on the left were echoing my sentiments concerning post-release followups of convicts. I was also surprised to hear how high the post-release murder rates were of previously convicted felons.

Urban I've heard similar media coverage as well... I hear there is some consideration for maintaining a database of persons with mental health. This would possibly tie in as part of a background check when someone purchases a gun...

Personally not sure if I like the idea of this database but I can understand why some are asking about the viability....

And you are quite right some put more value on the rights of criminals then the safety of our children who are our responsibility to protect...

urbanriot
Premium Member
join:2004-10-18
Canada

urbanriot

Premium Member

I don't like the idea of a database on people with mental health issues, in general. Quite frankly, I'm against government databases on people in general. But when it comes to convicted criminals and/or people deemed to be a threat to the rest of society, I do support additional government involvement in the therapeutic sense (which would also ensure a person is 'safe').

Kardinal
Dei Gratina Regina
Mod
join:2001-02-04
N of 49th

1 recommendation

Kardinal to urbanriot

Mod

to urbanriot
said by urbanriot:

we have rules that enable people to continue killing, people like yourself that support those rules and we have people that aren't happy with those rules.

Ha ha ha.....more projection thinking that "people like me who support the rules to enable people to continue killing" because I won't acquiesce to the farcical thought of a constitutional change being easy and sensible way to "fix" the situation. Pathetic really, to stoop to that level of 'name calling' repeatedly in the same thread, but if that's all you've got......

Here's a thought that it seems hasn't occurred to some: a change in the Constitution applies to everyone, all the time, for all circumstances because that's what the highest order of rules do. It's not a little tweak to "fix the problem", it's a fundamental change in the workings of living in this country. I won't apologize for thinking that that it's farcical to think that the fundamental document defining life in this country would be changed to suit one particular situation because it would thereby affect a multitude of other ones.

Please, supporters of this idea, tell me: if distinct society didn't pass, how do you propose to position this change so that it will? Don't hide behind a Vic Toews "you can stand with us or with the child pornographers"-like quip.....explain the proposed change to the Charter and what strategy you think would get it to pass. There are lots of accusations of "naysayers aren't helpful", but there's been nothing beyond vague ideas and insistence that it'll work. Bring it!
vue666 (banned)
Let's make Canchat better!!!
join:2007-12-07

vue666 (banned)

Member

Sorry Kardinal but you are starting to sound like someone who owns several AK47s in the USA and claiming any change in the 2nd amendment is attack on every Americans rights...

Are you on parole for torturing animals or murdering someone?
Sorry what we are discussing does not pertain to everyone....

NOR are we discussing shoplifters, people who leave their dog in a car on a hot summer day or Quebec as a distinct society...

Talk about red herrings...

Sorry you are so resentful to change and much prefer the status quo...

Kardinal
Dei Gratina Regina
Mod
join:2001-02-04
N of 49th

1 recommendation

Kardinal

Mod

said by vue666:

Sorry what we are discussing does not pertain to everyone....

NOR are we discussing shoplifters, people who leave their dog in a car on a hot summer day or Quebec as a distinct society...

Talk about red herrings...

Are you saying that the Constitution doesn't apply to everyone? Really? Here it is, yet again, hopefully this time in pablum form for those who obviously need it in an easily digestable format:

1) the Constitution is the foundation upon which all laws and rules of life in this country are based.

2) if you change the Constitution, you change the base upon which all laws and rules are based.

3) The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is part of the Constitution.

4) Section 7 of the Charter deals with personal rights and freedoms.

Are we okay with that so far?

Now, if you change the basic rights and freedoms that all Canadians share equally, you affect all Canadians. (here is a summary of what Section 7 is about; read it, don't just brush it off because I disagree with your take) Are you honestly disputing that a change to the Charter would affect everyone? Changes to laws affect those under those laws; changes to the Charter affect everyone under the Charter. It's black-and-white. If you want to change the Charter/Constitution, we know the rules involved in doing so and how hard it is. Dispute that if you want, but show your work in how you think it'll work as I've shown attempts to change the Constitution that haven't gone anywhere because of how hard it is to do. If you disagree then you'd better be prepared to show how you think this will be different or your idea is nothing more than ether.

It seems like nobody wants to define or defend their take beyond a vague "we should change the Constitution", but instead take the Sun News / Ezra Levant / John Baird / Vic Toews tact of insult/defame/attack the person who is disagreeing rather than counter logic and sensible thought with logic and sensible thought, presumably in the hope that the attacks will be louder and last post in the thread. Absolutely pathetic, but expected when it has been shown that the current stance they have doesn't have a leg to stand on but they refuse to admit it because pride and volume are more important than common sense, logic, and reality.

I'm really fascinated by the name calling going on, like the following:

"you are starting to sound like someone who owns several AK47s in the USA"
"Are you on parole for torturing animals or murdering someone?"
"we have rules that enable people to continue killing, people like yourself that support those rules"
"you're willing to accept the loss of human life in trade for criminal freedoms."
"Tis people with that mindset that thought women shouldnt vote or gays and lesbians should not be permitted to marry etc"


Pathetic and weak, but expected. Keep shouting accusations and putting words in people's mouths if it makes you feel better about a stance that isn't logical or workable. I've not lowered myself to calling people names because I don't need to do that to puff myself up and feel strong because I know my stance is solid and has been well defended based on logic and common sense.
vue666 (banned)
Let's make Canchat better!!!
join:2007-12-07

1 edit

vue666 (banned)

Member

This topic NEVER started as a discussion on the constitution.

However as Urbanriot and others have pointed out it has been dragged in by others to obfuscate and derail a discussion we are having. If you wish to further discuss the charter of freedoms and rights please start a thread in Canpol as myself and others would like to move this topic forward and not have it constantly side tracked by repeating the same old stuff over & over...

I get it. You do not like change. I understand that.... You are comfortable with the way things are and do not think any effort should be put into making changes...

However I would like to make things better. Reduce crime by using crime prevention and healthcare... Not use the prison system as a poor substitute for an healthcare facility...

Why wait for something to happen, let's fix the problem before it happens...

I stop my car when I get the low oil light and do not continue to drive, waiting to see what happens....

Gone
Premium Member
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON

1 recommendation

Gone

Premium Member

said by vue666:

This topic NEVER started as a discussion on the constitution.

Whether you like it or not, the moment people started suggestion indeterminate detention is exactly when this discussion became about exactly that.

Kardinal
Dei Gratina Regina
Mod
join:2001-02-04
N of 49th

2 recommendations

Kardinal to vue666

Mod

to vue666
said by vue666:

I get it. You do not like change. I understand that.... You are comfortable with the way things are and do not think any effort should be put into make changes...

Bahahahaha....more name calling / thought projection. Expected, but disappointing.

The discussion pointed out that fundamental rights, enshrined in the constitution, prevent the perpetual detention that was proposed by some upthread (that was here). It was then proposed, by you and others, that the constitution be changed to accommodate this idea (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and more). It's been back and forth since then about if this would work, how it would be difficult, etc. If you are now admitting that a change to the Constitution isn't a good idea, that's great, move on and work out how you think you'll be able to design indefinite detention and not violate Charter rights that are afforded to all Canadians. When you do, I'll read it and consider it.

Try to stay away from name calling though; it's unbecoming, adds nothing to the discussion, and causes a loss of credibility of actual takes. And it's pathetic.
vue666 (banned)
Let's make Canchat better!!!
join:2007-12-07

1 edit

vue666 (banned)

Member

I apologize if you really believe my remark was intended as an insult. It was not meant as such....

I'm at that age in my life where I'm lukewarm to change so again no slur intended...

urbanriot
Premium Member
join:2004-10-18
Canada

urbanriot to Kardinal

Premium Member

to Kardinal
said by Kardinal:

Pathetic really, to stoop to that level of 'name calling' repeatedly in the same thread, but if that's all you've got......



Pathetic indeed. I don't know how else to respond other than giving you a ridiculous look because you're simply being ridiculous. At no point did I call anyone any names in this thread and if making shit up is all you've got then I guess we're not moving forward.

I haven't at all projected, I'm relaying where you seem to stand since you won't come right out and say where you stand, all you do is criticize everyone else on where they stand.

Again, if the blanks we've had to fill in are inaccurate to where you stand on the issue then please advise. I've made direct requests to contribute, rather than negatively criticize, yet you haven't responded.
said by Kardinal:

So, again, does our system work well for you and you're satisfied with it... or not?

I could compile an entire page of your evasions, where you don't respond to the posts of people and rather criticize their post.

Why don't you directly respond? It's not a "trap" or a "straw man" or whatever evasive words you want to use, and rather than respond to questions with your own questions or criticisms, just tell us straight up where you stand.

Do you not stand up for your ideals?

Kardinal
Dei Gratina Regina
Mod
join:2001-02-04
N of 49th

Kardinal

Mod

It's never ceases to amaze me that people will quote a reply to someone else, focus it on themselves, and then spin a half-quote into something else. Is it because their position on the given discussion isn't something they want to focus on, so they'll "attack on a tangent" to try to regain the appearance of strength? I don't know. but it's pathetic when you scratch the surface and see it for what it is.
said by urbanriot:

said by Kardinal:

So, again, does our system work well for you and you're satisfied with it... or not?

Yeeeeaaaaahhhh......I'm going to need you to go ahead and not put my name on your words, mm'kay? Thaaaaaanks.
said by urbanriot:

Why don't you directly respond? It's not a "trap" or a "straw man" or whatever evasive words you want to use, and rather than respond to questions with your own questions or criticisms, just tell us straight up where you stand.

My contributions to this thread have been to criticize what I see as a nonsensical take, and I've explained them in depth. I'm not a trained monkey who can be made to do what others want for their own entertainment, and I'll not apologize for that. I'm not tangenting into all sorts of other directions to satisfy the desire of some to deflect attention away from the main topic of conversation, namely the proposal of indefinite detention and the subsequent discussion of how it would be unconstitutional. If that can't be handled by others who are used to getting their own way, the monkey is on their back, not mine.

Now....back to a discussion about indefinite detention.......

neochu
join:2008-12-12
Windsor, ON

neochu to vue666

Member

to vue666
Need I remind people that anti-social, psychopathic and sociopathic personality issues have no effective mental health treatment in current science?

OT doesn't work for these people to change the behaviours society doesn't agree with (because the therapy assumes the person has societal morals in them). Milieu (ashley smith/prison behavioural systems) drives people to kill themselves who already have permanent dysfunctional definitions of self (Darwinism) and tracking/monitoring remotely has been disproved already. Medication is only marginally effective for such people as well unless your willing to spend the money on sufficient nursing care. (at 400 dollars an hour).

Essentially like in Minority report these people are put to sleep in some form of a stasis environment and their consciousness is totally destroyed.

There is little or no rehabilitation possible under current models for anything diagnosed in AXIS 2. For a society that feels segregation until rehabilitation (until the symptoms are no longer a threat) is necessary it pretty much means PERMANANT detention in either a mental health facility (ST Thomas for SW Ontario) or prison (like in Hamilton or Kingston) until said person dies. "Quality of life" is not possible in any way.

We already know what that can mean thanks to people like Ashley Smith due to the cost of putting 400 dollar an hour psychiatric professional care into these facilities. That makes it severely unsustainable to do unless you just ignore patients who wont respond to the "standard model" as it is right now. (medicate until symptoms stop, damn be if it kills the patient). Part of that leads to staff apathy and that then leads to potential abuses which shut the system down completely...

Lets cut the thread back down to these types of conditions and pretty much define that first.

Axis 2 can also be very easy to misdiagnose and cause severe exacerbation of symptoms--or death due to the wrong treatments being used (as personality and motivation is incredibly subjective. (Im a personal example of this.)

Forcing someone into the wrong treatment due to societal stigma IS a charter and human rights violation and before we do anything of the sort we have to decide which is better, to lock people up where apathy causes abuse. Or to wait and imprison once an act is committed.

(Freedom is nothing else but the chance to do better. LOL)

Gone
Premium Member
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON

Gone

Premium Member

said by neochu:

There is little or no rehabilitation possible under current models for anything diagnosed in AXIS 2.

This right there discredits anything you have otherwise said and demotes your post from what might be a rant to nothing short of drivel.

urbanriot
Premium Member
join:2004-10-18
Canada

urbanriot to Kardinal

Premium Member

to Kardinal
said by Kardinal:

It's never ceases to amaze me that people will quote a reply to someone else, focus it on themselves, and then spin a half-quote into something else.

Your audience of one, me, would appreciate it if you'd specify whatever it is you're referring to, rather than refer to vague asides with no substance.
said by urbanriot:

said by Kardinal:

So, again, does our system work well for you and you're satisfied with it... or not?

Yeeeeaaaaahhhh......I'm going to need you to go ahead and not put my name on your words, mm'kay? Thaaaaaanks.

So can you put your name on your own words rather than dance around the topic? Or you have no words of your own and all you're willing to do is criticize everyone else?
said by Kardinal:

I'm not tangenting into all sorts of other directions

You've done that plenty in this thread when it suits you; however I'm asking you to directly respond on the topic we've been discussing with your stance and you refuse to. I can only guess that you're afraid of being criticized yourself or maybe you're ashamed of it? Not sure, can only guess... At least some folks here have the balls to stand up for their views rather than snipe everyone else.

neochu
join:2008-12-12
Windsor, ON

2 edits

neochu to Gone

Member

to Gone
said by Gone:

said by neochu:

There is little or no rehabilitation possible under current models for anything diagnosed in AXIS 2.

This right there discredits anything you have otherwise said and demotes your post from what might be a rant to nothing short of drivel.

Prove me otherwise? I personally (as in knew) 35 cases where such methods have failed (most of them started in youth systems). The justice system just waits for sufficient enough criminal activity to imprison, or until they succumb to their illnesses.

(like I have said to even get a reasonable/credible diagnosis requires up to 400 dollar an hour expertise. That's too expensive for the system and most Psychiatrists have very little training on it--so they often misdiagnose).

All of the cases discussed so far pertain to issues with traits attached to AXIS 2 disorders and peer reviewed literature points to only marginal improvements, even with 400 dollar an hour expertise.

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pe ··· disorder
NCRGuy
join:2008-03-03
Ottawa, ON

1 recommendation

NCRGuy to urbanriot

Member

to urbanriot
said by urbanriot:

You've done that plenty in this thread when it suits you; however I'm asking you to directly respond on the topic we've been discussing with your stance and you refuse to. I can only guess that you're afraid of being criticized yourself or maybe you're ashamed of it? Not sure, can only guess... At least some folks here have the balls to stand up for their views rather than snipe everyone else.

He's been pretty clear about his stance: you're wrong. In debating your position, he is only discussing that position and its merits (or rather, lack thereof). There is no onus on him to propose an alternative model in order to demonstrate that yours is flawed and unrealistic.