Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2014 6:47:40 GMT -5
We appear to live in an age where everything is someone else's fault and where the most narcissistic self-indulgence is regarded as normal. There are no limits placed on people's selfishness and the whole idea of personal responsibility and self-discipline is dismissed.
In every area of life - the law, family, education, the media, personal behaviour - the slogan is 'me, me, me.' Feminists, ethnic minorities and other groups have created a victim mentality which they believe entitles them to special treatment.
By contrast any and every attempt to suggest personal responsibility is rejected.
Feminists claim for example that if a man and woman are both drunk and have sex only the man should be held responsible since the woman clearly could not have known what she was doing.
Yet they appear to believe that the man did.
And so it goes on.
Everything is always someone else's fault and no one takes personal responsibility any more.
I will enlarge on this later as I am about to go out but it is a topic on which I feel extremely strongly.
We need to begin taking responsibility for our actions rather than assuming we can do as we please and that everything is someone else's fault.
|
|
josephdphillips
Global Facilitator
January 2015 Member of the Month
Posts: 3,494
|
Post by josephdphillips on Dec 8, 2014 8:41:55 GMT -5
We appear to live in an age where everything is someone else's fault and where the most narcissistic self-indulgence is regarded as normal. There are no limits placed on people's selfishness and the whole idea of personal responsibility and self-discipline is dismissed. In every area of life - the law, family, education, the media, personal behaviour - the slogan is 'me, me, me.' Feminists, ethnic minorities and other groups have created a victim mentality which they believe entitles them to special treatment. By contrast any and every attempt to suggest personal responsibility is rejected. Feminists claim for example that if a man and woman are both drunk and have sex only the man should be held responsible since the woman clearly could not have known what she was doing. Yet they appear to believe that the man did. And so it goes on. Everything is always someone else's fault and no one takes personal responsibility any more. I will enlarge on this later as I am about to go out but it is a topic on which I feel extremely strongly. We need to begin taking responsibility for our actions rather than assuming we can do as we please and that everything is someone else's fault. And yet you don't want criminals to take personal responsibility for their crimes at all. You blame that on "mental illness." What a hypocrite.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Dec 8, 2014 13:44:04 GMT -5
We appear to live in an age where everything is someone else's fault and where the most narcissistic self-indulgence is regarded as normal. There are no limits placed on people's selfishness and the whole idea of personal responsibility and self-discipline is dismissed. In every area of life - the law, family, education, the media, personal behaviour - the slogan is 'me, me, me.' Feminists, ethnic minorities and other groups have created a victim mentality which they believe entitles them to special treatment. By contrast any and every attempt to suggest personal responsibility is rejected. Feminists claim for example that if a man and woman are both drunk and have sex only the man should be held responsible since the woman clearly could not have known what she was doing. Yet they appear to believe that the man did. And so it goes on. Everything is always someone else's fault and no one takes personal responsibility any more. I will enlarge on this later as I am about to go out but it is a topic on which I feel extremely strongly. We need to begin taking responsibility for our actions rather than assuming we can do as we please and that everything is someone else's fault. My parents were avid about personal responsibility. None of us siblings three were allowed to blame others when the buck stopped with one or the other of us (sometimes all of us). Of course there were other times when we gave it a good try. I was the youngest and the usual one to stand accused. That said, I think it's also a good idea to refuse to be the one to carry the load of guilt when someone else is also at fault. At one point, I vaguely remember stepping up and saying "I did it", just to keep the peace. Of couse, at 5, I wasn't as concerned with being grounded as my older brother and sister.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2014 16:55:32 GMT -5
We appear to live in an age where everything is someone else's fault and where the most narcissistic self-indulgence is regarded as normal. There are no limits placed on people's selfishness and the whole idea of personal responsibility and self-discipline is dismissed. In every area of life - the law, family, education, the media, personal behaviour - the slogan is 'me, me, me.' Feminists, ethnic minorities and other groups have created a victim mentality which they believe entitles them to special treatment. By contrast any and every attempt to suggest personal responsibility is rejected. Feminists claim for example that if a man and woman are both drunk and have sex only the man should be held responsible since the woman clearly could not have known what she was doing. Yet they appear to believe that the man did. And so it goes on. Everything is always someone else's fault and no one takes personal responsibility any more. I will enlarge on this later as I am about to go out but it is a topic on which I feel extremely strongly. We need to begin taking responsibility for our actions rather than assuming we can do as we please and that everything is someone else's fault. And yet you don't want criminals to take personal responsibility for their crimes at all. You blame that on "mental illness." What a hypocrite. Joseph, I deal in facts. I do not have the US figures to hand but I will find them and I suspect that they will be roughly equivalent to the figures in my country. The facts are that 80% of incarcerated inmates in British prisons have mental health issues. That means - on any RATIONAL assessment - that they are sick and should be treated in hospitals rather than locked away in prison. Your preference for locking mentally ill people in prisons is straight out of the Soviet Union. It has and can have no place in any jurisprudence that attempts to base itself upon at least the fiction of just and fair treatment. Now let us come to your suggestions. You encourage and positively incite people to engage in behaviour likely to engender violence; you encourage and positively incite arson and violence; you have called on more than one occasion for people to be murdered simply because of their religious beliefs. Whenever you post anything on crime and punishment, Joseph, you adopt a consistently pro-criminal policy in every area. I advocate treating mentally ill people in hospitals; you advocate criminal violence and murder as well as locking up people simply for being ill. So which of us is the hypocrite, Joseph - me for punishing criminals and treating the sick or you for encouraging criminality and punishing the sick?
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Dec 9, 2014 4:36:10 GMT -5
I was brought up to be totally responsible for anything I did or spoke..i brought up my own children the same way..and the grandchildren also were brought up to accept their responsibilities for words and deeds
"""""The facts are that 80% of incarcerated inmates in British prisons have mental health issues. That means - on any RATIONAL assessment - that they are sick and should be treated in hospitals rather than locked away in prison"""" only a small proportion of that 80% will be unable to be held personally responsible for their words and or deeds.....so saying that the full 80% should not face prison is stretching it a bit one can have degrees of mental disability and lead a full and normal live on the outside world meeting and dealing with ones life so there is no need to give crims a free ride on the back of some mental impairment you do not have to much intelligence to know that stamping on some ones head..GBH or stealing/burglary is criminal the same with arson...I would be very reluctant to give criminals any more excuses for abdicateing their personal responsibilities the real test of real mental impairment would be if criminals committed their crimes in broad daylight with faces showing and in full public view...that would show they really were not able to dicern right from wrong any crim who has the knowledge to hide his/her crime certainly has enough knowledge to be held responsible for that crime and punished
|
|
josephdphillips
Global Facilitator
January 2015 Member of the Month
Posts: 3,494
|
Post by josephdphillips on Dec 9, 2014 9:05:06 GMT -5
Joseph, I deal in facts. I do not have the US figures to hand but I will find them and I suspect that they will be roughly equivalent to the figures in my country. The facts are that 80% of incarcerated inmates in British prisons have mental health issues. That means - on any RATIONAL assessment - that they are sick and should be treated in hospitals rather than locked away in prison. Your preference for locking mentally ill people in prisons is straight out of the Soviet Union. It has and can have no place in any jurisprudence that attempts to base itself upon at least the fiction of just and fair treatment. Now let us come to your suggestions. You encourage and positively incite people to engage in behaviour likely to engender violence; you encourage and positively incite arson and violence; you have called on more than one occasion for people to be murdered simply because of their religious beliefs. Whenever you post anything on crime and punishment, Joseph, you adopt a consistently pro-criminal policy in every area. I advocate treating mentally ill people in hospitals; you advocate criminal violence and murder as well as locking up people simply for being ill. So which of us is the hypocrite, Joseph - me for punishing criminals and treating the sick or you for encouraging criminality and punishing the sick? Are you saying all those who have mental health "issues" can't live by the law? If not, how do you explain the law-abiding behavior of those with such "issues?" If they can obey the law, why can't your precious inmates? Your positions are fatuous. They're not popular in the UK and they sure as he#ll won't fly here. Thankfully.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2014 17:52:30 GMT -5
Joseph, I deal in facts. I do not have the US figures to hand but I will find them and I suspect that they will be roughly equivalent to the figures in my country. The facts are that 80% of incarcerated inmates in British prisons have mental health issues. That means - on any RATIONAL assessment - that they are sick and should be treated in hospitals rather than locked away in prison. Your preference for locking mentally ill people in prisons is straight out of the Soviet Union. It has and can have no place in any jurisprudence that attempts to base itself upon at least the fiction of just and fair treatment. Now let us come to your suggestions. You encourage and positively incite people to engage in behaviour likely to engender violence; you encourage and positively incite arson and violence; you have called on more than one occasion for people to be murdered simply because of their religious beliefs. Whenever you post anything on crime and punishment, Joseph, you adopt a consistently pro-criminal policy in every area. I advocate treating mentally ill people in hospitals; you advocate criminal violence and murder as well as locking up people simply for being ill. So which of us is the hypocrite, Joseph - me for punishing criminals and treating the sick or you for encouraging criminality and punishing the sick? Are you saying all those who have mental health "issues" can't live by the law? If not, how do you explain the law-abiding behavior of those with such "issues?" If they can obey the law, why can't your precious inmates? Your positions are fatuous. They're not popular in the UK and they sure as he#ll won't fly here. Thankfully. Joseph, your first sentence is completely illogical. At no point did I suggest that people with mental health issues cannot live by the law. But mental illness is every bit as much a medical condition as a broken leg. Would you suggest that victims of traffic accidents should be whisked away to prison? Of course not. In the same way victims of mental health conditions need to be treated in hospital rather than prison. Medical treatment is the RIGHT course of action for mentally ill people who commit crimes and incarceration is the wrong one. The majority of people with mental health issues do not commit crimes. But then the majority of Muslims do not commit crimes or acts of terrorism and yet you freely suggest nuking them, burning their books and generally advocating a genocidal policy towards them. If the majority of Muslims can refrain from acts of terrorism or incitement to it, why are you unable to do so? Your positions are dishonest, self-contradictory and fatuous. They have a great deal more support within the UK than you with your narrowly Californian focus on the world are aware and the problem of the US prison population is becoming so acute that simple economics and logic will force the authorities eventually to go down the road I and many others advocate. You are the most consistently pro-criminal poster I have ever come across on a message board, Joseph!
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Dec 11, 2014 6:55:29 GMT -5
"the real test of real mental impairment would be if criminals committed their crimes in broad daylight with faces showing and in full public view...that would show they really were not able to dicern right from wrong any crim who has the knowledge to hide his/her crime certainly has enough knowledge to be held responsible for that crime and punished"
[some crims are very bright considering the scams and frauds they commit]and so many prison imates can drive..but if they are brightenough to drive..then they are bright enough to be held responsible for their actions you don't have to be a rocket scientist to be aware of right and wrong
|
|
josephdphillips
Global Facilitator
January 2015 Member of the Month
Posts: 3,494
|
Post by josephdphillips on Dec 11, 2014 9:00:18 GMT -5
Would you suggest that victims of traffic accidents should be whisked away to prison? Yes, if that "victim" committed a crime. victims of mental health conditions need to be treated in hospital rather than prison. Not if they're felons. Medical treatment is the RIGHT course of action for mentally ill people who commit crimes and incarceration is the wrong one. Wrong. They can get their "treatment" in prison. The majority of people with mental health issues do not commit crimes. My point exactly. But then the majority of Muslims do not commit crimes or acts of terrorism and yet you freely suggest nuking them, burning their books and generally advocating a genocidal policy towards them. They read and ascribe to the koran, which is equivalent. I don't advocate genocide against the ragheads. I just want them to leave me alone, but that's never going to happen. The koran, which they regard as the written word of "god," and therefore not mere scripture, commands them to convert us, enslave us or kill us. Only apostates and infidels disagree. This is why the burning of korans is a good thing, by people who find the contents of the koran loathsome and morally reprehensible. If the majority of Muslims can refrain from acts of terrorism or incitement to it, why are you unable to do so? For the same reason I don't abide people who abide Mein Kampf. I do not trust such people, or muslims, and never will. The majority of muslims may -- for now -- refrain from acts of terrorism, but they were dancing in the streets while thousands of my people were being killed by muslims. I will never forgive them for that. EVER. They have a great deal more support within the UK than you with your narrowly Californian focus on the world are aware and the problem of the US prison population is becoming so acute that simple economics and logic will force the authorities eventually to go down the road I and many others advocate. What you do with your criminals is your business. What I do with mine is mine.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Dec 12, 2014 4:51:35 GMT -5
"""Joseph, your first sentence is completely illogical. At no point did I suggest that people with mental health issues cannot live by the law. But mental illness is every bit as much a medical condition as a broken leg""""
that's all bit cockeyed Mike...so on one hand your saying they can live within the law...yet on the other hand you want them treated not as crims who break the law by committing illegal acts but as mentally sick there is no common sense in what your saying
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2014 10:02:40 GMT -5
"""Joseph, your first sentence is completely illogical. At no point did I suggest that people with mental health issues cannot live by the law. But mental illness is every bit as much a medical condition as a broken leg"""" that's all bit cockeyed Mike...so on one hand your saying they can live within the law...yet on the other hand you want them treated not as crims who break the law by committing illegal acts but as mentally sick there is no common sense in what your saying No it is not. Let me try and keep it simple. In Britain most muggers are black but most blacks are not muggers. Most burglars are white but most whites are not burglars. In the same way most criminals are mentally ill but most mentally ill people are not criminals. So it is perfectly logical and consistent to say that the majority of criminals who are mentally ill should be treated within the mental health system rather than in prison. My statements are entirely rational, consistent and effective.
|
|
josephdphillips
Global Facilitator
January 2015 Member of the Month
Posts: 3,494
|
Post by josephdphillips on Dec 12, 2014 10:18:11 GMT -5
it is perfectly logical and consistent to say that the majority of criminals who are mentally ill should be treated within the mental health system rather than in prison. By the same logic, if most inmates have diabetes, they should be released from prison and kept in hospitals. Only a complete moron would offer such a proposal. Nothing beats the effectiveness of incarceration when it comes to punishment, other than execution, and punishment is exactly what criminals deserve and have coming.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Dec 12, 2014 11:15:40 GMT -5
"""Joseph, your first sentence is completely illogical. At no point did I suggest that people with mental health issues cannot live by the law. But mental illness is every bit as much a medical condition as a broken leg"""" that's all bit cockeyed Mike...so on one hand your saying they can live within the law...yet on the other hand you want them treated not as crims who break the law by committing illegal acts but as mentally sick there is no common sense in what your saying No it is not. Let me try and keep it simple. In Britain most muggers are black but most blacks are not muggers. Most burglars are white but most whites are not burglars. In the same way most criminals are mentally ill but most mentally ill people are not criminals. So it is perfectly logical and consistent to say that the majority of criminals who are mentally ill should be treated within the mental health system rather than in prison. My statements are entirely rational, consistent and effective. your statement is silly and doesn't hold water as for """"this Let me try and keep it simple""" first you say they can are able to live a law abiding life but if then when have commited a crime you want them judged as being mentally unstable/inept/incompetent and not be put in prison absolute idiocy.....if they are capable of thinking out and committing a crime..then they are capable of being punished for that crime with out another get of jail free card to play
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2014 16:18:45 GMT -5
No it is not. Let me try and keep it simple. In Britain most muggers are black but most blacks are not muggers. Most burglars are white but most whites are not burglars. In the same way most criminals are mentally ill but most mentally ill people are not criminals. So it is perfectly logical and consistent to say that the majority of criminals who are mentally ill should be treated within the mental health system rather than in prison. My statements are entirely rational, consistent and effective. your statement is silly and doesn't hold water as for """"this Let me try and keep it simple""" first you say they can are able to live a law abiding life but if then when have commited a crime you want them judged as being mentally unstable/inept/incompetent and not be put in prison absolute idiocy.....if they are capable of thinking out and committing a crime..then they are capable of being punished for that crime with out another get of jail free card to play Mouse, let me refresh your memory by citing a few FACTS. 1 Most convicted criminals have mental health problems 2 Most people with mental health problems do not commit crimes 3 Most muggers are black 4 Most blacks are not muggers 5 Most burglars are white 6 Most whites are not burglars As you can see, the fact that the majority of crime is committed by mentally ill people does not mean that mentally ill people are habitual criminals any more that the fact that the majority of muggers are black means that the majority of blacks are muggers or that the fact that the majority of burglars are white means that the majority of whites are burglars. So we are discussing criminal profiling when we examine those statements. The logical and fair course of action when dealing with someone who presents a physical illness is to treat it through medical means. The same is true when we are talking about mental illness. Prison is not at all an appropriate place to send people with mental health problems any more than it would be to send someone with a broken leg. Now I presume you realise that the majority of criminals will be released. Which is more sensible - to give them medical treatment so that they do not re-offend and are cured of their illness or to lock them up, release them with no treatment and see them commit crimes again? My policies would drastically reduce the level of crime; yours would only encourage it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2014 16:35:23 GMT -5
it is perfectly logical and consistent to say that the majority of criminals who are mentally ill should be treated within the mental health system rather than in prison. By the same logic, if most inmates have diabetes, they should be released from prison and kept in hospitals. Only a complete moron would offer such a proposal. Nothing beats the effectiveness of incarceration when it comes to punishment, other than execution, and punishment is exactly what criminals deserve and have coming. If your beloved state of California introduced a law that anyone with the name of Joseph D Phillips would be immediately arrested, incarcerated and then finally executed you would (on the basis of your previous posts) go along with it cheerfully. That is the degree of your amorality and utter inability to maintain even the most tenuous grasp upon reality. As for the non-question you posted in your first sentence, two points. The first is that prisons are notoriously bad at treating illness even when there is no question of deliberate cruelty on the part of the prison staff (which, sadly, is all too often the case). The second is that if an inmate has an illness that required proper medical attention beyond the basic levels of first aid, medication and that type of thing it OUGHT to be the case that they received treatment in hospital. As for your claim that 'nothing beats the effectiveness of incarceration when it comes to punishment' that is flatly contradicted by the facts. Treatment of mental health problems, drug addiction, alcohol addiction and so on are CONSISTENTLY more effective in preventing re-offending. The track record of incarceration without treatment is derisorily poor. In the same way rehabilitation of inmates is CONSISTENTLY more effective than simple punitive measures. So the only rational conclusion that can be drawn from your remarks is that you are pro-crime and pro-criminal since you support policies that INCREASE crime and repeat offending and oppose those that reduce or prevent it. Only a complete moron would regard that as the best way of proceeding.
|
|