Liberty of the Mentally Disturbed

[K.Snyder]

Patsy Warnick;1413294 wrote: Scrat

I stated that - your right the mentally ill do end up in prison as you said.

I write in shorthand some times sorry

I actually meant the care for the mentally ill is lacking - state funds are not available for the mentally ill department of health care.

There's some in a up roar over prison care - yet we allow the mentally ill to walk amongst us as if they don't count.

I could care less if a rapist in prison needs a pain pill since he pulled a muscle lifting weights.

I'd rather assist some one before they jump

PatsyAll of this is a cultural problem, not a justification to use a social tool bordering on totalitarianism, which is the inevitable result of defining "liberty" only after such incidences.

"Liberty" and cultural freedom couldn't be more distinct. The former is a principle, the latter a human right.

We're attempting to uphold the most fundamental right of all of humanity by not placing our citizens inside a cultural war zone, and to do it we must not place guns, for mere profit given the context of our current society, in the hands of people to achieve it.

Thr argument for the unrestricted sale of guns is operating on principle that is the result of reasoning so far outside the context of the current issues we face in America that it's baffling to me that so many human beings with the potential to be rationally moral could be so ridiculously uneducated. All one needs to do is dissect the reasoning of those who think guns are essential to a free society in order to see why it's so ludicrous. The problem stems from our values and the principles presupposed by them but sadly those inevitably lead to the selfishness of the people designed to increase as much material profit as they can in order to feel important to society. How nauseating.

[Patsy Warnick]

I feel if guns are so easily accessed

mental health care should be easily accessible.

Patsy

[K.Snyder]

How is it that a society judges mental illness? How does our society define freedom? What really is "liberty"?

Here's a short essay and if anyone can bare with my attempt to write in more effective ways...

All of us as Americans have grown up hearing about the importance of freedom, but do any of us really know what it is? Many suggest that freedom is to make independent choices in determining one’s needs, or preferences, whether those choices do or do not affect the livelihood of another. But can anyone truly be complacent with such a generalized definition of “freedom”? The desire to have and preserve such freedom is to make a claim that freedom is not only something we as human beings seek, but that it’s also the very meaningful driving force in our lives that determine the choices we do make. But can such choices be wrong even if we do have the freedom to make them, and is the sole criterion for freedom to simply be free to choose actions among many possible options? For instance, if we do not possess all of the relevant facts that determine the choices we make then how can we justify them when presented with all of the facts that may or may not have determined a different action we’d otherwise choose to take, that is, if we feel the need to be justified at all? I believe the great majority of us do feel an inherent need to remain justified in our actions, therefore, I plan to show how important critical thinking and active reflection on our life experiences are in determining the choices we make and how we can justify them so that we may, as a society, operate with a correct understanding of freedom that reinforces our commitment to the reconstruction and preservation of the just and free society, or “the good society”, we all aspire to create.

Adam’s tells us, in his reference to modern western civilization, “[T]here are widespread complaints about the pervasive materialism, deterioration of morals, the disintegration of the family, the injustice of our institutions, and the impairment of the environment” (A Society Fit for Human Beings, 228). He suggests that modern western civilization has reduced its way of thought and outlook on life to the same purposeless meaning observed in the scientific methods used throughout our quest for wealth and power. This has led to our current capitalist system that has replaced our humanistic concerns with those primarily concerned with materialistic gain. Adam’s further suggests that this failure to have purpose in our lives has led to a clouded agreement on ethical values, which manifests itself in our social institutions. This is highlighted by Charles Sykes in his mention of “values clarification” in American schools, which is instilling principles into children through repetitive instructions while expecting they should learn values through their own preferences and interpretations (157-73). We as human beings dedicated to a just and free society must ask ourselves if our society is pragmatic in its ways of appropriating and organizing reality and what if anything is the importance of the examples and role models we create.

Adam’s further claims, “A thought is one’s own, not so much by being a member of a set of thoughts occurring in one’s mind, but only when one’s mind as a functioning whole endorses or embraces it (A Society Fit for Human Beings, 23).” He suggests that all of us, as human beings, only make truth claims if we find such claims to be backed by logical self-appraisals. Truth claims, Adams posits, are apart of our inherent human nature to render everything we take to be real intelligible in a way that stands up to logical criticism, of which he calls our “knowledge yielding powers”. He also suggests that we as human beings naturally seek to fit our truth claims into a context, or “world-view”, that not only reinforces our need to stand justified in our claims, or actions, but also gives us a sense of meaning and purpose that sets, and corrects, our life plans. He suggests that our life plans are the paths we take in our lives that are dependent on such “knowledge yielding powers” in such a way that lends itself to how we view ourselves as human beings and the world in which we live. We all as human beings, he says, have a natural tendency to be “rational agents” dedicated to the unity of our minds and the correctness of our world-view.

What’s more, when we understand the “options among possible actions” one considers, we may conclude that the unity of one’s mind must remain consistent in our need to be correct in our truth claims. Such consistency leads to our self-concept both as a human being and as the person we are within the circumstances of our time and place. Adams further adds that our self-concept is formulated by how we view ourselves, as well as others, which leads to our understanding of how we ought to live and act in society as a human being and the particular individual we are. Unified together under these shared fundamental imperatives, or one’s “inherent normative constitution”, we find ourselves judging what is, or is not, the correct way to live as a human being and the particular individuals we are within a world-view that makes sense to us and gives us such meaning and purpose. This, Adams says, is the framework for our responsibilities as human beings and that our correct self-concepts are under an inherent obligation to fulfill our need for a just and free society.

Adams then reasons that, “This is why moral judgments are universalizable” (A Society Fit for Human Beings, 26) and, due to one’s normative constitution, “one is rational in action to the extent one’s acts are guided and justified by responsible beliefs and value judgments about oneself and the situation one is in. We demand that our actions stand justified under rational appraisal” (A Society Fit for Human Beings, 27). With such an inherent normative constitution, and the rational appraisals of others, we as human beings feel the pull of such judgments in a way that fulfills the inherent needs and desires of others through getting our own core self-concept more or less correct, to live “a life worthy of a human being”. This is a logical understanding of an objective moral reality, or “Realistic Humanism”, that gives possibility to the just and free society we seek.

But to be a just society is not enough for “the good society” we all wish to have. In order for our actions to remain justified we must possess the freedom to grow with such knowledge-yielding powers that presuppose our collective judgments on how we ought to live as human beings and the particular individuals we are. Such value judgments, through the shared “lived experiences” of everyone, are essential for all of us to gain insight on what is or is not the correct way to live. To share in this way is to be exposed to the feelings and judgments of individuals in society and what they too count to be justified actions among possible options. Without such shared lived experiences we cannot count on the multitude of judgments that give us an understanding of the options that we may have otherwise available in getting our sense of values and self-concepts correct. This lack of understanding ultimately threatens the very structure and unity of our minds and the meaningfulness of our lives.

This is why Adams suggests that the humanities do have their utility value. They fill our “humanistic needs, the needs of self-hood and community” (“Taking the Humanities Seriously”, 69). Through the arts, or our semantic culture, we gain insight from the lived experiences of a society as individuals live within the circumstances of their time and place. With the normative constitution of human beings in all of us, and the objective moral reality it determines, we can draw upon all of these lived experiences from art, music, literature, poems, and others, for the preservation and reconstruction of both a just and free society through the implicit judgments within such works. Through our collective judgments on society, we can extend our moral voice within the social institutions embodied within it in a way that defines the very same normative constitution within the society as a whole from our own inherent need to fill our lives with meaning and purpose.

[K.Snyder]

But this too is not enough for the preservation of a just and free society. Once again we’re faced with a still obscure definition of “freedom”. One can become misguided throughout their life in developing one’s self-concept. Much like most of us may think of someone killing an animal out of pleasure may be misguided and deranged, we all too may become misguided and even deranged if we’re to fail in developing our self-concept. This pertains to the limited rational judgment that is required when faced with the decisions we make as human beings throughout our quest to stand justified under rational criticism. For instance, if the animal carried a viral disease that threatened humanity our perception would change, thus leading to a different understanding of rationality and justified decisions. This means that if we develop a core self-concept under the precept of misguided judgments we ultimately thwart and pervert our lives.

This is the importance of sharing in a comprehensive way of life. We must all work together in order to get the full benefit in drawing upon life experiences. In this way we can collectively and mutually agree on the correct way to live a life that is worthy of a human being. This emphasis on multiculturalism is suggested to threaten civic unity and the values of particular secularist groups, as some may say, but this is a grave mistake. For example, religious schools that leave out lessons in history regarding African-Americans, Native Americans, and women in an attempt to avoid socially delicate issues is the obvious failure to teach our children the fundamental principles of democracy as Gutmann says,

“The traditional model withheld respect from different ways of life, and denigrated the contributions of minority groups and women to American civic culture…[Religious] public schools failed, among other things, to teach students the civic values of democratic dissent and disobedience to unjust laws. In not teaching these democratic values, schools diminished the role of dissenters and restricted the range of reasonable political alternatives that children could understand and embrace. (1-2)”

The importance of the multitude of lived experiences gives lessons in judgments based on how well others fulfill their role as a human being and the individual one is within society as opposed to lessons bolstering inferences made by children that implicitly rationalize their alienation, further exacerbating our lack of shared values and democratic unity.

I suggest, and as Adams emphasizes, we’re all under an imperative to integrate a liberal education into our schools so that we may help to grow responsible and mature human beings. A liberal education is one that teaches us how we may tap into the reservoir of judgments through the literary, artistic, musical, poetic and many other forms of expression that implicitly judge our society. Without an understanding of the many lived experiences, as actually lived within a particular culture, our expressions go unused and we invariably fail to gain the insight necessary in actively reconstructing our society. Adams says, “The genuine educational process, as distinct from indoctrination, attempts to stimulate the individual to engage in a thorough self-probing to bring into the clear field of his critical attention the beliefs and attitudes which were not of his making, but are makers of his personality and character (“Cultural slavery or freedom”, 236).” This makes it subtly clear that one cannot escape every realm of cultural influence but it also highlights our understanding of meaning through the context of lived experiences that we cannot gain without the humanities and an emphasis on a liberal education. With a liberal education we will become better equipped with the requisite powers to internalize the culture in a way that makes our lives our own while drawing upon the multitude of lived experiences in a way that filters out those we feel at odds with. We should emphasize the importance of memorable occasions that tap into our most humanistic needs and aspirations. We can do this, as Adams says, through festivals, holidays, an appreciation for our environment, and the other shared bonds that give us all a sense of meaning and purpose in our lives through sports, picnics, theatre, concerts, a simple board game or any other activity that appeals to our utmost heartfelt desires. This is freedom, cultural freedom.

There are many claims that our society is not the “good society” we all seek, and I agree. When we view our society in terms of cultural freedom we’re forced to evaluate the values such a society upholds as its virtues. Adam’s tells us, “The generic normative structure of a society is derivative from, and grounded in, the generic normative structure of human beings” (A Society Fit for Human Beings, 33). This, he posits, is the fundamental aspect of human rights, based on the responsibilities of persons to fill their roles within societal institutions. Personhood, Adams claims, is the most primary office within a society and is “the responsibility, as persons, to define and to live a life of their own that would stand up under moral and rational criticism”. But these responsibilities must be met and ensured by society if it is not to be judged as a society that thwarts and perverts the individuals within it. With such rights, which also require the rights of all to be upheld by each, human beings must have the cultural freedom and adequate access to ways that help its citizens fulfill their inherent obligations, to retain their basic human rights. This means adequate access to food, clothing, shelter, defense, and any other conditions that ensure the livelihood of those with such rights.

Of course, when we view such requirements we come to understand that all of us have material needs, which ensures our livelihood. But when we view our material needs in a way that gives a false sense of meaning to them we lose our sense of worth in regard to such responsibilities. When we view our material needs as being our primary needs we fail to appropriate the meaningfulness of our humanistic needs, needs that give us purpose in life. Our material needs are a condition for a successful life they’re not the objectives that define it. A change in our materialistic values in modern western civilization is the primary responsibility of personhood when we collectively see our society thwarting and perverting our lives in such a manner. This is evidenced by our economic culture when we observe workers being treated as a cost to production, the disregards of our collective need for the preservation of our environment and dependence on natural resources, and politicians who emphasize merely winning elections based on using such perverted values as a means to misguide the public and perpetuate their terms in office as opposed to fulfilling humanistic needs.

What’s more, a capitalist society gives rise to the necessary outcome of government fulfilling its obligation to meet the needs of those with nothing of exchange value in the market, notably their labor. This means that without a capitalist society government would not need to provide unemployment insurance, labor union laws, or welfare. In changing our materialistic values to humanistic values we would not feel compelled to define “profit” in terms of money or capital but in terms of life enhancement and the cultural capital necessary for individuals to remain free from cultural slavery.

Humanistic values constitute the just and free society we all aspire to have. In changing our values to meet humanistic needs we fill our lives with meaning and a sense of purpose that motivates us to seek out the higher values that presuppose our inherent need for a worthy life. We can alleviate the misfortunes of the poorer classes in our economic sectors in a way that gives everyone a level of self-fulfillment, which lends itself to the unlimited potential of our self-concepts that presuppose the inherent moral nature of us all. This will extend itself in to our government ideologies that represent our collective moral voice and inherent need for civic unity as opposed to isolated power struggles, the ends of which are dictated by those with more wealth and especially more political influence. Our inherent normative constitution gives justification to our conscientious objections to the lived experiences and acts of which we find morally inadequate in fulfilling our inner desires for world peace and harmony. With humanistic values as our primary concern we will find it irrational in our attempt to fit ourselves into the non-teleological philosophies of a society alien to us and we can transcend all of our anxieties and confusion by determining the underlining principles of how society functions and the course in which we’re able to direct it. Our humanistic values presuppose our willingness to accept diverse and comprehensive ways of life so we may not feel the need to resort to irrational assumptions and unjustified prejudices of differing cultures and people. We would no longer operate under the misguided belief that our failure to relate to others is given due excuse by our clouded judgments and morally relative presuppositions. With humanistic values we’ll understand our own need to be judged if we’re to remain committed to the reconstruction and preservation of a just and free society, retain the freedom necessary in fulfilling our inner most desires and aspirations, and preserve our individual choices in such a way that lends itself to our perpetual need to critically evaluate and reflect upon our existence in such a way that ensures meaning and purpose for all of us as human beings living within a society fit for us.

[YZGI]

That's not a short essay. That's a small book.

[Bruv]

YZGI;1413392 wrote: That's not a short essay. That's a small book.


Have you read it ?

Is it easy going......know what I mean ?

[YZGI]

Bruv;1413399 wrote: Have you read it ?

Is it easy going......know what I mean ?


Um, no.

[Bruv]

YZGI;1413401 wrote: Um, no.


Um no.......... I haven't read it ?

Um no ...........is it easy reading ?

Um no .............you don't know what I mean ?

[AnneBoleyn]

Damn you Kevin! The only reason I'll read that much is A) I'll be graded; B) because you wrote it. Guess I'm stuck with B)!

[YZGI]

Bruv;1413403 wrote: Um no.......... I haven't read it ?

Um no ...........is it easy reading ?

Um no .............you don't know what I mean ?


1. Just a bit

2. correct

3. I know, I know

[Ahso!]

I've read the first part. Well written as far as I know. Your thought are clear and well communicated. As For the content: I need to digest it. I'll read the second half later.

Thanks for sharing.

[gmc]

Accountable;1413171 wrote: It wasn't an analogy at all, but you all have such hard-ons for taking guns that you're not reading, just reacting. I'm out. The timing was wrong. Maybe I'll try again in a few months if I think about it.


You are the one that keeps conflating someone using an assault rifle with someone battering, knifing or beating the **** out of someone as if they are on a par. If they can't get a gun they will just hit someone or throw a desk instead so taking guns out of the equation will make no difference is a nonsensical argument.

It's a peculiarly american problem I really don't think outsiders are ever going to be able to make constructive suggestions since we just don't have the same kind of problem. I live in a country where carrying an offensive weapon is a criminal offence. It's an attitude that gets widespread support - it's fair to say that those who advocate the british be allowed to carry guns are seen as on the far right lunatic fringe of the spectrum and the last people who should be allowed near a gun.

I see the head of the NRA is advocating that teachers be armed so they can defend their pupils, maybe the problem is that the lunatics have taken over the asylum and convinced everybody that they are the rational ones.

[Accountable]

Patsy Warnick;1413346 wrote: I feel if guns are so easily accessed

mental health care should be easily accessible.

PatsyI agree. Many people who clearly need mental health care refuse it even when offered freely ... sometimes because of the very mental health problems in question (such as paranoia). What then? That's the gray area that gets me.

[Ahso!]

Accountable;1413469 wrote: I agree. Many people who clearly need mental health care refuse it even when offered freely ... sometimes because of the very mental health problems in question (such as paranoia). What then? That's the gray area that gets me.And there are a lot of people out there that don't realize they need mental health care.

[Accountable]

Ahso!;1413470 wrote: And there are a lot of people out there that don't realize they need mental health care.
Yup. Lots of people can fall into both categories. So how, um, assertive should society (read: government) be to ensure these people get the help they need?

[Ahso!]

Accountable;1413471 wrote: Yup. Lots of people can fall into both categories. So how, um, assertive should society (read: government) be to ensure these people get the help they need?That depends. Without guns available to them, not that much, parents can educate themselves and handle most of it. With guns available to them? Much more assertive. That's going to be the trade off for permitting guns in the general population.

[Accountable]

Ahso!;1413472 wrote: That depends. Without guns available to them, not that much, parents can educate themselves and handle most of it. With guns available to them? Much more assertive. That's going to be the trade off for permitting guns in the general population.
Can't resist can ya? Okay, let's assume guns available.

How assertive? What does "Much more assertive" mean to you?

[K.Snyder]

We have a widespread cultural problem that government cannot fix, they can only minimize the negatives effects brought on about it.

This issue is a cultural problem of which guns are a side issue. Government has the responsibility to minimize the negative effects so banning assault rifles and regulating the sale of handguns(which is as much as I can see happening atm) is apart of minimizing the negative effects. "Liberty of the Mentally Disturbed" comes about with a wholehearted expectation that social policy is going to alleviate our anxieties.

If guns were the only issue that we face in America then we'd have a quick fix within weeks because it would be obvious how we might achieve that. The problem are the uneducated cultural slaves who find it in their best interest to live by virtue of principle as opposed to reasoned consensus. I personally do not find there to be a distinction between the religious right and the gun toting lunatics, they're both looney.

[Ahso!]

K.Snyder;1413481 wrote: We have a widespread cultural problem that government cannot fix, they can only minimize the negatives effects brought on about it.

This issue is a cultural problem of which guns are a side issue. Government has the responsibility to minimize the negative effects so banning assault rifles and regulating the sale of handguns(which is as much as I can see happening atm) is apart of minimizing the negative effects. "Liberty of the Mentally Disturbed" comes about with a wholehearted expectation that social policy is going to alleviate our anxieties.

If guns were the only issue that we face in America then we'd have a quick fix within weeks because it would be obvious how we might achieve that. The problem are the uneducated cultural slaves who find it in their best interest to live by virtue of principle as opposed to reasoned consensus. I personally do not find there to be a distinction between the religious right and the gun toting lunatics, they're both looney.But what does any of what you're presenting have to do with mental illness, K?

[Ahso!]

Accountable;1413473 wrote: Can't resist can ya? Okay, let's assume guns available.

How assertive? What does "Much more assertive" mean to you? Accountable;1412868 wrote: In light of the recent shootings, I've heard some people lament that we don't provide enough help for our mentally disturbed. How much focus should we put on this issue? Would it be too much to institutionalize them until experts can reasonably ensure they are not dangers to society?Just trying to remain on topic.

If guns are going to continue to be a part of the culture there will need to be more stringent qualifications for permitting ownership and access. That might very well mean that mental and emotional evaluation is going to become part of the qualification process. It could include all family history and interviews by mental health professionals. It's not that much of a jump imagining that there'd be a file on every person and available to governmental agencies (easily obtained via the Patriot Act). Everyone will be labeled then, and there will be disorders out the gazoo.

Ever been on any anti-depressants or behavior modification medications?

Any family history of depression, mental illness or disorder?

Have you ever experienced road rage?

Have you ever witnessed your partner, siblings, children, parents exhibit any uncontrollable anger?

How about your neighbor? What are they like?

If guns are to be the gateway of personal and/or family mental/emotional behavioral problems leaking into the public domain on a large scale by causing more citizens to pay with their lives, then the government has the responsibility to do what's reasonably necessary to minimize the danger by maximizing the security of the public.

The gun enthusiasts have no business complaining about government intrusion in our lives because they are the cause of it, at least in this case.

Wayne LaPiere himself even stepped in this poop the other day with his press release indicating mental health needs to be addressed. This could end up being one slippery, slippery slope.

[K.Snyder]

Ahso!;1413484 wrote: But what does any of what you're presenting have to do with mental illness, K?"Mental illness" is another scientific explanation of the philosophical perplexities that face our society. When we get rid of terms like "mental illness" we can better alleviate such anxieties by relating more to those that suffer from them. "Mental illness" alienates those without a reasonable grounds to associate themselves to others which perpetuates the problems.

Talking about guns alone, or social policies does nothing.

The problem is that guns have been apart of this culture since it began and it's all to do with the materialistic values that presupposed it. We need cultural institutions designed around the wholehearted appeal to human emotion and rationality. We need dedicated philosophical centers to help rid our lives of such technical perspectives relative to a peaceful society.

[Accountable]

Ahso!;1413487 wrote: Just trying to remain on topic.

If guns are going to continue to be a part of the culture there will need to be more stringent qualifications for permitting ownership and access. That might very well mean that mental and emotional evaluation is going to become part of the qualification process. It could include all family history and interviews by mental health professionals. It's not that much of a jump imagining that there'd be a file on every person and available to governmental agencies (easily obtained via the Patriot Act). Everyone will be labeled then, and there will be disorders out the gazoo.

Ever been on any anti-depressants or behavior modification medications?

Any family history of depression, mental illness or disorder?

Have you ever experienced road rage?

Have you ever witnessed your partner, siblings, children, parents exhibit any uncontrollable anger?

How about your neighbor? What are they like?

If guns are to be the gateway of personal and/or family mental/emotional behavioral problems leaking into the public domain on a large scale by causing more citizens to pay with their lives, then the government has the responsibility to do what's reasonably necessary to minimize the danger by maximizing the security of the public.

The gun enthusiasts have no business complaining about government intrusion in our lives because they are the cause of it, at least in this case.

Wayne LaPiere himself even stepped in this poop the other day with his press release indicating mental health needs to be addressed. This could end up being one slippery, slippery slope.
It looks like your opinion is just to use evidence of mental instability to keep them from buying guns, and otherwise do nothing, offer no help to them to overcome or cope with their problem. Let 'em go nuts.

Compassionate.

[Ahso!]

Accountable;1413517 wrote: It looks like your opinion is just to use evidence of mental instability to keep them from buying guns, and otherwise do nothing, offer no help to them to overcome or cope with their problem. Let 'em go nuts.

Compassionate.I didn't say I wanted this all to happen, what I said was this is what I can envision happening. Mental health related care may very well become part of the solution. I'm all for that to an extent. I'm a proponent of universal care all the way around. The problem, as I see this part is, that the people responsible for bringing all this about are also against universal health care.

Want to see a good example of a guy that most likely raises enough red flags for mental health experts to say he should be evaluated? Watch this guy work himself up. He may very well be a candidate as being Asperger's. And this guy has guns.

[Ahso!]

K.Snyder;1413509 wrote: "Mental illness" is another scientific explanation of the philosophical perplexities that face our society. When we get rid of terms like "mental illness" we can better alleviate such anxieties by relating more to those that suffer from them. "Mental illness" alienates those without a reasonable grounds to associate themselves to others which perpetuates the problems.

Talking about guns alone, or social policies does nothing.

The problem is that guns have been apart of this culture since it began and it's all to do with the materialistic values that presupposed it. We need cultural institutions designed around the wholehearted appeal to human emotion and rationality. We need dedicated philosophical centers to help rid our lives of such technical perspectives relative to a peaceful society.Kevin, I think everything you've said here is worth considering and you've done a great job communicating it, but I just think it deserves its own thread in the philosophy forum.

[Accountable]

Ahso!;1413519 wrote: Mental health related care may very well become part of the solution. I'm all for that to an extent.
To what extent?

[Ahso!]

Accountable;1413570 wrote: To what extent?Not sure.

[K.Snyder]

Ahso!;1413521 wrote: Kevin, I think everything you've said here is worth considering and you've done a great job communicating it, but I just think it deserves its own thread in the philosophy forum.


:yh_rotfl

Reminds me of when I were talking to a particular philosophy professor here about the University and their inability to agree on what constitutes a liberal education and how we can encourage it. The problem was that no one knew at all what he was talking about when he'd mentioned the word "normative". It highlights the transition from a core grounding in the importance of ethics and its relationship with education to an education that focuses primarily on immediate results that perpetuate our materialistic values.

How is it that society's social problems are somehow immune to philosophy? I'd like to know the reasoning behind one's answer to that.

[fuzzywuzzy]

Accountable;1412929 wrote: Apparently this guy had Aspergers Syndrome, a form of Autism. I have an autistic student who has great difficulty maintaining his composure when frustrated. He's flipped desks, rammed his head into a concrete wall, and once when running away from a stressful situation, slammed a girl who was in his way into a wall - hurt her pretty badly. Should this 16-year-old be locked up? Should all autistic kids be locked up until we know for sure? Perhaps we should lock up all soldiers returning from combat until we can be sure they won't explode and beat their spouses or get into bar room brawls ... or go on mass shootings.


that's interesting .....to this day I'm still amazed at how people see Aspergers sufferers. Yes it is a spectrum of autism but even aspergers have 'spectrums' .... how would any of you go knowing a policeman has aspergers ? Or Einstein for that matter? (aspy's ) as they are known, don't all go off the nut. In fact I think you'll find that most mathmaticians have a spectrum of Aspergers. Most of your NASA people have sprectrums of aspergers.

[fuzzywuzzy]

Bruv;1412932 wrote: Or possibly keep the means of committing such atrocities out of their hands ?


bingo!!!

[Accountable]

fuzzywuzzy;1413643 wrote: that's interesting .....to this day I'm still amazed at how people see Aspergers sufferers. Yes it is a spectrum of autism but even aspergers have 'spectrums' .... how would any of you go knowing a policeman has aspergers ? Or Einstein for that matter? (aspy's ) as they are known, don't all go off the nut. In fact I think you'll find that most mathmaticians have a spectrum of Aspergers. Most of your NASA people have sprectrums of aspergers.
No one wears a sign around their neck. It's the behavior that's the issue in this context.

[Ahso!]

People who fall within the Asperger's category are highly sensitive and rely strongly on their senses and intuition. They'll focus on something and examine it intensely. In fact they're usually intense individuals in general. It seems to me that there are a lot of positives in relying in those highly evolved senses but there can be grave consequences too. If an "aspie" "aspy" believes they are being or have been betrayed, watch out, they're likely to react every strongly. They are keen survivalists and very susceptible to Catecholamine hormonal release for fight or flight purposes.

The strong reliance on senses serves any species well in the wild and raw, however, we don't live that way any longer and the selection process is still at work helping our species to fit into the cultural memes we've been adopting. I'd suggest that that's one reason why aspies often appear out of place and socially awkward. They know it too, they sense their own awkwardness.

[gmc]

Adan Lanza's aspergers is incidental - seems to me it's a way to change the subject away from gun control to talking about mental illness instead - except autism in all it's forms is of course not a mental illness in the way most people would understand it. OK he had difficulty reading emotion in others and lacked empathy. If lacking empathy was a mental illness most people on the right wing of politics and certainly most religious fundamentalists fall in to that category. Religious nutters has morethan a grain of truth in it. The simple fact is if he had not been able to access automatic weapons he might still have gone on the rampage but not to the extent that he did.

[Accountable]

gmc;1413687 wrote: Adan Lanza's aspergers is incidental - seems to me it's a way to change the subject away from gun control to talking about mental illness instead
Actually, considering the title of the thread, it seems you are trying to change the subject away from the mentally disturbed to guns. There's already a thread about that. I'd requested this thread be closed, but I was ignored. Since I started it, I request that you either keep on the subject of mental illness or restrict yourself to the gun thread.

[halfway]

We do need increased focus on the mentally disturbed. Look at the use of serious narcotics and automobiles.....the death numbers are staggering...especially to innocent children.

The military / VA has finally emerged as some of the best mental health issue advocates and employers of resources around. Maybe we should look at them for solutions?