6 ms·

> help enable them to grow into better people Wow, 'better people' - that's loaded and almost completely unspecified here. That's ripe for abuse. "become chri

> help enable them to grow into better people Wow, 'better people' - that's loaded and almost completely unspecified here. That's ripe for abuse. "become christian, god will make you a better person" "do as you're told, obey orders, you'll be a better person" "don't disrupt the teacher even if they're wrong, people don't like 'clever' people" I could go on all day. That's the thin end of a dangerous wedge. I don't like conformists.

laumars 7y ago
You're looking for outrage rather than trying to understand point I'm making and in doing so you've gotten the wrong end of the proverbial stick. I'm not saying everyone should conform, I'm just saying some people need more help than others to make a life for themselves. Sometimes it's because of substance abuse, sometimes it's because of mental, physical or sexual abuse as a kid that leads them into a pattern of bad behaviour. Sometimes it's just circumstances or a mental attitude that is less dramatic than the aforementioned. But in each case it's better to work with them to help enable them to lead happy lives rather than ignore them, outcast them and then incarcerate them because they had nowhere else to turn. If people are just disruptive because they're smart then they're just disruptive because they're smart. They're not an "at risk" group. By "at risk" we're talking people who turn to crime because they felt it was their only option in life. What I was talking about is supporting them so they realise they do have options. If they then choose crime, well that's then their choice. But in many instances people actually don't want that when they realise they have options in their life.
- tempguy9999 7y ago
  I didn't do a very good job here, and my last line really should have been omitted. I agree with your original post, and this one too (will upvote both) but I am really wary of the potential for abuse that trying to help people become 'better' people can become. A really ugly actual example from about 1969: "Because homosexuality has been considered an endemic and deep-rooted condition since times of antiquity, hopes for its alleviation, until very recent times, have been faint. But lately, since other resistant mental aberrations have been overcome by new methods, somewhat drastic treatments are being used and advocated for the homosexual in some quarters." And I emphasis, this is just one example, I could produce others in other fields. All I'm saying is be very careful about the meaning of 'better'. Anyway, I do actually agree with you overall.
  - jammygit 7y ago
    Alberta used to perform forced sterilization upon people with physical and mental disabilities. I don’t want the government going near people for their own good https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/alberta-apologizes-for-forced-sterilization-1.169579 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/alberta-apologizes-for-forced...
    - tempguy9999 7y ago
      I don't agree. Your absolute statement of denial is to me as dangerous as an absolute endorsement of gov't involvement. Read this <https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/may/11/nathan-filer-schizophrenia> https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/may/11/nathan-filer-s... Extract, slightly edited: " A colleague of mine explained his options, such as they were. But that’s the bit that stayed with me. "Do I have to beg you? [he had asked]" It’s why I struggled to keep my hands from shaking as he was eventually held down on his bed and I administered the injection. He didn’t put up a fight. We weren’t preventing and managing violence and aggression. From Amit’s perspective, I don’t doubt we were perpetrating it. In that moment, however good my intentions, I was knowingly participating in his suffering. " Read the story. I feel that it's likely they were doing the right thing, even against the patient's will. If that were me I'd probably agree, though not at the time (thank god that's not my life, I count myself so lucky). But taking your question in a different direction, what would you prefer, that the government does not get involved in such cases? That we leave it to, say, private (profit-driven) companies? Fuck no, never.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  This is the sort of logic that is used everywhere, whether by police or social services, but it doesn't work in practice the way it does in theory. Providing help to people before there is a crisis sounds so nice and helpful, but due to the inherent drastic negative consequences of entering into the system, it ends up merely moving the punishment for not fitting in forward of the crisis. Thus, trying to be pro-active ends up harming people and/or reinforcing the mentality that you try to cope at all costs without help until you reach a breaking point. For example, we all want to help people who are suicidal, right? But if someone's behavior triggers a response to such apparent potential, then very traumatic and non-helpful things can take place, including the temporary and/or permanent loss of freedoms.
  - laumars 7y ago
    I understand where you're coming from and did address some of what you discussed in my first post too. I completely agree it's a short hop from helping to interfering, however where we differ is I think not having a support system at all is more negligent. I should also reiterate my earlier caveat that I don't agree in profiling people at a mass level like the article suggests is happening. I'd be interested to read the figures you have on why support systems like these don't work in practice because all studies I've read suggest otherwise. Whether it be programmes that offer ex-convicts jobs and thus reduces their likelihood of re-offending; or support at an earlier age such as special schools for kids who are frequently expelled from the mainstream schools and how they've reduced the rates of young offenders. The key is really to give people alternative options rather than "protecting" them by removing options. Your suicidal point is a separate topic though. That's a mental illness rather than an action someone chooses or is lead into.
    - tempguy9999 7y ago
      > Your suicidal point is a separate topic though. That's a mental illness rather than an action someone chooses or is lead into. What are you saying, and what do you think should happen if someone is suicidal? Please think very carefully before answering. Edit: have you any experience with desire for suicide, or any experience with anyone you know well who wanted to, or succeeded in suicide?

laumars 7y ago

You're looking for outrage rather than trying to understand point I'm making and in doing so you've gotten the wrong end of the proverbial stick. I'm not saying everyone should conform, I'm just saying some people need more help than others to make a life for themselves. Sometimes it's because of substance abuse, sometimes it's because of mental, physical or sexual abuse as a kid that leads them into a pattern of bad behaviour. Sometimes it's just circumstances or a mental attitude that is less dramatic than the aforementioned. But in each case it's better to work with them to help enable them to lead happy lives rather than ignore them, outcast them and then incarcerate them because they had nowhere else to turn. If people are just disruptive because they're smart then they're just disruptive because they're smart. They're not an "at risk" group. By "at risk" we're talking people who turn to crime because they felt it was their only option in life. What I was talking about is supporting them so they realise they do have options. If they then choose crime, well that's then their choice. But in many instances people actually don't want that when they realise they have options in their life.

tempguy9999 7y ago
I didn't do a very good job here, and my last line really should have been omitted. I agree with your original post, and this one too (will upvote both) but I am really wary of the potential for abuse that trying to help people become 'better' people can become. A really ugly actual example from about 1969: "Because homosexuality has been considered an endemic and deep-rooted condition since times of antiquity, hopes for its alleviation, until very recent times, have been faint. But lately, since other resistant mental aberrations have been overcome by new methods, somewhat drastic treatments are being used and advocated for the homosexual in some quarters." And I emphasis, this is just one example, I could produce others in other fields. All I'm saying is be very careful about the meaning of 'better'. Anyway, I do actually agree with you overall.
- jammygit 7y ago
  Alberta used to perform forced sterilization upon people with physical and mental disabilities. I don’t want the government going near people for their own good https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/alberta-apologizes-for-forced-sterilization-1.169579 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/alberta-apologizes-for-forced...
  - tempguy9999 7y ago
    I don't agree. Your absolute statement of denial is to me as dangerous as an absolute endorsement of gov't involvement. Read this <https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/may/11/nathan-filer-schizophrenia> https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/may/11/nathan-filer-s... Extract, slightly edited: " A colleague of mine explained his options, such as they were. But that’s the bit that stayed with me. "Do I have to beg you? [he had asked]" It’s why I struggled to keep my hands from shaking as he was eventually held down on his bed and I administered the injection. He didn’t put up a fight. We weren’t preventing and managing violence and aggression. From Amit’s perspective, I don’t doubt we were perpetrating it. In that moment, however good my intentions, I was knowingly participating in his suffering. " Read the story. I feel that it's likely they were doing the right thing, even against the patient's will. If that were me I'd probably agree, though not at the time (thank god that's not my life, I count myself so lucky). But taking your question in a different direction, what would you prefer, that the government does not get involved in such cases? That we leave it to, say, private (profit-driven) companies? Fuck no, never.
perl4ever 7y ago
This is the sort of logic that is used everywhere, whether by police or social services, but it doesn't work in practice the way it does in theory. Providing help to people before there is a crisis sounds so nice and helpful, but due to the inherent drastic negative consequences of entering into the system, it ends up merely moving the punishment for not fitting in forward of the crisis. Thus, trying to be pro-active ends up harming people and/or reinforcing the mentality that you try to cope at all costs without help until you reach a breaking point. For example, we all want to help people who are suicidal, right? But if someone's behavior triggers a response to such apparent potential, then very traumatic and non-helpful things can take place, including the temporary and/or permanent loss of freedoms.
- laumars 7y ago
  I understand where you're coming from and did address some of what you discussed in my first post too. I completely agree it's a short hop from helping to interfering, however where we differ is I think not having a support system at all is more negligent. I should also reiterate my earlier caveat that I don't agree in profiling people at a mass level like the article suggests is happening. I'd be interested to read the figures you have on why support systems like these don't work in practice because all studies I've read suggest otherwise. Whether it be programmes that offer ex-convicts jobs and thus reduces their likelihood of re-offending; or support at an earlier age such as special schools for kids who are frequently expelled from the mainstream schools and how they've reduced the rates of young offenders. The key is really to give people alternative options rather than "protecting" them by removing options. Your suicidal point is a separate topic though. That's a mental illness rather than an action someone chooses or is lead into.
  - tempguy9999 7y ago
    > Your suicidal point is a separate topic though. That's a mental illness rather than an action someone chooses or is lead into. What are you saying, and what do you think should happen if someone is suicidal? Please think very carefully before answering. Edit: have you any experience with desire for suicide, or any experience with anyone you know well who wanted to, or succeeded in suicide?