4 ms·

> Homeless people aren't being treated differently for "not thinking the correct thoughts", or "not being morally aligned". Homeless people who hear voices or

by bregma 6y ago

> Homeless people aren't being treated differently for "not thinking the correct thoughts", or "not being morally aligned". Homeless people who hear voices or are delusional are treated differently precisely because they are not thinking the correct thoughts. Homeless people who indulge in self-mediation with alcohol or other drugs are treated differently precisely because those behaviours are not considered morally aligned. > They are treated differently from ordinary people, but if any ordinary person did the same they would be treated that way too. Plenty of people with homes are addicts. Plenty of people with homes suffer from depression or other conditions. I don't read a lot about how they should be rounded up by the authorities and reformed or institutionalized. > Being treated differently based on behaviour is not necessarily wrong. In the 1930s Soviet Union under Josef Stalin, political opposition was considered a mental illness just like schizophrenia and hysteria. You were considered crazy of you did not support the regime. Thousands of these crazies were rounded up, often in the middle of the night, and institutionalized in an attempt to cure them. The fresh air and honest labour of camps in Siberia were considered just the thing to help. Sure, it's not necessarily wrong to treat someone differently based on behaviour. We consider it reasonable to isolate an individual who demonstrably poses a danger to others. The line is poorly drawn when it comes to differentiating between danger and inconvenience. Is seeing someone in a park smelling like urine and talking to someone you can't see enough of a threat to be isolated and force-fed mind-altering drugs? Does making unproven accusations demonstrate enough possibility of danger that we should "lock her up"? Where does the line get drawn, and who has the privilege of drawing it?

Chris2048 6y ago
"not thinking the correct thoughts" would usually mean not subscribing to conventional opinion, not literally a euphemism for mental illness. And ones "morality" is usually considered to be a persons sober opinion, not things they do while on drugs. Twisting the terms to fit the homeless means it applies to historical examples less - the persecution of certain demographics for their beliefs was not based on drug-induced anti-social behaviour. > Plenty of people with homes are addicts what kind of addict? What are they addicted to that they manage to keep a home? If they are to hold on to that resource they maybe their situation isn't comparable? > Plenty of people with homes suffer from depression or other conditions What "other conditions"? depression isn't at all comparable to antisocial behaviour, but in fact if your depression leads to mania, self-harm, or self-neglect you may well be institutionalised. > political opposition was considered a mental illness And this was a determination made by doctors or medical professionals comparable to todays medical professionals? How many of the politically opposed refused to take care of themselves as a result of their opposition? Is self-neglect difficult to distinguish from political motivation? > differentiating between danger and inconvenience The "inconvenience" of political opposition isn't at all the same thing. laws and regulations exist guaranteeing political freedom, vagrancy shouldn't be crime itself, but anti-social behaviour shouldn't be excused on the basis of vagrancy. > Is seeing someone in a park smelling like urine and talking to someone you can't see enough of a threat to be isolated and force-fed mind-altering drugs? No, but where was that suggested? And by "force-fed mind-altering drugs" do you mean in all cases, or after a medical professional evaluates the person and promotes that as the best course of action (in which case its no longer based on the initial scenario you describe). > Does making unproven accusations demonstrate enough possibility of danger that we should "lock her up"? What are you responding to? What "unproven accusations"? I feel like you are making broad counterpoints to points never made.

by bregma 6y ago

Chris2048 6y ago

"not thinking the correct thoughts" would usually mean not subscribing to conventional opinion, not literally a euphemism for mental illness. And ones "morality" is usually considered to be a persons sober opinion, not things they do while on drugs. Twisting the terms to fit the homeless means it applies to historical examples less - the persecution of certain demographics for their beliefs was not based on drug-induced anti-social behaviour. > Plenty of people with homes are addicts what kind of addict? What are they addicted to that they manage to keep a home? If they are to hold on to that resource they maybe their situation isn't comparable? > Plenty of people with homes suffer from depression or other conditions What "other conditions"? depression isn't at all comparable to antisocial behaviour, but in fact if your depression leads to mania, self-harm, or self-neglect you may well be institutionalised. > political opposition was considered a mental illness And this was a determination made by doctors or medical professionals comparable to todays medical professionals? How many of the politically opposed refused to take care of themselves as a result of their opposition? Is self-neglect difficult to distinguish from political motivation? > differentiating between danger and inconvenience The "inconvenience" of political opposition isn't at all the same thing. laws and regulations exist guaranteeing political freedom, vagrancy shouldn't be crime itself, but anti-social behaviour shouldn't be excused on the basis of vagrancy. > Is seeing someone in a park smelling like urine and talking to someone you can't see enough of a threat to be isolated and force-fed mind-altering drugs? No, but where was that suggested? And by "force-fed mind-altering drugs" do you mean in all cases, or after a medical professional evaluates the person and promotes that as the best course of action (in which case its no longer based on the initial scenario you describe). > Does making unproven accusations demonstrate enough possibility of danger that we should "lock her up"? What are you responding to? What "unproven accusations"? I feel like you are making broad counterpoints to points never made.