3 ms·

Most people suffering from mental illnesses pose no danger or annoyance to anyone. Lumping them in with violent / abusive / entitled / dangerous troublemakers i

Most people suffering from mental illnesses pose no danger or annoyance to anyone. Lumping them in with violent / abusive / entitled / dangerous troublemakers is insulting and demeaning to mental illness sufferers as a whole. The general public (including non dangerous mental patients) has a right to not be put at risk, intimidated or restricted in their travels by a tiny minority of dangerous individuals. Finally, most antisocial types are either not really diagnosable with a mental disorder, or not diagnosed when one could be. On top of that, even when a diagnosis can and is applied, the effective treatment options are few. We just don't know how to fix narcissists. Thus labelling them as having a mental disorder is entirely pointless, even if you're so generous as to be willing to disregard the massive damages they cause.

gruez 5y ago
> Most people suffering from mental illnesses pose no danger or annoyance to anyone. Lumping them in with violent / abusive / entitled / dangerous troublemakers is insulting and demeaning to mental illness sufferers as a whole. I don't think you'll find any objection towards punishing the latter in principle, but how do you propose we differentiate between "people suffering from mental illnesses pose no danger or annoyance to anyone but had a bad day and/or is experiencing a stressful event", and "violent / abusive / entitled / dangerous troublemakers"?
- himinlomax 5y ago
  You don't need to differentiate, just treat dangerous people as dangerous, irrespective of whatever formal diagnosis exists. This is not a criminal trial, wherein extenuating circumstances have to be weighed for sentencing, constraints are imposed not for punishment but for the protection of others.
0xy 5y ago
This strikes me as a strawman argument, considering the OP article clearly states "unruly", which is not inherently violent. Tourette's Syndrome sufferers could often be considered unruly (I posted examples of them being punished by airlines already). It seems to me you're not only okay with those actions, but want to expand punishment in a more systematic way for people who cannot control their actions and do not engage in violent behavior.

gruez 5y ago

> Most people suffering from mental illnesses pose no danger or annoyance to anyone. Lumping them in with violent / abusive / entitled / dangerous troublemakers is insulting and demeaning to mental illness sufferers as a whole. I don't think you'll find any objection towards punishing the latter in principle, but how do you propose we differentiate between "people suffering from mental illnesses pose no danger or annoyance to anyone but had a bad day and/or is experiencing a stressful event", and "violent / abusive / entitled / dangerous troublemakers"?

himinlomax 5y ago
You don't need to differentiate, just treat dangerous people as dangerous, irrespective of whatever formal diagnosis exists. This is not a criminal trial, wherein extenuating circumstances have to be weighed for sentencing, constraints are imposed not for punishment but for the protection of others.

0xy 5y ago

This strikes me as a strawman argument, considering the OP article clearly states "unruly", which is not inherently violent. Tourette's Syndrome sufferers could often be considered unruly (I posted examples of them being punished by airlines already). It seems to me you're not only okay with those actions, but want to expand punishment in a more systematic way for people who cannot control their actions and do not engage in violent behavior.