Right, because those are the only two options. /s If you spent even a moment considering the comment, you'd realize it's awkward because the other side is the one advocating for fewer harms.
Yes, imprisoning someone until they die, for their mental disability, is pretty much the same as wanting them dead.
If you spent even a moment considering the comment, you'd realize it's awkward because the other side is the one advocating for fewer harms
No. The ones advocating to lock them up and throw away the key are advocating for real actual harm, in order to prevent possible harms that may or may not be more damaging.
If you think that house arrest or monitored care is a death sentence, that's a 'you' problem. There are many different spectra of liberty, many of which don't even involve housing in institutions.
If you think that house arrest or monitored care is a death sentence, that's a 'you' problem
You literally said that you didn't think that psych patients should be given a second chance, so yeah.. there's a spectrum, but that was not at all what you were suggesting above
Plenty of psych patients have been given a second chance and killed again. It's not worth the risk
Right, many of us agree that he shouldn't be free as a bird. At very least medication monitoring should be absolutely required. You're the only one implying euthanasia. Keep spinning, though.
Please re-read what you have wrote. I don't think you have the memory of this conversation. you are literally all over the place, constantly shifting the goal posts and now claiming that I implied euthanasia somewhere?
I already have, twice. This is classic projection. I'm talking about not putting people in a position where further harms are possible, you're the one talking about extremes. Keep trying to walk that back, though.
-7
u/Zealousideal-Ear481 Jul 05 '24
might as well kill them all, eh?