Chairman_woo said:

But more than any of that it is a genuine fucking embarrassment to me that in the 21st century we still accept any member of our society declaring themselves our natural betters in law, or indeed the rest of us as being "subjects".

Januari said:

Wow... that was like two weeks ago... yeah was WAY off on that 'overly sensitive' bit...

I admit i stopped reading at about 'untold suffering throughout the world'.... give me a break i'm trying to cut back...

Honestly hypocrisy, ignorance, drama-queen nonsense... and extraordinary delicate sensibilities... suffice to say we have nothing more to discuses...

Chairman_woo said:

(I also posted this reply on his profile not realising in case that causes any confusion)

My 1st post in that thread was intended purely to inform. Most people I meet who own dogs are painfully unaware of what I was describing and consequently foster futile behaviour and negative emotional outbursts around things their dogs do (the idea that everyone in that thread already knows about this is laughable). This is far from the biggest ill in the world but it's there and I saw an opportunity to present an alternative view of events in the hope that perhaps someone somewhere might learn something (or at least consider an idea rather than just mindlessly following social tradition). Where I learned that idea is irrelevant, it stands or falls on its own merits.

Your response garnered hostility because it was indistinguishable from saying "your spoiling our fun by trying to suggest that the animal might actually be terrified and confused and our fun is more important than someone/thing suffering". You didn't try to challenge what I said, you simply indicated some level of disdain for the fact I was even trying to say something intelligent, or because I didn't mindlessly jump on the "look at the terrified dog" bandwaggon like the rest.

Your damm right it was an emotional response, the attitude you displayed from my POV causes untold suffering throughout the world (and I don't just mean dogs which in the grand scheme of things is relatively harmless). If you read my reply again you'll see that at no point did I suggest you were disagreeing with me, I was insulting you precisely because you didn't even try, you just tried to indite me for trying to raise the level of the conversation. It was that and that alone that garnered my hostility, I'm happy to be proven wrong or even for people to switch off and ignore me but to give me flack just for trying I have little patience for.

You have clearly misunderstood my whole argument against you, if I were to take my own advice then I would either challenge your point (which I did) or accept that I didn't understand enough to try and counter intelligently.

What you did was insult me for just trying to make an intelligent argument. That is where the " little gem of "Fuck You"" came from.

Also it's no good getting on a high horse about me being "over sensitive" when you took the time to jump onto my profile and unleash a boatload of bile yourself. That argument would only have worked if you said it to yourself and got on with your life. But you didn't, you felt you had to give me a piece of your mind just like I did.
I'm not going to call you over sensitive, I'm just going to call you human because that's what you are, just like me ;-).

Edit: for the record that Bill Hicks quote refers to precisely the kind of anti-intellectualism I'm accusing you of. It was because an audience member objected to Bill trying to raise an idea above the trivial self interested level that they felt had been threatened. Or to put it another way Bill had spoiled their fun by trying to make an intelligent point rather than just wallowing in their own unconsidered ignorance. As far as I'm concerned it was entirely appropriate.

Januari said:

You know i don't even normally reply to this trite and i'm certainly not going to hijack someone else's post to do it, but i'm also not going to let you off the hook.

First off my comment was intended as a VERY obvious joke about a silly video.

Maybe ask yourself why you were SOOOO threatened by such an innocuous comment? Or take your own advice and ignore it...

And because you (and almost EVERYONE else for that matter) regurgitate something you learned in psych 101 on to the forums of a website does not mean anyone is agreeing or disagreeing with YOU. YOU arn't a factor beyond being incredibly overly sensitive. I suspect most if not everyone in that thread is well aware of what you posted but was just having a little fun, as was I for that matter. But either learn to take your own advice... if it be from that quote, which to my mind applies to you far more than you seem to be aware, or to your other little gem of "Fuck You".

Chairman_woo said:

^ Just to be clear people with Schizophrenia and other psychotic conditions do have an elevated risk of committing violent acts. It's about 20% of pre diagnosed patients and around 9% of post treatment/diagnosis patients. As opposed to around 1-2% of the "normal" population.

The only big exception to this is in hospital itself where it can rise as high as 50%, however this is pretty well understood to be a product of the environment and circumstances (i.e. you are forcibly being held against your will). It's also one of the reasons you managed to evoke such hostility from me, the idea that people should just be committed/sectioned because they appear somewhat unstable is one that causes a great deal more harm that good.
There are people that are a genuine danger to themselves and or others when in the grips of an "episode", such people are why mental health sections exist, however extreme care and attention must be applied when considering someone who has yet to commit an "index offence".

If she's attacked people (or herself) before when displaying the same symptoms fine, if she has a history of refusing reasonable treatment fine, if she goes and attacks someone fine. But you can't just go around locking people up because they behave strangely. For all we know this lady has never hurt anyone and is not likely to do so, you can't make the kind of judgements your making without fully understanding the patient and the nature of their condition.
There are people I work with you'd instantly label as crazy and possibly dangerous. One guy has a trait of sometimes staring hard at you (esp strangers) while talking intensely under his breath to himself. If you saw him doing that to you and you'd never met him you'd probably shit yourself a bit (I know I did) but the dude is about as gentle as they come! He'd only ever act violently if you cornered him while he was confused and even then probably not. (never been a problem in the 2 years I worked with him)

I'm not saying this lady definitely isn't in any way dangerous, or even that it might not be better to taker her in under a section. I'm simply saying that making assumptions like that is extremely damaging both to the sufferers and to our ability to understand and help them.

Now the whole Gay/Lesbian/Transgender thing has started to become a normal part of our culture mental health is the perhaps one of the last great bullshit taboos left.

Their not crazies, THEIR FUCKING PEOPLE!!!

And I know this because I've yet to meet a truly "sane" human in my life.