Guns now the leading cause of death among children and teenagers in US

Please take this idea to heart.

how VERY libertarian of you..

Indulging in those creaky geriatric mental gymnastics again, are we? Placing someone who is a demonstrated threat to themselves or others is fully compatible with any libertarian position I've ever heard. Transforming the whole town into a padded room for them would not.

except we know from the last century and a half that "involuntary committal" is an easy end run around individual rights, having been abused by families and law enforcement to the point that the practice had to be ended.

not that the civil liberties of others matter though, right?

So there is no possible way it could be implemented fairly. What practical alternative do you suggest when someone is a demonstrated threat?

prove the threat first...

just because you're scared of the loud person doesn't mean you get to put them in a rubber room.

Obviously not. But if they're in the street in their underwear, swinging a machete, your options are: a civilian shoots them dead, the cops show up and maybe he lives (but probably not) and goes to jail for evaluation, or some social worker manages to talk them down, in which case it's rubber room for evaluation.

being that the last one is part of my job, there's rarely if ever a rubber room.

first off because there aren't enough of'em in the first place (well, actual access to treatment, but that's a whole other thread). Not really the goal any ways... we want them in some form of housing-transitional/assisted/independent. from there it's a fuck of a lot easier to ensure they won't be out in their underwear again anytime soon.

second because we usually can get them to one of those safe spaces you mock, or at least out of the way before they hurt themselves. you know how many times I've stopped shit with jsut giving somebody a cigarette?

when they do smash a store window or something, we do restorative justice/mediations. On more than one occasion it's turned into someone getting a second chance or opportunity rather than rough handling by the cops without their prescriptions for the duration of their jail stay.

Lemme guess, UA's hot takes in this thread amount to Randy Marsh turding out his mouth...
*Checks*
Yep.

Amaris and UA are really going all out to prove Horseshoe Theory aren’t they?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union?wprov=sfti1

In fairness, given the circumstances that prevailed in the Stalin era, speaking out against the state could credibly be called mental illness. It certainly showed a deficiency of normal self-preservation impulses.

lessee.. seems that was about the same time as the McCarthy era, no?
the soviets banned lobotomy in 1950, america took till 1977 to stop performing them-mostly on women who likewise challenged "the order of things"...

'merkins pulling moral superiority over their soviet counterparts is always, umm, quaint.

Did you really just try to equate differences in psychiatric treatment with routinely using psychiatry to imprison dissidents?

no... i pointed out the discrepancy of one nation calling lobotomy a crime with no medical benefit to another that considered it a psychiatric panacea for at least another 30 years.

(accused-not necessarily guilty) American dissidents tended to just have their careers, reputations, and lives ruined under colour of law.

but hey, it's not like there's a long and sordid history of medical abuses, often against the "undesirable" or outspoken in America during the 20th century...

There's a difference between professional disagreement about the efficacy of a treatment and the use of psychiatry to suppress dissent. If you can't see that, I can't help you.

McCarthyism was just cancel culture by another name.

Yes. For instance, Margaret Sanger--founder of Planned Parenthood--was a eugenicist who wanted to improve the health of society by curtailing the breeding of undesirables.

you've outdone yourself for disingenuous interpretations here... bravo, sir. bravo.

"professional disagreement about the efficacy..." are you fucking kidding?

mccarthyism was also government sanction against dissidents vs cancel culture which is generally the failure of a product in the "marketplace of ideas" free speech absolutists argue for. are you really trying to equate false claims against a person's character with the audience not being interested or the media obligated?

I was thinking of Tuskeegee, but we could also go with any of these.

Not really sure what Sanger has to do with non consensual medical experimentation though? Sure, she was working with some science that's long since been discredited... but again, you're not bringing the relevance...

Yeah, she was really against Christians popping out kids they couldn't afford to take care of because of religious indoctrination. She considered it cruel and wanted to give those people the ability to make their own choices about when they had children. Hence Planned Parenthood.

And you know what? She was right.

But she despised the Nazi Eugenics program, and gave heavily to the American Council Against Nazi Propaganda.

No wonder you dislike her.