A. I believe in Jesus Christ. He is my saviour. I try to follow God.
Q. When did you begin to experience schizophrenia?
A. I thought I heard the voice of God telling me to write down my journey. The voice told me that I was the third story of the Bible. That I was like the second coming of Jesus. I was to save people from a space-alien attack. That is why I travelled around the country. I am not sure of all the places I went to. I now know that it was schizophrenia I was suffering from.
Q. What helps you deal with stress?
A. Taking my medication. Exercising and doing Bible study with the chaplain here.
Q. How would you know you were getting sick again?
A. Hearing voices, stopping my medication and starting to believe in aliens. God would not tell me to do something bad.
Who is Chris Summerville? CEO, Schizophrenia Society of Canada executive director, Manitoba Schizophrenia Society certified psychosocial rehabilitation practitioner ordained pastor with the Associated Gospel Churches of Canadanon-government director, has served as a pastor, chaplain, teacher, administrator and mental-health service provider in Canada and the U.S.
Who is the "quack shrink" you are referring to? You do realize that the interview isn't by his psychiatrist, right?
Yes, I know the interview is not by the psych. The quack shrink is the person/people? responsible for having reviewed this interview (along with other evidence I digress) and still deem it necessary to set this monster free. Quackism at its highest level.
I appreciate the road you are taking here, but I just personally dont believe the two diseases (and the person's ability to control their respective tendencies or impulses) are comparable. It really is that simple.
This type of psychosis is incredibly rare. Alcoholism is rampant. Most, if not all, courts agree that diminished capacity due to drunkeness, whether due to a one time binge or a disease, is not a viable legal excuse, and I tend to agree with that.
I know we disagree here, but I do think they can be compared.
In both cases, you have people who's actions can be attributed to their affliction. While one might be extremely rare in comparison, that doesn't make it more legitimate- especially for the individual struggling with alcohol that makes a fatal decision under the influence.
And I don't hold much respect for our courts (as you know). I mean, why should I? In our city, we very recently had a guy with multiple driving offences and a suspended license kill a woman at a crosswalk trying to get to a casino. Initially, a judge really threw the book at him and sentenced him to 6 months in jail.
Seen as absurdly unjust, an appeal saw another idiot judge overturn that sentence and reduced the sentence to 6 months house arrest (critical of the first sentence as well). Hahahaha. He got grounded! Why? His aboriginal background needed to be taken into account. Why not just give him nothing- make him say sorry or something? A colossal joke... and hardly 'unique'.
You can cherry pick absurdly stupid rulings all you want to make your point, but for every idiot decision made by one judge, there are 10,000 others that make sense but aren't reported on.
As much as health professionals call alcoholism a disease, which i disagree with, but for the discussion let's say it is. The main difference here is alcoholics KNOW they are ill, and are fully capable of making the choice to seek help for their addiction before they kill someone. Someone in Li's situation, however, did not have the luxury of knowing he needed help.
On that difference alone, these two cannot be compared.
Your 10,000 comment is extreme exaggeration. If you feel our court system serves justice then we can agree to disagree. The small scale case I cited was used to complement the catalog of high profile cases that have most Canadians I know slapping their foreheads incredulously.
But to your other point and on topic: are you saying that the health experts are right when they speak of mental illness as a disease, but wrong when they cite the opinion that alcoholism is a disease? You have consistently vouched for the competency and professionalism of the health experts as they support NCR verdicts, yet (at least here) seem prepared to dismiss them when their opinion is contrary to your beliefs.
Li KNEW he was hearing voices he had never heard before which to most might seem quite odd and certainly something to investigate at the very least. According to the media, he was not a dumb man with higher education in his background. The fact that he ignored them until they overcame him seems at a minimum as negligent as ignoring the intense physical and mental urges an alcoholic must battle on a daily basis.
These cases cannot be compared if you choose not to compare them. At a core level... two individuals stricken with a mind altering affliction that leads them to making decisions they normally wouldnt make IS comparable.
I appreciate the road you are taking here, but I just personally dont believe the two diseases (and the person's ability to control their respective tendencies or impulses) are comparable. It really is that simple.
This type of psychosis is incredibly rare. Alcoholism is rampant. Most, if not all, courts agree that diminished capacity due to drunkeness, whether due to a one time binge or a disease, is not a viable legal excuse, and I tend to agree with that.
I know we disagree here, but I do think they can be compared.
In both cases, you have people who's actions can be attributed to their affliction. While one might be extremely rare in comparison, that doesn't make it more legitimate- especially for the individual struggling with alcohol that makes a fatal decision under the influence.
And I don't hold much respect for our courts (as you know). I mean, why should I? In our city, we very recently had a guy with multiple driving offences and a suspended license kill a woman at a crosswalk trying to get to a casino. Initially, a judge really threw the book at him and sentenced him to 6 months in jail.
Seen as absurdly unjust, an appeal saw another idiot judge overturn that sentence and reduced the sentence to 6 months house arrest (critical of the first sentence as well). Hahahaha. He got grounded! Why? His aboriginal background needed to be taken into account. Why not just give him nothing- make him say sorry or something? A colossal joke... and hardly 'unique'.
You can cherry pick absurdly stupid rulings all you want to make your point, but for every idiot decision made by one judge, there are 10,000 others that make sense but aren't reported on.
As much as health professionals call alcoholism a disease, which i disagree with, but for the discussion let's say it is. The main difference here is alcoholics KNOW they are ill, and are fully capable of making the choice to seek help for their addiction before they kill someone. Someone in Li's situation, however, did not have the luxury of knowing he needed help.
On that difference alone, these two cannot be compared.
Your 10,000 comment is extreme exaggeration. If you feel our court system serves justice then we can agree to disagree. The small scale case I cited was used to complement the catalog of high profile cases that have most Canadians I know slapping their foreheads incredulously.
But to your other point and on topic: are you saying that the health experts are right when they speak of mental illness as a disease, but wrong when they cite the opinion that alcoholism is a disease? You have consistently vouched for the competency and professionalism of the health experts as they support NCR verdicts, yet (at least here) seem prepared to dismiss them when their opinion is contrary to your beliefs.
Li KNEW he was hearing voices he had never heard before which to most might seem quite odd and certainly something to investigate at the very least. According to the media, he was not a dumb man with higher education in his background. The fact that he ignored them until they overcame him seems at a minimum as negligent as ignoring the intense physical and mental urges an alcoholic must battle on a daily basis.
These cases cannot be compared if you choose not to compare them. At a core level... two individuals stricken with a mind altering affliction that leads them to making decisions they normally wouldnt make IS comparable.
How is it an extreme exaggeration? How many court cases, drunk driving cases, assault cases, et al, are before the courts in this country at any one time? Thousands. And how many gross injustices do you hear about in that same time frame? Not even a fraction. And of that fraction, many of those are debatable.
My opinion on alcoholism being a disease is something personal to me that I will choose to refrain from going into, for obvious reasons. I understand that it is a terrible thing to overcome, and I highly commend those that do. I have witnessed it first hand. I continue to, actually, and it is really sad. Those that don't, however, CHOOSE not to. However difficult that choice is, it is still a choice.
The thing is, they are not even close to comparable, and I am really kind of surprised anyone would attempt to draw such a comparison. It almost feels like you are just arguing a point just for the sake of it.
Alcoholics know they have an affliction and can make the choice to get help. Someone like Li did not. Your comment that he heard voices he hadnt heard before being something he should have known was wrong is the case and point here: you dont seem to understand that his disease preclued him from understanding those voices were not real. he didnt think "shit, what the fuck was that? I had better see someone about that". He listened to them.
Yeah, it sounds unbelievable and difficult for us non-voice-hearers to grasp, but it is a real thing.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
I appreciate the road you are taking here, but I just personally dont believe the two diseases (and the person's ability to control their respective tendencies or impulses) are comparable. It really is that simple.
This type of psychosis is incredibly rare. Alcoholism is rampant. Most, if not all, courts agree that diminished capacity due to drunkeness, whether due to a one time binge or a disease, is not a viable legal excuse, and I tend to agree with that.
I know we disagree here, but I do think they can be compared.
In both cases, you have people who's actions can be attributed to their affliction. While one might be extremely rare in comparison, that doesn't make it more legitimate- especially for the individual struggling with alcohol that makes a fatal decision under the influence.
And I don't hold much respect for our courts (as you know). I mean, why should I? In our city, we very recently had a guy with multiple driving offences and a suspended license kill a woman at a crosswalk trying to get to a casino. Initially, a judge really threw the book at him and sentenced him to 6 months in jail.
Seen as absurdly unjust, an appeal saw another idiot judge overturn that sentence and reduced the sentence to 6 months house arrest (critical of the first sentence as well). Hahahaha. He got grounded! Why? His aboriginal background needed to be taken into account. Why not just give him nothing- make him say sorry or something? A colossal joke... and hardly 'unique'.
You can cherry pick absurdly stupid rulings all you want to make your point, but for every idiot decision made by one judge, there are 10,000 others that make sense but aren't reported on.
As much as health professionals call alcoholism a disease, which i disagree with, but for the discussion let's say it is. The main difference here is alcoholics KNOW they are ill, and are fully capable of making the choice to seek help for their addiction before they kill someone. Someone in Li's situation, however, did not have the luxury of knowing he needed help.
On that difference alone, these two cannot be compared.
Your 10,000 comment is extreme exaggeration. If you feel our court system serves justice then we can agree to disagree. The small scale case I cited was used to complement the catalog of high profile cases that have most Canadians I know slapping their foreheads incredulously.
But to your other point and on topic: are you saying that the health experts are right when they speak of mental illness as a disease, but wrong when they cite the opinion that alcoholism is a disease? You have consistently vouched for the competency and professionalism of the health experts as they support NCR verdicts, yet (at least here) seem prepared to dismiss them when their opinion is contrary to your beliefs.
Li KNEW he was hearing voices he had never heard before which to most might seem quite odd and certainly something to investigate at the very least. According to the media, he was not a dumb man with higher education in his background. The fact that he ignored them until they overcame him seems at a minimum as negligent as ignoring the intense physical and mental urges an alcoholic must battle on a daily basis.
These cases cannot be compared if you choose not to compare them. At a core level... two individuals stricken with a mind altering affliction that leads them to making decisions they normally wouldnt make IS comparable.
It almost feels like you are just arguing a point just for the sake of it.
Alcoholics know they have an affliction and can make the choice to get help. Yeah, it sounds unbelievable and difficult for us non-voice-hearers to grasp, but it is a real thing.
So do you have the same opinion about being gay/lesbian?
I appreciate the road you are taking here, but I just personally dont believe the two diseases (and the person's ability to control their respective tendencies or impulses) are comparable. It really is that simple.
This type of psychosis is incredibly rare. Alcoholism is rampant. Most, if not all, courts agree that diminished capacity due to drunkeness, whether due to a one time binge or a disease, is not a viable legal excuse, and I tend to agree with that.
I know we disagree here, but I do think they can be compared.
In both cases, you have people who's actions can be attributed to their affliction. While one might be extremely rare in comparison, that doesn't make it more legitimate- especially for the individual struggling with alcohol that makes a fatal decision under the influence.
And I don't hold much respect for our courts (as you know). I mean, why should I? In our city, we very recently had a guy with multiple driving offences and a suspended license kill a woman at a crosswalk trying to get to a casino. Initially, a judge really threw the book at him and sentenced him to 6 months in jail.
Seen as absurdly unjust, an appeal saw another idiot judge overturn that sentence and reduced the sentence to 6 months house arrest (critical of the first sentence as well). Hahahaha. He got grounded! Why? His aboriginal background needed to be taken into account. Why not just give him nothing- make him say sorry or something? A colossal joke... and hardly 'unique'.
You can cherry pick absurdly stupid rulings all you want to make your point, but for every idiot decision made by one judge, there are 10,000 others that make sense but aren't reported on.
As much as health professionals call alcoholism a disease, which i disagree with, but for the discussion let's say it is. The main difference here is alcoholics KNOW they are ill, and are fully capable of making the choice to seek help for their addiction before they kill someone. Someone in Li's situation, however, did not have the luxury of knowing he needed help.
On that difference alone, these two cannot be compared.
Your 10,000 comment is extreme exaggeration. If you feel our court system serves justice then we can agree to disagree. The small scale case I cited was used to complement the catalog of high profile cases that have most Canadians I know slapping their foreheads incredulously.
But to your other point and on topic: are you saying that the health experts are right when they speak of mental illness as a disease, but wrong when they cite the opinion that alcoholism is a disease? You have consistently vouched for the competency and professionalism of the health experts as they support NCR verdicts, yet (at least here) seem prepared to dismiss them when their opinion is contrary to your beliefs.
Li KNEW he was hearing voices he had never heard before which to most might seem quite odd and certainly something to investigate at the very least. According to the media, he was not a dumb man with higher education in his background. The fact that he ignored them until they overcame him seems at a minimum as negligent as ignoring the intense physical and mental urges an alcoholic must battle on a daily basis.
These cases cannot be compared if you choose not to compare them. At a core level... two individuals stricken with a mind altering affliction that leads them to making decisions they normally wouldnt make IS comparable.
It almost feels like you are just arguing a point just for the sake of it.
Alcoholics know they have an affliction and can make the choice to get help. Yeah, it sounds unbelievable and difficult for us non-voice-hearers to grasp, but it is a real thing.
So do you have the same opinion about being gay/lesbian?
I appreciate the road you are taking here, but I just personally dont believe the two diseases (and the person's ability to control their respective tendencies or impulses) are comparable. It really is that simple.
This type of psychosis is incredibly rare. Alcoholism is rampant. Most, if not all, courts agree that diminished capacity due to drunkeness, whether due to a one time binge or a disease, is not a viable legal excuse, and I tend to agree with that.
I know we disagree here, but I do think they can be compared.
In both cases, you have people who's actions can be attributed to their affliction. While one might be extremely rare in comparison, that doesn't make it more legitimate- especially for the individual struggling with alcohol that makes a fatal decision under the influence.
And I don't hold much respect for our courts (as you know). I mean, why should I? In our city, we very recently had a guy with multiple driving offences and a suspended license kill a woman at a crosswalk trying to get to a casino. Initially, a judge really threw the book at him and sentenced him to 6 months in jail.
Seen as absurdly unjust, an appeal saw another idiot judge overturn that sentence and reduced the sentence to 6 months house arrest (critical of the first sentence as well). Hahahaha. He got grounded! Why? His aboriginal background needed to be taken into account. Why not just give him nothing- make him say sorry or something? A colossal joke... and hardly 'unique'.
You can cherry pick absurdly stupid rulings all you want to make your point, but for every idiot decision made by one judge, there are 10,000 others that make sense but aren't reported on.
As much as health professionals call alcoholism a disease, which i disagree with, but for the discussion let's say it is. The main difference here is alcoholics KNOW they are ill, and are fully capable of making the choice to seek help for their addiction before they kill someone. Someone in Li's situation, however, did not have the luxury of knowing he needed help.
On that difference alone, these two cannot be compared.
Your 10,000 comment is extreme exaggeration. If you feel our court system serves justice then we can agree to disagree. The small scale case I cited was used to complement the catalog of high profile cases that have most Canadians I know slapping their foreheads incredulously.
But to your other point and on topic: are you saying that the health experts are right when they speak of mental illness as a disease, but wrong when they cite the opinion that alcoholism is a disease? You have consistently vouched for the competency and professionalism of the health experts as they support NCR verdicts, yet (at least here) seem prepared to dismiss them when their opinion is contrary to your beliefs.
Li KNEW he was hearing voices he had never heard before which to most might seem quite odd and certainly something to investigate at the very least. According to the media, he was not a dumb man with higher education in his background. The fact that he ignored them until they overcame him seems at a minimum as negligent as ignoring the intense physical and mental urges an alcoholic must battle on a daily basis.
These cases cannot be compared if you choose not to compare them. At a core level... two individuals stricken with a mind altering affliction that leads them to making decisions they normally wouldnt make IS comparable.
It almost feels like you are just arguing a point just for the sake of it.
Alcoholics know they have an affliction and can make the choice to get help. Yeah, it sounds unbelievable and difficult for us non-voice-hearers to grasp, but it is a real thing.
So do you have the same opinion about being gay/lesbian?
Blanket statements usurp people to question.
Say what?
I have nothing to say to someone that stands firm in saying "people who have C-sections for non-medical reasons are idiots"
I appreciate the road you are taking here, but I just personally dont believe the two diseases (and the person's ability to control their respective tendencies or impulses) are comparable. It really is that simple.
This type of psychosis is incredibly rare. Alcoholism is rampant. Most, if not all, courts agree that diminished capacity due to drunkeness, whether due to a one time binge or a disease, is not a viable legal excuse, and I tend to agree with that.
I know we disagree here, but I do think they can be compared.
In both cases, you have people who's actions can be attributed to their affliction. While one might be extremely rare in comparison, that doesn't make it more legitimate- especially for the individual struggling with alcohol that makes a fatal decision under the influence.
And I don't hold much respect for our courts (as you know). I mean, why should I? In our city, we very recently had a guy with multiple driving offences and a suspended license kill a woman at a crosswalk trying to get to a casino. Initially, a judge really threw the book at him and sentenced him to 6 months in jail.
Seen as absurdly unjust, an appeal saw another idiot judge overturn that sentence and reduced the sentence to 6 months house arrest (critical of the first sentence as well). Hahahaha. He got grounded! Why? His aboriginal background needed to be taken into account. Why not just give him nothing- make him say sorry or something? A colossal joke... and hardly 'unique'.
You can cherry pick absurdly stupid rulings all you want to make your point, but for every idiot decision made by one judge, there are 10,000 others that make sense but aren't reported on.
As much as health professionals call alcoholism a disease, which i disagree with, but for the discussion let's say it is. The main difference here is alcoholics KNOW they are ill, and are fully capable of making the choice to seek help for their addiction before they kill someone. Someone in Li's situation, however, did not have the luxury of knowing he needed help.
On that difference alone, these two cannot be compared.
Your 10,000 comment is extreme exaggeration. If you feel our court system serves justice then we can agree to disagree. The small scale case I cited was used to complement the catalog of high profile cases that have most Canadians I know slapping their foreheads incredulously.
But to your other point and on topic: are you saying that the health experts are right when they speak of mental illness as a disease, but wrong when they cite the opinion that alcoholism is a disease? You have consistently vouched for the competency and professionalism of the health experts as they support NCR verdicts, yet (at least here) seem prepared to dismiss them when their opinion is contrary to your beliefs.
Li KNEW he was hearing voices he had never heard before which to most might seem quite odd and certainly something to investigate at the very least. According to the media, he was not a dumb man with higher education in his background. The fact that he ignored them until they overcame him seems at a minimum as negligent as ignoring the intense physical and mental urges an alcoholic must battle on a daily basis.
These cases cannot be compared if you choose not to compare them. At a core level... two individuals stricken with a mind altering affliction that leads them to making decisions they normally wouldnt make IS comparable.
How is it an extreme exaggeration? How many court cases, drunk driving cases, assault cases, et al, are before the courts in this country at any one time? Thousands. And how many gross injustices do you hear about in that same time frame? Not even a fraction. And of that fraction, many of those are debatable.
My opinion on alcoholism being a disease is something personal to me that I will choose to refrain from going into, for obvious reasons. I understand that it is a terrible thing to overcome, and I highly commend those that do. I have witnessed it first hand. I continue to, actually, and it is really sad. Those that don't, however, CHOOSE not to. However difficult that choice is, it is still a choice.
The thing is, they are not even close to comparable, and I am really kind of surprised anyone would attempt to draw such a comparison. It almost feels like you are just arguing a point just for the sake of it.
Alcoholics know they have an affliction and can make the choice to get help. Someone like Li did not. Your comment that he heard voices he hadnt heard before being something he should have known was wrong is the case and point here: you dont seem to understand that his disease preclued him from understanding those voices were not real. he didnt think "shit, what the fuck was that? I had better see someone about that". He listened to them.
Yeah, it sounds unbelievable and difficult for us non-voice-hearers to grasp, but it is a real thing.
Okay. I got it now.
Comparatively speaking, alcoholism is really easy to beat and those that don't beat it have simply made (as you say) a CHOICE not to because they are weak; therefore, if they commit a crime while under the influence... they are entirely responsible. Mental illness renders people completely powerless and any crime they commit is not their fault given what they must overcome to act as a sane and responsible person. What an oversimplification for the struggling alcoholic's plight.
That big piece of fluff that you submitted contained a Li interview where Li stated he would phone his doctor if he began having an episode- suggesting (despite what you say) there actually is some level of awareness. Regardless of what you have written (in the melodramatic style you are typically so opposed to)... I'm not convinced that the disease seized him in a trance-like state upon the onset of its very first symptoms so that he simply could not recognize something was wrong.
I could be wrong as a non-voice-hearer, but so could you because mental illness is very far from an exact science. His experts declaring him 'good to go' are not exactly examining x-rays or peering through a microscope to validate their claims.
If you seriously think the disease is so debilitating leaving its victim powerless in the event of an episode, then why would you be such a staunch proponent for Li's release knowing his capacity for extreme violence? And yes... I do understand that there are safeguards in place for people such as these- just like there are safeguards for child services which routinely fail.
I appreciate the road you are taking here, but I just personally dont believe the two diseases (and the person's ability to control their respective tendencies or impulses) are comparable. It really is that simple.
This type of psychosis is incredibly rare. Alcoholism is rampant. Most, if not all, courts agree that diminished capacity due to drunkeness, whether due to a one time binge or a disease, is not a viable legal excuse, and I tend to agree with that.
I know we disagree here, but I do think they can be compared.
In both cases, you have people who's actions can be attributed to their affliction. While one might be extremely rare in comparison, that doesn't make it more legitimate- especially for the individual struggling with alcohol that makes a fatal decision under the influence.
And I don't hold much respect for our courts (as you know). I mean, why should I? In our city, we very recently had a guy with multiple driving offences and a suspended license kill a woman at a crosswalk trying to get to a casino. Initially, a judge really threw the book at him and sentenced him to 6 months in jail.
Seen as absurdly unjust, an appeal saw another idiot judge overturn that sentence and reduced the sentence to 6 months house arrest (critical of the first sentence as well). Hahahaha. He got grounded! Why? His aboriginal background needed to be taken into account. Why not just give him nothing- make him say sorry or something? A colossal joke... and hardly 'unique'.
You can cherry pick absurdly stupid rulings all you want to make your point, but for every idiot decision made by one judge, there are 10,000 others that make sense but aren't reported on.
As much as health professionals call alcoholism a disease, which i disagree with, but for the discussion let's say it is. The main difference here is alcoholics KNOW they are ill, and are fully capable of making the choice to seek help for their addiction before they kill someone. Someone in Li's situation, however, did not have the luxury of knowing he needed help.
On that difference alone, these two cannot be compared.
Your 10,000 comment is extreme exaggeration. If you feel our court system serves justice then we can agree to disagree. The small scale case I cited was used to complement the catalog of high profile cases that have most Canadians I know slapping their foreheads incredulously.
But to your other point and on topic: are you saying that the health experts are right when they speak of mental illness as a disease, but wrong when they cite the opinion that alcoholism is a disease? You have consistently vouched for the competency and professionalism of the health experts as they support NCR verdicts, yet (at least here) seem prepared to dismiss them when their opinion is contrary to your beliefs.
Li KNEW he was hearing voices he had never heard before which to most might seem quite odd and certainly something to investigate at the very least. According to the media, he was not a dumb man with higher education in his background. The fact that he ignored them until they overcame him seems at a minimum as negligent as ignoring the intense physical and mental urges an alcoholic must battle on a daily basis.
These cases cannot be compared if you choose not to compare them. At a core level... two individuals stricken with a mind altering affliction that leads them to making decisions they normally wouldnt make IS comparable.
It almost feels like you are just arguing a point just for the sake of it.
Alcoholics know they have an affliction and can make the choice to get help. Yeah, it sounds unbelievable and difficult for us non-voice-hearers to grasp, but it is a real thing.
So do you have the same opinion about being gay/lesbian?
Blanket statements usurp people to question.
Say what?
I have nothing to say to someone that stands firm in saying "people who have C-sections for non-medical reasons are idiots"
expand your mind or troll elsewhere
Says the person somehow linking this topic to "gay/lesbian"
You sure are taking the c-section thing personal.
And I'm pretty sure I have a good grasp as to who the troll is around here. Glad to see you're out of the penalty box.
I appreciate the road you are taking here, but I just personally dont believe the two diseases (and the person's ability to control their respective tendencies or impulses) are comparable. It really is that simple.
This type of psychosis is incredibly rare. Alcoholism is rampant. Most, if not all, courts agree that diminished capacity due to drunkeness, whether due to a one time binge or a disease, is not a viable legal excuse, and I tend to agree with that.
I know we disagree here, but I do think they can be compared.
In both cases, you have people who's actions can be attributed to their affliction. While one might be extremely rare in comparison, that doesn't make it more legitimate- especially for the individual struggling with alcohol that makes a fatal decision under the influence.
And I don't hold much respect for our courts (as you know). I mean, why should I? In our city, we very recently had a guy with multiple driving offences and a suspended license kill a woman at a crosswalk trying to get to a casino. Initially, a judge really threw the book at him and sentenced him to 6 months in jail.
Seen as absurdly unjust, an appeal saw another idiot judge overturn that sentence and reduced the sentence to 6 months house arrest (critical of the first sentence as well). Hahahaha. He got grounded! Why? His aboriginal background needed to be taken into account. Why not just give him nothing- make him say sorry or something? A colossal joke... and hardly 'unique'.
You can cherry pick absurdly stupid rulings all you want to make your point, but for every idiot decision made by one judge, there are 10,000 others that make sense but aren't reported on.
As much as health professionals call alcoholism a disease, which i disagree with, but for the discussion let's say it is. The main difference here is alcoholics KNOW they are ill, and are fully capable of making the choice to seek help for their addiction before they kill someone. Someone in Li's situation, however, did not have the luxury of knowing he needed help.
On that difference alone, these two cannot be compared.
Your 10,000 comment is extreme exaggeration. If you feel our court system serves justice then we can agree to disagree. The small scale case I cited was used to complement the catalog of high profile cases that have most Canadians I know slapping their foreheads incredulously.
But to your other point and on topic: are you saying that the health experts are right when they speak of mental illness as a disease, but wrong when they cite the opinion that alcoholism is a disease? You have consistently vouched for the competency and professionalism of the health experts as they support NCR verdicts, yet (at least here) seem prepared to dismiss them when their opinion is contrary to your beliefs.
Li KNEW he was hearing voices he had never heard before which to most might seem quite odd and certainly something to investigate at the very least. According to the media, he was not a dumb man with higher education in his background. The fact that he ignored them until they overcame him seems at a minimum as negligent as ignoring the intense physical and mental urges an alcoholic must battle on a daily basis.
These cases cannot be compared if you choose not to compare them. At a core level... two individuals stricken with a mind altering affliction that leads them to making decisions they normally wouldnt make IS comparable.
How is it an extreme exaggeration? How many court cases, drunk driving cases, assault cases, et al, are before the courts in this country at any one time? Thousands. And how many gross injustices do you hear about in that same time frame? Not even a fraction. And of that fraction, many of those are debatable.
My opinion on alcoholism being a disease is something personal to me that I will choose to refrain from going into, for obvious reasons. I understand that it is a terrible thing to overcome, and I highly commend those that do. I have witnessed it first hand. I continue to, actually, and it is really sad. Those that don't, however, CHOOSE not to. However difficult that choice is, it is still a choice.
The thing is, they are not even close to comparable, and I am really kind of surprised anyone would attempt to draw such a comparison. It almost feels like you are just arguing a point just for the sake of it.
Alcoholics know they have an affliction and can make the choice to get help. Someone like Li did not. Your comment that he heard voices he hadnt heard before being something he should have known was wrong is the case and point here: you dont seem to understand that his disease preclued him from understanding those voices were not real. he didnt think "shit, what the fuck was that? I had better see someone about that". He listened to them.
Yeah, it sounds unbelievable and difficult for us non-voice-hearers to grasp, but it is a real thing.
Okay. I got it now.
Comparatively speaking, alcoholism is really easy to beat and those that don't beat it have simply made (as you say) a CHOICE not to because they are weak; therefore, if they commit a crime while under the influence... they are entirely responsible. Mental illness renders people completely powerless and any crime they commit is not their fault given what they must overcome to act as a sane and responsible person. What an oversimplification for the struggling alcoholic's plight.
That big piece of fluff that you submitted contained a Li interview where Li stated he would phone his doctor if he began having an episode- suggesting (despite what you say) there actually is some level of awareness. Regardless of what you have written (in the melodramatic style you are typically so opposed to)... I'm not convinced that the disease seized him in a trance-like state upon the onset of its very first symptoms so that he simply could not recognize something was wrong.
I could be wrong as a non-voice-hearer, but so could you because mental illness is very far from an exact science. His experts declaring him 'good to go' are not exactly examining x-rays or peering through a microscope to validate their claims.
If you seriously think the disease is so debilitating leaving its victim powerless in the event of an episode, then why would you be such a staunch proponent for Li's release knowing his capacity for extreme violence? And yes... I do understand that there are safeguards in place for people such as these- just like there are safeguards for child services which routinely fail.
Ah, the melodrama. Never once did i claim alcoholism was easy to beat and those that dont are weak. Actually, i stated the exact opposite of that, pretty clearly i might add. I didnt bother reading the rest. Good day.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
I appreciate the road you are taking here, but I just personally dont believe the two diseases (and the person's ability to control their respective tendencies or impulses) are comparable. It really is that simple.
This type of psychosis is incredibly rare. Alcoholism is rampant. Most, if not all, courts agree that diminished capacity due to drunkeness, whether due to a one time binge or a disease, is not a viable legal excuse, and I tend to agree with that.
I know we disagree here, but I do think they can be compared.
In both cases, you have people who's actions can be attributed to their affliction. While one might be extremely rare in comparison, that doesn't make it more legitimate- especially for the individual struggling with alcohol that makes a fatal decision under the influence.
And I don't hold much respect for our courts (as you know). I mean, why should I? In our city, we very recently had a guy with multiple driving offences and a suspended license kill a woman at a crosswalk trying to get to a casino. Initially, a judge really threw the book at him and sentenced him to 6 months in jail.
Seen as absurdly unjust, an appeal saw another idiot judge overturn that sentence and reduced the sentence to 6 months house arrest (critical of the first sentence as well). Hahahaha. He got grounded! Why? His aboriginal background needed to be taken into account. Why not just give him nothing- make him say sorry or something? A colossal joke... and hardly 'unique'.
You can cherry pick absurdly stupid rulings all you want to make your point, but for every idiot decision made by one judge, there are 10,000 others that make sense but aren't reported on.
As much as health professionals call alcoholism a disease, which i disagree with, but for the discussion let's say it is. The main difference here is alcoholics KNOW they are ill, and are fully capable of making the choice to seek help for their addiction before they kill someone. Someone in Li's situation, however, did not have the luxury of knowing he needed help.
On that difference alone, these two cannot be compared.
Your 10,000 comment is extreme exaggeration. If you feel our court system serves justice then we can agree to disagree. The small scale case I cited was used to complement the catalog of high profile cases that have most Canadians I know slapping their foreheads incredulously.
But to your other point and on topic: are you saying that the health experts are right when they speak of mental illness as a disease, but wrong when they cite the opinion that alcoholism is a disease? You have consistently vouched for the competency and professionalism of the health experts as they support NCR verdicts, yet (at least here) seem prepared to dismiss them when their opinion is contrary to your beliefs.
Li KNEW he was hearing voices he had never heard before which to most might seem quite odd and certainly something to investigate at the very least. According to the media, he was not a dumb man with higher education in his background. The fact that he ignored them until they overcame him seems at a minimum as negligent as ignoring the intense physical and mental urges an alcoholic must battle on a daily basis.
These cases cannot be compared if you choose not to compare them. At a core level... two individuals stricken with a mind altering affliction that leads them to making decisions they normally wouldnt make IS comparable.
It almost feels like you are just arguing a point just for the sake of it.
Alcoholics know they have an affliction and can make the choice to get help. Yeah, it sounds unbelievable and difficult for us non-voice-hearers to grasp, but it is a real thing.
So do you have the same opinion about being gay/lesbian?
Blanket statements usurp people to question.
um, no, sexual orientation is biological.
Alcoholics can choose to seek treatment. True statement. Thats not a blanket statement. A blanket statement would be if i said something that thirty claimed i said, for example, tgat "all alcoholics are weak", which i do not believe, and know to be untrue. I also said i know how difficult it is to do so, and not only that, but to be successful is equally if not more difficult.
Dont let your passionate misinterpretation of something i said cause you to insult me.
Good day.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
I appreciate the road you are taking here, but I just personally dont believe the two diseases (and the person's ability to control their respective tendencies or impulses) are comparable. It really is that simple.
This type of psychosis is incredibly rare. Alcoholism is rampant. Most, if not all, courts agree that diminished capacity due to drunkeness, whether due to a one time binge or a disease, is not a viable legal excuse, and I tend to agree with that.
I know we disagree here, but I do think they can be compared.
In both cases, you have people who's actions can be attributed to their affliction. While one might be extremely rare in comparison, that doesn't make it more legitimate- especially for the individual struggling with alcohol that makes a fatal decision under the influence.
And I don't hold much respect for our courts (as you know). I mean, why should I? In our city, we very recently had a guy with multiple driving offences and a suspended license kill a woman at a crosswalk trying to get to a casino. Initially, a judge really threw the book at him and sentenced him to 6 months in jail.
Seen as absurdly unjust, an appeal saw another idiot judge overturn that sentence and reduced the sentence to 6 months house arrest (critical of the first sentence as well). Hahahaha. He got grounded! Why? His aboriginal background needed to be taken into account. Why not just give him nothing- make him say sorry or something? A colossal joke... and hardly 'unique'.
You can cherry pick absurdly stupid rulings all you want to make your point, but for every idiot decision made by one judge, there are 10,000 others that make sense but aren't reported on.
As much as health professionals call alcoholism a disease, which i disagree with, but for the discussion let's say it is. The main difference here is alcoholics KNOW they are ill, and are fully capable of making the choice to seek help for their addiction before they kill someone. Someone in Li's situation, however, did not have the luxury of knowing he needed help.
On that difference alone, these two cannot be compared.
Your 10,000 comment is extreme exaggeration. If you feel our court system serves justice then we can agree to disagree. The small scale case I cited was used to complement the catalog of high profile cases that have most Canadians I know slapping their foreheads incredulously.
But to your other point and on topic: are you saying that the health experts are right when they speak of mental illness as a disease, but wrong when they cite the opinion that alcoholism is a disease? You have consistently vouched for the competency and professionalism of the health experts as they support NCR verdicts, yet (at least here) seem prepared to dismiss them when their opinion is contrary to your beliefs.
Li KNEW he was hearing voices he had never heard before which to most might seem quite odd and certainly something to investigate at the very least. According to the media, he was not a dumb man with higher education in his background. The fact that he ignored them until they overcame him seems at a minimum as negligent as ignoring the intense physical and mental urges an alcoholic must battle on a daily basis.
These cases cannot be compared if you choose not to compare them. At a core level... two individuals stricken with a mind altering affliction that leads them to making decisions they normally wouldnt make IS comparable.
It almost feels like you are just arguing a point just for the sake of it.
Alcoholics know they have an affliction and can make the choice to get help. Yeah, it sounds unbelievable and difficult for us non-voice-hearers to grasp, but it is a real thing.
So do you have the same opinion about being gay/lesbian?
Blanket statements usurp people to question.
Say what?
I have nothing to say to someone that stands firm in saying "people who have C-sections for non-medical reasons are idiots"
expand your mind or troll elsewhere
Says the person somehow linking this topic to "gay/lesbian"
You sure are taking the c-section thing personal.
And I'm pretty sure I have a good grasp as to who the troll is around here. Glad to see your out of the penalty box.
I must have missed an interesting discussion about c sections. Lol
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
I appreciate the road you are taking here, but I just personally dont believe the two diseases (and the person's ability to control their respective tendencies or impulses) are comparable. It really is that simple.
This type of psychosis is incredibly rare. Alcoholism is rampant. Most, if not all, courts agree that diminished capacity due to drunkeness, whether due to a one time binge or a disease, is not a viable legal excuse, and I tend to agree with that.
I know we disagree here, but I do think they can be compared.
In both cases, you have people who's actions can be attributed to their affliction. While one might be extremely rare in comparison, that doesn't make it more legitimate- especially for the individual struggling with alcohol that makes a fatal decision under the influence.
And I don't hold much respect for our courts (as you know). I mean, why should I? In our city, we very recently had a guy with multiple driving offences and a suspended license kill a woman at a crosswalk trying to get to a casino. Initially, a judge really threw the book at him and sentenced him to 6 months in jail.
Seen as absurdly unjust, an appeal saw another idiot judge overturn that sentence and reduced the sentence to 6 months house arrest (critical of the first sentence as well). Hahahaha. He got grounded! Why? His aboriginal background needed to be taken into account. Why not just give him nothing- make him say sorry or something? A colossal joke... and hardly 'unique'.
You can cherry pick absurdly stupid rulings all you want to make your point, but for every idiot decision made by one judge, there are 10,000 others that make sense but aren't reported on.
As much as health professionals call alcoholism a disease, which i disagree with, but for the discussion let's say it is. The main difference here is alcoholics KNOW they are ill, and are fully capable of making the choice to seek help for their addiction before they kill someone. Someone in Li's situation, however, did not have the luxury of knowing he needed help.
On that difference alone, these two cannot be compared.
Your 10,000 comment is extreme exaggeration. If you feel our court system serves justice then we can agree to disagree. The small scale case I cited was used to complement the catalog of high profile cases that have most Canadians I know slapping their foreheads incredulously.
But to your other point and on topic: are you saying that the health experts are right when they speak of mental illness as a disease, but wrong when they cite the opinion that alcoholism is a disease? You have consistently vouched for the competency and professionalism of the health experts as they support NCR verdicts, yet (at least here) seem prepared to dismiss them when their opinion is contrary to your beliefs.
Li KNEW he was hearing voices he had never heard before which to most might seem quite odd and certainly something to investigate at the very least. According to the media, he was not a dumb man with higher education in his background. The fact that he ignored them until they overcame him seems at a minimum as negligent as ignoring the intense physical and mental urges an alcoholic must battle on a daily basis.
These cases cannot be compared if you choose not to compare them. At a core level... two individuals stricken with a mind altering affliction that leads them to making decisions they normally wouldnt make IS comparable.
How is it an extreme exaggeration? How many court cases, drunk driving cases, assault cases, et al, are before the courts in this country at any one time? Thousands. And how many gross injustices do you hear about in that same time frame? Not even a fraction. And of that fraction, many of those are debatable.
My opinion on alcoholism being a disease is something personal to me that I will choose to refrain from going into, for obvious reasons. I understand that it is a terrible thing to overcome, and I highly commend those that do. I have witnessed it first hand. I continue to, actually, and it is really sad. Those that don't, however, CHOOSE not to. However difficult that choice is, it is still a choice.
The thing is, they are not even close to comparable, and I am really kind of surprised anyone would attempt to draw such a comparison. It almost feels like you are just arguing a point just for the sake of it.
Alcoholics know they have an affliction and can make the choice to get help. Someone like Li did not. Your comment that he heard voices he hadnt heard before being something he should have known was wrong is the case and point here: you dont seem to understand that his disease preclued him from understanding those voices were not real. he didnt think "shit, what the fuck was that? I had better see someone about that". He listened to them.
Yeah, it sounds unbelievable and difficult for us non-voice-hearers to grasp, but it is a real thing.
Okay. I got it now.
Comparatively speaking, alcoholism is really easy to beat and those that don't beat it have simply made (as you say) a CHOICE not to because they are weak; therefore, if they commit a crime while under the influence... they are entirely responsible. Mental illness renders people completely powerless and any crime they commit is not their fault given what they must overcome to act as a sane and responsible person. What an oversimplification for the struggling alcoholic's plight.
That big piece of fluff that you submitted contained a Li interview where Li stated he would phone his doctor if he began having an episode- suggesting (despite what you say) there actually is some level of awareness. Regardless of what you have written (in the melodramatic style you are typically so opposed to)... I'm not convinced that the disease seized him in a trance-like state upon the onset of its very first symptoms so that he simply could not recognize something was wrong.
I could be wrong as a non-voice-hearer, but so could you because mental illness is very far from an exact science. His experts declaring him 'good to go' are not exactly examining x-rays or peering through a microscope to validate their claims.
If you seriously think the disease is so debilitating leaving its victim powerless in the event of an episode, then why would you be such a staunch proponent for Li's release knowing his capacity for extreme violence? And yes... I do understand that there are safeguards in place for people such as these- just like there are safeguards for child services which routinely fail.
Ah, the melodrama. Never once did i claim alcoholism was easy to beat and those that dont are weak. Actually, i stated the exact opposite of that, pretty clearly i might add. I didnt bother reading the rest. Good day.
Its good you didn't because you would have struggled with it.
I appreciate the road you are taking here, but I just personally dont believe the two diseases (and the person's ability to control their respective tendencies or impulses) are comparable. It really is that simple.
This type of psychosis is incredibly rare. Alcoholism is rampant. Most, if not all, courts agree that diminished capacity due to drunkeness, whether due to a one time binge or a disease, is not a viable legal excuse, and I tend to agree with that.
I know we disagree here, but I do think they can be compared.
In both cases, you have people who's actions can be attributed to their affliction. While one might be extremely rare in comparison, that doesn't make it more legitimate- especially for the individual struggling with alcohol that makes a fatal decision under the influence.
And I don't hold much respect for our courts (as you know). I mean, why should I? In our city, we very recently had a guy with multiple driving offences and a suspended license kill a woman at a crosswalk trying to get to a casino. Initially, a judge really threw the book at him and sentenced him to 6 months in jail.
Seen as absurdly unjust, an appeal saw another idiot judge overturn that sentence and reduced the sentence to 6 months house arrest (critical of the first sentence as well). Hahahaha. He got grounded! Why? His aboriginal background needed to be taken into account. Why not just give him nothing- make him say sorry or something? A colossal joke... and hardly 'unique'.
You can cherry pick absurdly stupid rulings all you want to make your point, but for every idiot decision made by one judge, there are 10,000 others that make sense but aren't reported on.
As much as health professionals call alcoholism a disease, which i disagree with, but for the discussion let's say it is. The main difference here is alcoholics KNOW they are ill, and are fully capable of making the choice to seek help for their addiction before they kill someone. Someone in Li's situation, however, did not have the luxury of knowing he needed help.
On that difference alone, these two cannot be compared.
Your 10,000 comment is extreme exaggeration. If you feel our court system serves justice then we can agree to disagree. The small scale case I cited was used to complement the catalog of high profile cases that have most Canadians I know slapping their foreheads incredulously.
But to your other point and on topic: are you saying that the health experts are right when they speak of mental illness as a disease, but wrong when they cite the opinion that alcoholism is a disease? You have consistently vouched for the competency and professionalism of the health experts as they support NCR verdicts, yet (at least here) seem prepared to dismiss them when their opinion is contrary to your beliefs.
Li KNEW he was hearing voices he had never heard before which to most might seem quite odd and certainly something to investigate at the very least. According to the media, he was not a dumb man with higher education in his background. The fact that he ignored them until they overcame him seems at a minimum as negligent as ignoring the intense physical and mental urges an alcoholic must battle on a daily basis.
These cases cannot be compared if you choose not to compare them. At a core level... two individuals stricken with a mind altering affliction that leads them to making decisions they normally wouldnt make IS comparable.
It almost feels like you are just arguing a point just for the sake of it.
Alcoholics know they have an affliction and can make the choice to get help. Yeah, it sounds unbelievable and difficult for us non-voice-hearers to grasp, but it is a real thing.
So do you have the same opinion about being gay/lesbian?
Blanket statements usurp people to question.
um, no, sexual orientation is biological.
Alcoholics can choose to seek treatment. True statement. Thats not a blanket statement. A blanket statement would be if i said something that thirty claimed i said, for example, tgat "all alcoholics are weak", which i do not believe, and know to be untrue. I also said i know how difficult it is to do so, and not only that, but to be successful is equally if not more difficult.
Dont let your passionate misinterpretation of something i said cause you to insult me.
Good day.
Pardon?
I never quoted you as saying anything. I gave you my interpretation of what you seemed to be implying. You stated that ultimately, alcoholics had a 'choice' (using upper case letters to emphasize the term)... which, in the context of the conversation, seemed to imply that they had control which they simply failed to exercise.
I know it's not the topic per se, but I too have always been a little uncomfortable with terming alcoholism as a disease. Addiction is serious, insidious, odious, pernicious, and all the other -ouses, but it is different to me than disease as we commonly think of it. It takes a whole serious of bad choices to become addicted in the case of alcohol. One does not become and alcoholic on their first, second, or even 100th drink. It usually takes years of making a choice that has a predictable outcome to reach a state of alcoholism which resembles disease.
I know it's not the topic per se, but I too have always been a little uncomfortable with terming alcoholism as a disease. Addiction is serious, insidious, odious, pernicious, and all the other -ouses, but it is different to me than disease as we commonly think of it. It takes a whole serious of bad choices to become addicted in the case of alcohol. One does not become and alcoholic on their first, second, or even 100th drink. It usually takes years of making a choice that has a predictable outcome to reach a state of alcoholism which resembles disease.
There are countless diseases resulting from repeated exposure to toxins- regardless of how the body sustained the exposure.
I'm not making any excuses for alcoholics and I think they should be held accountable for any crime they commit. All I am doing is illustrating the contradiction we seem to have when presented with crimes committed by people with contributing personal causal factors.
Whether right or wrong, we appear to be very understanding for the schizophrenic body mutilator, but not too sympathetic for the person afflicted with alcoholism that kills someone in an accident driving home. Both have underlying conditions that placed them in a poor state of mind and both have a chance to be successfully rehabilitated; however, we only exercise leniency and support for one despite the parallel which does exist between the two examples.
The drunk can go to prison where they can remain sober and deal with a prison term for the offence of getting into an accident while impaired. The schizophrenic person can go to a hospital, be cared for, and be offered a humane lifestyle for mutilating another human being.
I appreciate the road you are taking here, but I just personally dont believe the two diseases (and the person's ability to control their respective tendencies or impulses) are comparable. It really is that simple.
This type of psychosis is incredibly rare. Alcoholism is rampant. Most, if not all, courts agree that diminished capacity due to drunkeness, whether due to a one time binge or a disease, is not a viable legal excuse, and I tend to agree with that.
I know we disagree here, but I do think they can be compared.
In both cases, you have people who's actions can be attributed to their affliction. While one might be extremely rare in comparison, that doesn't make it more legitimate- especially for the individual struggling with alcohol that makes a fatal decision under the influence.
And I don't hold much respect for our courts (as you know). I mean, why should I? In our city, we very recently had a guy with multiple driving offences and a suspended license kill a woman at a crosswalk trying to get to a casino. Initially, a judge really threw the book at him and sentenced him to 6 months in jail.
Seen as absurdly unjust, an appeal saw another idiot judge overturn that sentence and reduced the sentence to 6 months house arrest (critical of the first sentence as well). Hahahaha. He got grounded! Why? His aboriginal background needed to be taken into account. Why not just give him nothing- make him say sorry or something? A colossal joke... and hardly 'unique'.
You can cherry pick absurdly stupid rulings all you want to make your point, but for every idiot decision made by one judge, there are 10,000 others that make sense but aren't reported on.
As much as health professionals call alcoholism a disease, which i disagree with, but for the discussion let's say it is. The main difference here is alcoholics KNOW they are ill, and are fully capable of making the choice to seek help for their addiction before they kill someone. Someone in Li's situation, however, did not have the luxury of knowing he needed help.
On that difference alone, these two cannot be compared.
Your 10,000 comment is extreme exaggeration. If you feel our court system serves justice then we can agree to disagree. The small scale case I cited was used to complement the catalog of high profile cases that have most Canadians I know slapping their foreheads incredulously.
But to your other point and on topic: are you saying that the health experts are right when they speak of mental illness as a disease, but wrong when they cite the opinion that alcoholism is a disease? You have consistently vouched for the competency and professionalism of the health experts as they support NCR verdicts, yet (at least here) seem prepared to dismiss them when their opinion is contrary to your beliefs.
Li KNEW he was hearing voices he had never heard before which to most might seem quite odd and certainly something to investigate at the very least. According to the media, he was not a dumb man with higher education in his background. The fact that he ignored them until they overcame him seems at a minimum as negligent as ignoring the intense physical and mental urges an alcoholic must battle on a daily basis.
These cases cannot be compared if you choose not to compare them. At a core level... two individuals stricken with a mind altering affliction that leads them to making decisions they normally wouldnt make IS comparable.
It almost feels like you are just arguing a point just for the sake of it.
Alcoholics know they have an affliction and can make the choice to get help. Yeah, it sounds unbelievable and difficult for us non-voice-hearers to grasp, but it is a real thing.
So do you have the same opinion about being gay/lesbian?
Blanket statements usurp people to question.
um, no, sexual orientation is biological.
Alcoholics can choose to seek treatment. True statement. Thats not a blanket statement. A blanket statement would be if i said something that thirty claimed i said, for example, tgat "all alcoholics are weak", which i do not believe, and know to be untrue. I also said i know how difficult it is to do so, and not only that, but to be successful is equally if not more difficult.
Dont let your passionate misinterpretation of something i said cause you to insult me.
Good day.
Pardon?
I never quoted you as saying anything. I gave you my interpretation of what you seemed to be implying. You stated that ultimately, alcoholics had a 'choice' (using upper case letters to emphasize the term)... which, in the context of the conversation, seemed to imply that they had control which they simply failed to exercise.
this was in response to Pjfanwillneverleave, whom was quoted.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
I appreciate the road you are taking here, but I just personally dont believe the two diseases (and the person's ability to control their respective tendencies or impulses) are comparable. It really is that simple.
This type of psychosis is incredibly rare. Alcoholism is rampant. Most, if not all, courts agree that diminished capacity due to drunkeness, whether due to a one time binge or a disease, is not a viable legal excuse, and I tend to agree with that.
I know we disagree here, but I do think they can be compared.
In both cases, you have people who's actions can be attributed to their affliction. While one might be extremely rare in comparison, that doesn't make it more legitimate- especially for the individual struggling with alcohol that makes a fatal decision under the influence.
And I don't hold much respect for our courts (as you know). I mean, why should I? In our city, we very recently had a guy with multiple driving offences and a suspended license kill a woman at a crosswalk trying to get to a casino. Initially, a judge really threw the book at him and sentenced him to 6 months in jail.
Seen as absurdly unjust, an appeal saw another idiot judge overturn that sentence and reduced the sentence to 6 months house arrest (critical of the first sentence as well). Hahahaha. He got grounded! Why? His aboriginal background needed to be taken into account. Why not just give him nothing- make him say sorry or something? A colossal joke... and hardly 'unique'.
You can cherry pick absurdly stupid rulings all you want to make your point, but for every idiot decision made by one judge, there are 10,000 others that make sense but aren't reported on.
As much as health professionals call alcoholism a disease, which i disagree with, but for the discussion let's say it is. The main difference here is alcoholics KNOW they are ill, and are fully capable of making the choice to seek help for their addiction before they kill someone. Someone in Li's situation, however, did not have the luxury of knowing he needed help.
On that difference alone, these two cannot be compared.
Your 10,000 comment is extreme exaggeration. If you feel our court system serves justice then we can agree to disagree. The small scale case I cited was used to complement the catalog of high profile cases that have most Canadians I know slapping their foreheads incredulously.
But to your other point and on topic: are you saying that the health experts are right when they speak of mental illness as a disease, but wrong when they cite the opinion that alcoholism is a disease? You have consistently vouched for the competency and professionalism of the health experts as they support NCR verdicts, yet (at least here) seem prepared to dismiss them when their opinion is contrary to your beliefs.
Li KNEW he was hearing voices he had never heard before which to most might seem quite odd and certainly something to investigate at the very least. According to the media, he was not a dumb man with higher education in his background. The fact that he ignored them until they overcame him seems at a minimum as negligent as ignoring the intense physical and mental urges an alcoholic must battle on a daily basis.
These cases cannot be compared if you choose not to compare them. At a core level... two individuals stricken with a mind altering affliction that leads them to making decisions they normally wouldnt make IS comparable.
How is it an extreme exaggeration? How many court cases, drunk driving cases, assault cases, et al, are before the courts in this country at any one time? Thousands. And how many gross injustices do you hear about in that same time frame? Not even a fraction. And of that fraction, many of those are debatable.
My opinion on alcoholism being a disease is something personal to me that I will choose to refrain from going into, for obvious reasons. I understand that it is a terrible thing to overcome, and I highly commend those that do. I have witnessed it first hand. I continue to, actually, and it is really sad. Those that don't, however, CHOOSE not to. However difficult that choice is, it is still a choice.
The thing is, they are not even close to comparable, and I am really kind of surprised anyone would attempt to draw such a comparison. It almost feels like you are just arguing a point just for the sake of it.
Alcoholics know they have an affliction and can make the choice to get help. Someone like Li did not. Your comment that he heard voices he hadnt heard before being something he should have known was wrong is the case and point here: you dont seem to understand that his disease preclued him from understanding those voices were not real. he didnt think "shit, what the fuck was that? I had better see someone about that". He listened to them.
Yeah, it sounds unbelievable and difficult for us non-voice-hearers to grasp, but it is a real thing.
Okay. I got it now.
Comparatively speaking, alcoholism is really easy to beat and those that don't beat it have simply made (as you say) a CHOICE not to because they are weak; therefore, if they commit a crime while under the influence... they are entirely responsible. Mental illness renders people completely powerless and any crime they commit is not their fault given what they must overcome to act as a sane and responsible person. What an oversimplification for the struggling alcoholic's plight.
That big piece of fluff that you submitted contained a Li interview where Li stated he would phone his doctor if he began having an episode- suggesting (despite what you say) there actually is some level of awareness. Regardless of what you have written (in the melodramatic style you are typically so opposed to)... I'm not convinced that the disease seized him in a trance-like state upon the onset of its very first symptoms so that he simply could not recognize something was wrong.
I could be wrong as a non-voice-hearer, but so could you because mental illness is very far from an exact science. His experts declaring him 'good to go' are not exactly examining x-rays or peering through a microscope to validate their claims.
If you seriously think the disease is so debilitating leaving its victim powerless in the event of an episode, then why would you be such a staunch proponent for Li's release knowing his capacity for extreme violence? And yes... I do understand that there are safeguards in place for people such as these- just like there are safeguards for child services which routinely fail.
Ah, the melodrama. Never once did i claim alcoholism was easy to beat and those that dont are weak. Actually, i stated the exact opposite of that, pretty clearly i might add. I didnt bother reading the rest. Good day.
Its good you didn't because you would have struggled with it.
Good day to you too.
there is an awareness NOW that he has been treated heavily with intensive therapy, and will now be aware of the onset of symptoms.
read up on the disease. seriously.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
I have a hard time considering alcoholism a disease as I see it as an insult to people with, say, cancer, who can't simply call their sponsor to stop their cancer from spreading.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
I know it's not the topic per se, but I too have always been a little uncomfortable with terming alcoholism as a disease. Addiction is serious, insidious, odious, pernicious, and all the other -ouses, but it is different to me than disease as we commonly think of it. It takes a whole serious of bad choices to become addicted in the case of alcohol. One does not become and alcoholic on their first, second, or even 100th drink. It usually takes years of making a choice that has a predictable outcome to reach a state of alcoholism which resembles disease.
there have been studies linking genetic predispositions to alcoholism, but like any addiction, it also takes environmental factors to influence it as well.
many people are genetically predisposed to a lot of things, and they don't necessarily become those things.
the sufferer of mental illness has zero culpability.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
I appreciate the road you are taking here, but I just personally dont believe the two diseases (and the person's ability to control their respective tendencies or impulses) are comparable. It really is that simple.
This type of psychosis is incredibly rare. Alcoholism is rampant. Most, if not all, courts agree that diminished capacity due to drunkeness, whether due to a one time binge or a disease, is not a viable legal excuse, and I tend to agree with that.
I know we disagree here, but I do think they can be compared.
In both cases, you have people who's actions can be attributed to their affliction. While one might be extremely rare in comparison, that doesn't make it more legitimate- especially for the individual struggling with alcohol that makes a fatal decision under the influence.
And I don't hold much respect for our courts (as you know). I mean, why should I? In our city, we very recently had a guy with multiple driving offences and a suspended license kill a woman at a crosswalk trying to get to a casino. Initially, a judge really threw the book at him and sentenced him to 6 months in jail.
Seen as absurdly unjust, an appeal saw another idiot judge overturn that sentence and reduced the sentence to 6 months house arrest (critical of the first sentence as well). Hahahaha. He got grounded! Why? His aboriginal background needed to be taken into account. Why not just give him nothing- make him say sorry or something? A colossal joke... and hardly 'unique'.
You can cherry pick absurdly stupid rulings all you want to make your point, but for every idiot decision made by one judge, there are 10,000 others that make sense but aren't reported on.
As much as health professionals call alcoholism a disease, which i disagree with, but for the discussion let's say it is. The main difference here is alcoholics KNOW they are ill, and are fully capable of making the choice to seek help for their addiction before they kill someone. Someone in Li's situation, however, did not have the luxury of knowing he needed help.
On that difference alone, these two cannot be compared.
Your 10,000 comment is extreme exaggeration. If you feel our court system serves justice then we can agree to disagree. The small scale case I cited was used to complement the catalog of high profile cases that have most Canadians I know slapping their foreheads incredulously.
But to your other point and on topic: are you saying that the health experts are right when they speak of mental illness as a disease, but wrong when they cite the opinion that alcoholism is a disease? You have consistently vouched for the competency and professionalism of the health experts as they support NCR verdicts, yet (at least here) seem prepared to dismiss them when their opinion is contrary to your beliefs.
Li KNEW he was hearing voices he had never heard before which to most might seem quite odd and certainly something to investigate at the very least. According to the media, he was not a dumb man with higher education in his background. The fact that he ignored them until they overcame him seems at a minimum as negligent as ignoring the intense physical and mental urges an alcoholic must battle on a daily basis.
These cases cannot be compared if you choose not to compare them. At a core level... two individuals stricken with a mind altering affliction that leads them to making decisions they normally wouldnt make IS comparable.
It almost feels like you are just arguing a point just for the sake of it.
Alcoholics know they have an affliction and can make the choice to get help. Yeah, it sounds unbelievable and difficult for us non-voice-hearers to grasp, but it is a real thing.
So do you have the same opinion about being gay/lesbian?
Blanket statements usurp people to question.
um, no, sexual orientation is biological.
Alcoholics can choose to seek treatment. True statement. Thats not a blanket statement. A blanket statement would be if i said something that thirty claimed i said, for example, tgat "all alcoholics are weak", which i do not believe, and know to be untrue. I also said i know how difficult it is to do so, and not only that, but to be successful is equally if not more difficult.
Dont let your passionate misinterpretation of something i said cause you to insult me.
Good day.
Pardon?
I never quoted you as saying anything. I gave you my interpretation of what you seemed to be implying. You stated that ultimately, alcoholics had a 'choice' (using upper case letters to emphasize the term)... which, in the context of the conversation, seemed to imply that they had control which they simply failed to exercise.
this was in response to Pjfanwillneverleave, whom was quoted.
You said: A blanket statement would be if i said something that thirty claimed i said, for example, tgat "all alcoholics are weak"
I have a hard time considering alcoholism a disease as I see it as an insult to people with, say, cancer, who can't simply call their sponsor to stop their cancer from spreading.
Paul, what about the person with lung cancer whose cancer was developed after twenty years of chain smoking - would you sympathize with him or her? Also, in spite of a really raw deal that is the cancer patient's reality - I find it hard to believe that he or she would lack the ability to empathize with the plight of an alcoholic.
I suppose there are two different options for defining 'disease': one's ability to opt-in, and one's ability to opt-out. The way I see it, your immune system is to your bodily health as your will power is to your mental clarity. You can poison your immune system (i.e. contributing to the degradation of your bodily health), and I'd say it'd be rare to criticize someone's poor life decisions to his or her face when they're now dying of cancer. Similarly, you can poison your mind with alcohol to such a point that your will power has been diminished to nearly non-existent, and your mental clarity will obviously suffer.
At the end of the day, I think inspecting every individual case is critical, and I agree with labelling a person as capable or incapable of reform based on a demographic about as much as I agree with insurance cost based on demographics: they are useful tools for decision-making, but shouldn't be the exclusive decision-making logic.
This is a hard topic for me, as I lived with two alcoholics. One of them, I hate to say, I hope he's dead, and I hope he hasn't brought others down with him as we all feared he would. Those of us living with him recognized this would be the best outcome for himself and the people who love him. The other person, I hope he beat his alcoholism - I think he had the ability to.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I know it's not the topic per se, but I too have always been a little uncomfortable with terming alcoholism as a disease. Addiction is serious, insidious, odious, pernicious, and all the other -ouses, but it is different to me than disease as we commonly think of it. It takes a whole serious of bad choices to become addicted in the case of alcohol. One does not become and alcoholic on their first, second, or even 100th drink. It usually takes years of making a choice that has a predictable outcome to reach a state of alcoholism which resembles disease.
there have been studies linking genetic predispositions to alcoholism, but like any addiction, it also takes environmental factors to influence it as well.
many people are genetically predisposed to a lot of things, and they don't necessarily become those things.
the sufferer of mental illness has zero culpability.
There is a sound link to smoking pot and schizophrenia. Do the pot smokers that develop schizophrenia receive the same level of understanding as you offer those that develop schizophrenia through other- not entirely known- conditions?
A branch of the argument you have used against alcoholics could be used against those having developed schizophrenia through smoking dope. They made choices... and now they are living with the result of their choices. Zero culpability here too?
A. I believe in Jesus Christ. He is my saviour. I try to follow God.
Q. When did you begin to experience schizophrenia?
A. I thought I heard the voice of God telling me to write down my journey. The voice told me that I was the third story of the Bible. That I was like the second coming of Jesus. I was to save people from a space-alien attack. That is why I travelled around the country. I am not sure of all the places I went to. I now know that it was schizophrenia I was suffering from.
Q. What helps you deal with stress?
A. Taking my medication. Exercising and doing Bible study with the chaplain here.
Q. How would you know you were getting sick again?
A. Hearing voices, stopping my medication and starting to believe in aliens. God would not tell me to do something bad.
Who is Chris Summerville? CEO, Schizophrenia Society of Canada executive director, Manitoba Schizophrenia Society certified psychosocial rehabilitation practitioner ordained pastor with the Associated Gospel Churches of Canadanon-government director, has served as a pastor, chaplain, teacher, administrator and mental-health service provider in Canada and the U.S.
Who is the "quack shrink" you are referring to? You do realize that the interview isn't by his psychiatrist, right?
Yes, I know the interview is not by the psych. The quack shrink is the person/people? responsible for having reviewed this interview (along with other evidence I digress) and still deem it necessary to set this monster free. Quackism at its highest level.
You appear to have an idiosyncratic definition of "quack". Most of us would understand it to mean someone without any actual training who fraudulently peddles an ineffective treatment, rather than a subspecialized physician who has successfully treated a patient's symptoms with an evidence-based medication.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
I have a hard time considering alcoholism a disease as I see it as an insult to people with, say, cancer, who can't simply call their sponsor to stop their cancer from spreading.
Paul, what about the person with lung cancer whose cancer was developed after twenty years of chain smoking - would you sympathize with him or her? Also, in spite of a really raw deal that is the cancer patient's reality - I find it hard to believe that he or she would lack the ability to empathize with the plight of an alcoholic.
I suppose there are two different options for defining 'disease': one's ability to opt-in, and one's ability to opt-out. The way I see it, your immune system is to your bodily health as your will power is to your mental clarity. You can poison your immune system (i.e. contributing to the degradation of your bodily health), and I'd say it'd be rare to criticize someone's poor life decisions to his or her face when they're now dying of cancer. Similarly, you can poison your mind with alcohol to such a point that your will power has been diminished to nearly non-existent, and your mental clarity will obviously suffer.
At the end of the day, I think inspecting every individual case is critical, and I agree with labelling a person as capable or incapable of reform based on a demographic about as much as I agree with insurance cost based on demographics: they are useful tools for decision-making, but shouldn't be the exclusive decision-making logic.
This is a hard topic for me, as I lived with two alcoholics. One of them, I hate to say, I hope he's dead, and I hope he hasn't brought others down with him as we all feared he would. Those of us living with him recognized this would be the best outcome for himself and the people who love him. The other person, I hope he beat his alcoholism - I think he had the ability to.
I had a close family member pass away recently from lung cancer. decades long heavy smoker. did she deserve to die? absolutely not, so I hope people don't draw some ridiculous conclusion that I am saying that. I was as saddened by her death as anyone else. But where the situation of some others who did nothing to subject themselves to the disease, they have the added "why them?" on top of that. heavy smokers who die of lung cancer don't necessarily receive that same type of sympathy. hey, I might end up as one of those people. I smoked for many years. so I wouldn't expect any sympathy based on my past choices as well.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
I know it's not the topic per se, but I too have always been a little uncomfortable with terming alcoholism as a disease. Addiction is serious, insidious, odious, pernicious, and all the other -ouses, but it is different to me than disease as we commonly think of it. It takes a whole serious of bad choices to become addicted in the case of alcohol. One does not become and alcoholic on their first, second, or even 100th drink. It usually takes years of making a choice that has a predictable outcome to reach a state of alcoholism which resembles disease.
there have been studies linking genetic predispositions to alcoholism, but like any addiction, it also takes environmental factors to influence it as well.
many people are genetically predisposed to a lot of things, and they don't necessarily become those things.
the sufferer of mental illness has zero culpability.
There is a sound link to smoking pot and schizophrenia. Do the pot smokers that develop schizophrenia receive the same level of understanding as you offer those that develop schizophrenia through other- not entirely known- conditions?
A branch of the argument you have used against alcoholics could be used against those having developed schizophrenia through smoking dope. They made choices... and now they are living with the result of their choices. Zero culpability here too?
that sound link is actually no longer linking smoking pot to schizophrenia; it's some sort of predisposition to both. but that is emerging science, so it's hard to debate it or the ethical questions that arrise from it.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
I appreciate the road you are taking here, but I just personally dont believe the two diseases (and the person's ability to control their respective tendencies or impulses) are comparable. It really is that simple.
This type of psychosis is incredibly rare. Alcoholism is rampant. Most, if not all, courts agree that diminished capacity due to drunkeness, whether due to a one time binge or a disease, is not a viable legal excuse, and I tend to agree with that.
I know we disagree here, but I do think they can be compared.
In both cases, you have people who's actions can be attributed to their affliction. While one might be extremely rare in comparison, that doesn't make it more legitimate- especially for the individual struggling with alcohol that makes a fatal decision under the influence.
And I don't hold much respect for our courts (as you know). I mean, why should I? In our city, we very recently had a guy with multiple driving offences and a suspended license kill a woman at a crosswalk trying to get to a casino. Initially, a judge really threw the book at him and sentenced him to 6 months in jail.
Seen as absurdly unjust, an appeal saw another idiot judge overturn that sentence and reduced the sentence to 6 months house arrest (critical of the first sentence as well). Hahahaha. He got grounded! Why? His aboriginal background needed to be taken into account. Why not just give him nothing- make him say sorry or something? A colossal joke... and hardly 'unique'.
You can cherry pick absurdly stupid rulings all you want to make your point, but for every idiot decision made by one judge, there are 10,000 others that make sense but aren't reported on.
As much as health professionals call alcoholism a disease, which i disagree with, but for the discussion let's say it is. The main difference here is alcoholics KNOW they are ill, and are fully capable of making the choice to seek help for their addiction before they kill someone. Someone in Li's situation, however, did not have the luxury of knowing he needed help.
On that difference alone, these two cannot be compared.
Your 10,000 comment is extreme exaggeration. If you feel our court system serves justice then we can agree to disagree. The small scale case I cited was used to complement the catalog of high profile cases that have most Canadians I know slapping their foreheads incredulously.
But to your other point and on topic: are you saying that the health experts are right when they speak of mental illness as a disease, but wrong when they cite the opinion that alcoholism is a disease? You have consistently vouched for the competency and professionalism of the health experts as they support NCR verdicts, yet (at least here) seem prepared to dismiss them when their opinion is contrary to your beliefs.
Li KNEW he was hearing voices he had never heard before which to most might seem quite odd and certainly something to investigate at the very least. According to the media, he was not a dumb man with higher education in his background. The fact that he ignored them until they overcame him seems at a minimum as negligent as ignoring the intense physical and mental urges an alcoholic must battle on a daily basis.
These cases cannot be compared if you choose not to compare them. At a core level... two individuals stricken with a mind altering affliction that leads them to making decisions they normally wouldnt make IS comparable.
It almost feels like you are just arguing a point just for the sake of it.
Alcoholics know they have an affliction and can make the choice to get help. Yeah, it sounds unbelievable and difficult for us non-voice-hearers to grasp, but it is a real thing.
So do you have the same opinion about being gay/lesbian?
Blanket statements usurp people to question.
um, no, sexual orientation is biological.
Alcoholics can choose to seek treatment. True statement. Thats not a blanket statement. A blanket statement would be if i said something that thirty claimed i said, for example, tgat "all alcoholics are weak", which i do not believe, and know to be untrue. I also said i know how difficult it is to do so, and not only that, but to be successful is equally if not more difficult.
Dont let your passionate misinterpretation of something i said cause you to insult me.
Good day.
Pardon?
I never quoted you as saying anything. I gave you my interpretation of what you seemed to be implying. You stated that ultimately, alcoholics had a 'choice' (using upper case letters to emphasize the term)... which, in the context of the conversation, seemed to imply that they had control which they simply failed to exercise.
this was in response to Pjfanwillneverleave, whom was quoted.
You said: A blanket statement would be if i said something that thirty claimed i said, for example, tgat "all alcoholics are weak"
This is what I was referring to.
yeah, you claimed that from what I said you surmised I was saying that all alcoholics are weak. don't hide behind semantics.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
I appreciate the road you are taking here, but I just personally dont believe the two diseases (and the person's ability to control their respective tendencies or impulses) are comparable. It really is that simple.
This type of psychosis is incredibly rare. Alcoholism is rampant. Most, if not all, courts agree that diminished capacity due to drunkeness, whether due to a one time binge or a disease, is not a viable legal excuse, and I tend to agree with that.
I know we disagree here, but I do think they can be compared.
In both cases, you have people who's actions can be attributed to their affliction. While one might be extremely rare in comparison, that doesn't make it more legitimate- especially for the individual struggling with alcohol that makes a fatal decision under the influence.
And I don't hold much respect for our courts (as you know). I mean, why should I? In our city, we very recently had a guy with multiple driving offences and a suspended license kill a woman at a crosswalk trying to get to a casino. Initially, a judge really threw the book at him and sentenced him to 6 months in jail.
Seen as absurdly unjust, an appeal saw another idiot judge overturn that sentence and reduced the sentence to 6 months house arrest (critical of the first sentence as well). Hahahaha. He got grounded! Why? His aboriginal background needed to be taken into account. Why not just give him nothing- make him say sorry or something? A colossal joke... and hardly 'unique'.
You can cherry pick absurdly stupid rulings all you want to make your point, but for every idiot decision made by one judge, there are 10,000 others that make sense but aren't reported on.
As much as health professionals call alcoholism a disease, which i disagree with, but for the discussion let's say it is. The main difference here is alcoholics KNOW they are ill, and are fully capable of making the choice to seek help for their addiction before they kill someone. Someone in Li's situation, however, did not have the luxury of knowing he needed help.
On that difference alone, these two cannot be compared.
Your 10,000 comment is extreme exaggeration. If you feel our court system serves justice then we can agree to disagree. The small scale case I cited was used to complement the catalog of high profile cases that have most Canadians I know slapping their foreheads incredulously.
But to your other point and on topic: are you saying that the health experts are right when they speak of mental illness as a disease, but wrong when they cite the opinion that alcoholism is a disease? You have consistently vouched for the competency and professionalism of the health experts as they support NCR verdicts, yet (at least here) seem prepared to dismiss them when their opinion is contrary to your beliefs.
Li KNEW he was hearing voices he had never heard before which to most might seem quite odd and certainly something to investigate at the very least. According to the media, he was not a dumb man with higher education in his background. The fact that he ignored them until they overcame him seems at a minimum as negligent as ignoring the intense physical and mental urges an alcoholic must battle on a daily basis.
These cases cannot be compared if you choose not to compare them. At a core level... two individuals stricken with a mind altering affliction that leads them to making decisions they normally wouldnt make IS comparable.
It almost feels like you are just arguing a point just for the sake of it.
Alcoholics know they have an affliction and can make the choice to get help. Yeah, it sounds unbelievable and difficult for us non-voice-hearers to grasp, but it is a real thing.
So do you have the same opinion about being gay/lesbian?
Blanket statements usurp people to question.
um, no, sexual orientation is biological.
Alcoholics can choose to seek treatment. True statement. Thats not a blanket statement. A blanket statement would be if i said something that thirty claimed i said, for example, tgat "all alcoholics are weak", which i do not believe, and know to be untrue. I also said i know how difficult it is to do so, and not only that, but to be successful is equally if not more difficult.
Dont let your passionate misinterpretation of something i said cause you to insult me.
Good day.
Pardon?
I never quoted you as saying anything. I gave you my interpretation of what you seemed to be implying. You stated that ultimately, alcoholics had a 'choice' (using upper case letters to emphasize the term)... which, in the context of the conversation, seemed to imply that they had control which they simply failed to exercise.
this was in response to Pjfanwillneverleave, whom was quoted.
You said: A blanket statement would be if i said something that thirty claimed i said, for example, tgat "all alcoholics are weak"
This is what I was referring to.
yeah, you claimed that from what I said you surmised I was saying that all alcoholics are weak. don't hide behind semantics.
I never hid behind anything. I stated that was my interpretation. You are making something out of nothing.
I appreciate the road you are taking here, but I just personally dont believe the two diseases (and the person's ability to control their respective tendencies or impulses) are comparable. It really is that simple.
This type of psychosis is incredibly rare. Alcoholism is rampant. Most, if not all, courts agree that diminished capacity due to drunkeness, whether due to a one time binge or a disease, is not a viable legal excuse, and I tend to agree with that.
I know we disagree here, but I do think they can be compared.
In both cases, you have people who's actions can be attributed to their affliction. While one might be extremely rare in comparison, that doesn't make it more legitimate- especially for the individual struggling with alcohol that makes a fatal decision under the influence.
And I don't hold much respect for our courts (as you know). I mean, why should I? In our city, we very recently had a guy with multiple driving offences and a suspended license kill a woman at a crosswalk trying to get to a casino. Initially, a judge really threw the book at him and sentenced him to 6 months in jail.
Seen as absurdly unjust, an appeal saw another idiot judge overturn that sentence and reduced the sentence to 6 months house arrest (critical of the first sentence as well). Hahahaha. He got grounded! Why? His aboriginal background needed to be taken into account. Why not just give him nothing- make him say sorry or something? A colossal joke... and hardly 'unique'.
You can cherry pick absurdly stupid rulings all you want to make your point, but for every idiot decision made by one judge, there are 10,000 others that make sense but aren't reported on.
As much as health professionals call alcoholism a disease, which i disagree with, but for the discussion let's say it is. The main difference here is alcoholics KNOW they are ill, and are fully capable of making the choice to seek help for their addiction before they kill someone. Someone in Li's situation, however, did not have the luxury of knowing he needed help.
On that difference alone, these two cannot be compared.
Your 10,000 comment is extreme exaggeration. If you feel our court system serves justice then we can agree to disagree. The small scale case I cited was used to complement the catalog of high profile cases that have most Canadians I know slapping their foreheads incredulously.
But to your other point and on topic: are you saying that the health experts are right when they speak of mental illness as a disease, but wrong when they cite the opinion that alcoholism is a disease? You have consistently vouched for the competency and professionalism of the health experts as they support NCR verdicts, yet (at least here) seem prepared to dismiss them when their opinion is contrary to your beliefs.
Li KNEW he was hearing voices he had never heard before which to most might seem quite odd and certainly something to investigate at the very least. According to the media, he was not a dumb man with higher education in his background. The fact that he ignored them until they overcame him seems at a minimum as negligent as ignoring the intense physical and mental urges an alcoholic must battle on a daily basis.
These cases cannot be compared if you choose not to compare them. At a core level... two individuals stricken with a mind altering affliction that leads them to making decisions they normally wouldnt make IS comparable.
It almost feels like you are just arguing a point just for the sake of it.
Alcoholics know they have an affliction and can make the choice to get help. Yeah, it sounds unbelievable and difficult for us non-voice-hearers to grasp, but it is a real thing.
So do you have the same opinion about being gay/lesbian?
Blanket statements usurp people to question.
um, no, sexual orientation is biological.
Alcoholics can choose to seek treatment. True statement. Thats not a blanket statement. A blanket statement would be if i said something that thirty claimed i said, for example, tgat "all alcoholics are weak", which i do not believe, and know to be untrue. I also said i know how difficult it is to do so, and not only that, but to be successful is equally if not more difficult.
Dont let your passionate misinterpretation of something i said cause you to insult me.
Good day.
Pardon?
I never quoted you as saying anything. I gave you my interpretation of what you seemed to be implying. You stated that ultimately, alcoholics had a 'choice' (using upper case letters to emphasize the term)... which, in the context of the conversation, seemed to imply that they had control which they simply failed to exercise.
this was in response to Pjfanwillneverleave, whom was quoted.
You said: A blanket statement would be if i said something that thirty claimed i said, for example, tgat "all alcoholics are weak"
This is what I was referring to.
yeah, you claimed that from what I said you surmised I was saying that all alcoholics are weak. don't hide behind semantics.
I never hid behind anything. I stated that was my interpretation. You are making something out of nothing.
actually, I'm making nothing out of nothing. you asked and I responded. you make your little "ok, got it" interepretations and pass it off as what someone actually meant. And I used one of them as an example of what a blanket statement would be.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
A. I believe in Jesus Christ. He is my saviour. I try to follow God.
Q. When did you begin to experience schizophrenia?
A. I thought I heard the voice of God telling me to write down my journey. The voice told me that I was the third story of the Bible. That I was like the second coming of Jesus. I was to save people from a space-alien attack. That is why I travelled around the country. I am not sure of all the places I went to. I now know that it was schizophrenia I was suffering from.
Q. What helps you deal with stress?
A. Taking my medication. Exercising and doing Bible study with the chaplain here.
Q. How would you know you were getting sick again?
A. Hearing voices, stopping my medication and starting to believe in aliens. God would not tell me to do something bad.
Who is Chris Summerville? CEO, Schizophrenia Society of Canada executive director, Manitoba Schizophrenia Society certified psychosocial rehabilitation practitioner ordained pastor with the Associated Gospel Churches of Canadanon-government director, has served as a pastor, chaplain, teacher, administrator and mental-health service provider in Canada and the U.S.
Who is the "quack shrink" you are referring to? You do realize that the interview isn't by his psychiatrist, right?
Yes, I know the interview is not by the psych. The quack shrink is the person/people? responsible for having reviewed this interview (along with other evidence I digress) and still deem it necessary to set this monster free. Quackism at its highest level.
You appear to have an idiosyncratic definition of "quack". Most of us would understand it to mean someone without any actual training who fraudulently peddles an ineffective treatment, rather than a subspecialized physician who has successfully treated a patient's symptoms with an evidence-based medication.
I guess my idiosynchronism has pointed out a faith healer. Only a quack can surmise with the utmost professional contempt to dare say that a patient of theirs now accepts jebus as their saviour and therefore is cured.
I hope this is not considered de-railing the thread but a complicated subject like this loon must have all aspects discussed.
1) the perception that Li is being let off scott free for a horrific crime, or 2) the concern for public safety, or 3) a bit of both
Admittedly, as I have said countless times, this crime rocked me in ways I care not discuss, but taking emotion of the event out of it, what do you do with someone who was found completely bonkers at the time of the crime, and now understands what happened and what he needs to do to prevent that again moving forward? Clearly, our justice system is set up to punish those with intent to commit the crime, which he had none. His brain turned on him, the same way other organs in our body do on a daily basis. He now knows how to control it. And despite what you may think, he will be heavily monitored for the rest of his life.
Do you keep him locked up for all eternity to placate the fearful/vengeful? If he is deemed no longer a danger to society, and by law he committed no crime,mthen he must ge released.
Keep in mind. This not our weak, "bleeding heart" parole system at play here. This is a team of mental health experts that have watched this man 24/7 for 7 years. This was not something that was carried out lightly. We aren't dealing with Hannibal Lecter here.
He chopped off a head. Deal with it.
thanks for adding so much to the discussion.
I am merely trying to be as direct to you as this problem is to society and the legal system. All of a sudden this guy after getting arrested gets dropped into some ones hands and is in essence being told "deal with this because I won't/can't"
What do you do with that? Forget the studies, empirical evidence, statistics et al. You chop off a head and eat flesh there is no rehab, there is no medicine, there is no PHD guy that can save you in the court - banished from society for life nothing else. Any judge behind a bench passes judgement on the facts the lawyers present - as well as a touch of their moral conviction. I would hope that any attorney/doctor that is successful in advocating for a monster as such should verily be held accountable should a re-offence occur. We all know this won't happen. This is scary that society can now "cure" head loppers and cannibals with success.
Shame.
Sorry if this sounds offensive, but it has to be said: you clearly have very little, if any, understanding of this case. Or possibly mental illness as a whole.
Not making it personal to you man. I answered your quip directly with a more verbose response. It doesn't sound offensive what you think has to be said. I am offended that society can defend a cannibal eating de-noganizer and give itself a pat on the back for being empathetic.
I don't believe in apologizing for empathetic behaviour. If you believe in the mind that can be changed throughout a lifetime, then you believe rehabilitation is a viable option for someone with clear mental illness. Simply put, if demons in your head are what made you act in a horrific way (which clearly medical experts believe to be the case), those demons should not be cause for a life sentence or death penalty (assuming you respond positively to medically-proposed treatment).
So these demons that come and go.... Are they real? and to who? Clearly the medicine people believe with sound mind that demons can be eradicated. What is the name of the drug to cure them called again?
Comments
But to your other point and on topic: are you saying that the health experts are right when they speak of mental illness as a disease, but wrong when they cite the opinion that alcoholism is a disease? You have consistently vouched for the competency and professionalism of the health experts as they support NCR verdicts, yet (at least here) seem prepared to dismiss them when their opinion is contrary to your beliefs.
Li KNEW he was hearing voices he had never heard before which to most might seem quite odd and certainly something to investigate at the very least. According to the media, he was not a dumb man with higher education in his background. The fact that he ignored them until they overcame him seems at a minimum as negligent as ignoring the intense physical and mental urges an alcoholic must battle on a daily basis.
These cases cannot be compared if you choose not to compare them. At a core level... two individuals stricken with a mind altering affliction that leads them to making decisions they normally wouldnt make IS comparable.
My opinion on alcoholism being a disease is something personal to me that I will choose to refrain from going into, for obvious reasons. I understand that it is a terrible thing to overcome, and I highly commend those that do. I have witnessed it first hand. I continue to, actually, and it is really sad. Those that don't, however, CHOOSE not to. However difficult that choice is, it is still a choice.
The thing is, they are not even close to comparable, and I am really kind of surprised anyone would attempt to draw such a comparison. It almost feels like you are just arguing a point just for the sake of it.
Alcoholics know they have an affliction and can make the choice to get help. Someone like Li did not. Your comment that he heard voices he hadnt heard before being something he should have known was wrong is the case and point here: you dont seem to understand that his disease preclued him from understanding those voices were not real. he didnt think "shit, what the fuck was that? I had better see someone about that". He listened to them.
Yeah, it sounds unbelievable and difficult for us non-voice-hearers to grasp, but it is a real thing.
-EV 8/14/93
Blanket statements usurp people to question.
expand your mind or troll elsewhere
Comparatively speaking, alcoholism is really easy to beat and those that don't beat it have simply made (as you say) a CHOICE not to because they are weak; therefore, if they commit a crime while under the influence... they are entirely responsible. Mental illness renders people completely powerless and any crime they commit is not their fault given what they must overcome to act as a sane and responsible person. What an oversimplification for the struggling alcoholic's plight.
That big piece of fluff that you submitted contained a Li interview where Li stated he would phone his doctor if he began having an episode- suggesting (despite what you say) there actually is some level of awareness. Regardless of what you have written (in the melodramatic style you are typically so opposed to)... I'm not convinced that the disease seized him in a trance-like state upon the onset of its very first symptoms so that he simply could not recognize something was wrong.
I could be wrong as a non-voice-hearer, but so could you because mental illness is very far from an exact science. His experts declaring him 'good to go' are not exactly examining x-rays or peering through a microscope to validate their claims.
If you seriously think the disease is so debilitating leaving its victim powerless in the event of an episode, then why would you be such a staunch proponent for Li's release knowing his capacity for extreme violence? And yes... I do understand that there are safeguards in place for people such as these- just like there are safeguards for child services which routinely fail.
You sure are taking the c-section thing personal.
And I'm pretty sure I have a good grasp as to who the troll is around here. Glad to see you're out of the penalty box.
-EV 8/14/93
Alcoholics can choose to seek treatment. True statement. Thats not a blanket statement. A blanket statement would be if i said something that thirty claimed i said, for example, tgat "all alcoholics are weak", which i do not believe, and know to be untrue. I also said i know how difficult it is to do so, and not only that, but to be successful is equally if not more difficult.
Dont let your passionate misinterpretation of something i said cause you to insult me.
Good day.
-EV 8/14/93
-EV 8/14/93
Good day to you too.
I never quoted you as saying anything. I gave you my interpretation of what you seemed to be implying. You stated that ultimately, alcoholics had a 'choice' (using upper case letters to emphasize the term)... which, in the context of the conversation, seemed to imply that they had control which they simply failed to exercise.
I'm not making any excuses for alcoholics and I think they should be held accountable for any crime they commit. All I am doing is illustrating the contradiction we seem to have when presented with crimes committed by people with contributing personal causal factors.
Whether right or wrong, we appear to be very understanding for the schizophrenic body mutilator, but not too sympathetic for the person afflicted with alcoholism that kills someone in an accident driving home. Both have underlying conditions that placed them in a poor state of mind and both have a chance to be successfully rehabilitated; however, we only exercise leniency and support for one despite the parallel which does exist between the two examples.
The drunk can go to prison where they can remain sober and deal with a prison term for the offence of getting into an accident while impaired. The schizophrenic person can go to a hospital, be cared for, and be offered a humane lifestyle for mutilating another human being.
-EV 8/14/93
read up on the disease. seriously.
-EV 8/14/93
-EV 8/14/93
many people are genetically predisposed to a lot of things, and they don't necessarily become those things.
the sufferer of mental illness has zero culpability.
-EV 8/14/93
This is what I was referring to.
I suppose there are two different options for defining 'disease': one's ability to opt-in, and one's ability to opt-out. The way I see it, your immune system is to your bodily health as your will power is to your mental clarity. You can poison your immune system (i.e. contributing to the degradation of your bodily health), and I'd say it'd be rare to criticize someone's poor life decisions to his or her face when they're now dying of cancer. Similarly, you can poison your mind with alcohol to such a point that your will power has been diminished to nearly non-existent, and your mental clarity will obviously suffer.
At the end of the day, I think inspecting every individual case is critical, and I agree with labelling a person as capable or incapable of reform based on a demographic about as much as I agree with insurance cost based on demographics: they are useful tools for decision-making, but shouldn't be the exclusive decision-making logic.
This is a hard topic for me, as I lived with two alcoholics. One of them, I hate to say, I hope he's dead, and I hope he hasn't brought others down with him as we all feared he would. Those of us living with him recognized this would be the best outcome for himself and the people who love him. The other person, I hope he beat his alcoholism - I think he had the ability to.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
A branch of the argument you have used against alcoholics could be used against those having developed schizophrenia through smoking dope. They made choices... and now they are living with the result of their choices. Zero culpability here too?
-EV 8/14/93
-EV 8/14/93
-EV 8/14/93
-EV 8/14/93
Are they real? and to who?
Clearly the medicine people believe with sound mind that demons can be eradicated. What is the name of the drug to cure them called again?