Shooting at LGBT nightclub in Florida, 20 injured

Page 18 of 20 [ 297 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20  Next

0regonGuy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Apr 2015
Posts: 658
Location: Oregon Coast

16 Jun 2016, 5:28 am

Dillogic wrote:
Mental health awareness [and subsequent treatment] through ads, employers, and school systems (religious ones too can be offered to promote the awareness), should help society and offer tangible benefits, including increased productivity that can increase wages and profits, which can mean you can fund it without even increasing taxes much at all (government has an incentive to fit it within the current system--which means it'll have a much greater chance of passing than with the arguments that will pop up with taxation).

I doubt it'd stop these rare events that will happen no matter, but it'd help stuff like suicides from depression, and I'd say it'd help common forms of murder too that arise from unchecked emotional problems (cheating spouse murders, for example. If people know beforehand how to cope, then they might not get to the murderous stage of emotions).

But yes, mental health awareness and help will always help society due to how prevalent mental health problems are and the outcomes of untreated mental illness--which tend to be quality of life problems for the individuals and performing less than they normally would.


I agree. Better mental health can have a lot of positive effects on society. Back in the 1970s I could walk around the Downtown area of a major metropolitan area, and the streets were clean, there were no homeless people anywhere, no crazy people talking to themselves. I'm sure there probably were a few, but I never saw them. The cops probably rounded them up almost immediately and dropped them off at the nearest mental institution.

At that time, liberals had been complaining for decades about the conditions in the mental institutions, and they were right, they were bad. Well, then Ronald Reagan became president and he solved that problem. He closed all the mental institutions down and threw all the patients out on the streets. Suddenly the nice clean streets were filled with homeless mentally ill people. Some of these people were very dangerous and had been locked up for along time. That can not have a positive effect on society.

Then you add the proliferation of guns to the situation, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what was going to happen. In 1981 Reagan was almost killed by one of these crazy people with guns. If the president of the US with all his security, is not even safe from the problem them nobody is.


_________________
Autism Social Forum
A place for autistic people to discuss their interests.


TomS
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2016
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 383
Location: Pennsylvania

16 Jun 2016, 6:34 am

GoonSquad wrote:
TomS wrote:

As someone who studies/works in/researches public healthcare/mental health, let me assure you, that bit in bold is simply not true. Today our jails and homeless shelters are full of mentally ill people who cannot get treatment because there is NO TREATMENT to be had.


I defer to your observation. I thought people who could not afford it could apply and receive services under Medicaid. A family member has done so. I was not aware of the newness of the program or lack of providers/lack of providers that will accept medicaid.

I found this:

"As millions of Americans gain health coverage through the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion, experts say their higher rates of mental health and substance abuse disorders will be difficult to treat due to a lack of counselors and behavioral therapists who accept Medicaid patients."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article24763471.html



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,391
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

16 Jun 2016, 11:16 am

0regonGuy wrote:
Dillogic wrote:
Mental health awareness [and subsequent treatment] through ads, employers, and school systems (religious ones too can be offered to promote the awareness), should help society and offer tangible benefits, including increased productivity that can increase wages and profits, which can mean you can fund it without even increasing taxes much at all (government has an incentive to fit it within the current system--which means it'll have a much greater chance of passing than with the arguments that will pop up with taxation).

I doubt it'd stop these rare events that will happen no matter, but it'd help stuff like suicides from depression, and I'd say it'd help common forms of murder too that arise from unchecked emotional problems (cheating spouse murders, for example. If people know beforehand how to cope, then they might not get to the murderous stage of emotions).

But yes, mental health awareness and help will always help society due to how prevalent mental health problems are and the outcomes of untreated mental illness--which tend to be quality of life problems for the individuals and performing less than they normally would.


I agree. Better mental health can have a lot of positive effects on society. Back in the 1970s I could walk around the Downtown area of a major metropolitan area, and the streets were clean, there were no homeless people anywhere, no crazy people talking to themselves. I'm sure there probably were a few, but I never saw them. The cops probably rounded them up almost immediately and dropped them off at the nearest mental institution.

At that time, liberals had been complaining for decades about the conditions in the mental institutions, and they were right, they were bad. Well, then Ronald Reagan became president and he solved that problem. He closed all the mental institutions down and threw all the patients out on the streets. Suddenly the nice clean streets were filled with homeless mentally ill people. Some of these people were very dangerous and had been locked up for along time. That can not have a positive effect on society.

Then you add the proliferation of guns to the situation, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what was going to happen. In 1981 Reagan was almost killed by one of these crazy people with guns. If the president of the US with all his security, is not even safe from the problem them nobody is.


Yeah, Ronny Raygun had had the idea that people with mental, or even physical ailments should be taken care of by their families rather than the state. A case of right wing ideology gone awry.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Edenthiel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Sep 2014
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,819
Location: S.F Bay Area

17 Jun 2016, 2:55 am

Which brings it back to my earlier statement. In the early 2000's, Bush Jr. decided to 'privatize' many services such as shelters, any remaining mental health and services counselors remained, etc. by cutting the flow of dollars to state and local governments. Instead, the money went into "faith based initiative" contracts, such as the ones Catholic Charities gets to provide services in many cities to the tune of $20 million/contract. Again, while religion can comfort and it can also guide healthy people, the injection of assuming mental illness as a moral failure ends up guaranteeing failure. Meanwhile, the shift in funding means that after a decade and a half, in many locales there simply is nowhere for mentally ill people to go. Where it does exist, there is no structure left for assisting them so they can actually take advantage of said services.

The only way out I can see is indeed some form of universal healthcare, and one that assumes mental health is as important as physical health.

Wouldn't hurt in this case, though, if the GOP & conservative religious leaders could stop their near constant rhetoric about how 'evil' and 'dangerous' and 'immoral' LGBT people are. In such an environment, it takes very little for someone with the right instabilities to do terrible things.


_________________
“For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love.”
―Carl Sagan


thoughtbeast
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Oct 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,337
Location: Scarlet Jungle of Krypton

Lukeda420
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,640
Location: Chicago suburbs.

17 Jun 2016, 6:16 am

http://www.frank-answers.com/wp-content ... 16x612.jpg

Christians forming a ring protecting Muslims while they pray. There are still plenty of good people out there.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,367
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

17 Jun 2016, 8:03 am

Edenthiel wrote:
Which brings it back to my earlier statement. In the early 2000's, Bush Jr. decided to 'privatize' many services such as shelters, any remaining mental health and services counselors remained, etc. by cutting the flow of dollars to state and local governments. Instead, the money went into "faith based initiative" contracts, such as the ones Catholic Charities gets to provide services in many cities to the tune of $20 million/contract. Again, while religion can comfort and it can also guide healthy people, the injection of assuming mental illness as a moral failure ends up guaranteeing failure. Meanwhile, the shift in funding means that after a decade and a half, in many locales there simply is nowhere for mentally ill people to go. Where it does exist, there is no structure left for assisting them so they can actually take advantage of said services.

The only way out I can see is indeed some form of universal healthcare, and one that assumes mental health is as important as physical health.

Wouldn't hurt in this case, though, if the GOP & conservative religious leaders could stop their near constant rhetoric about how 'evil' and 'dangerous' and 'immoral' LGBT people are. In such an environment, it takes very little for someone with the right instabilities to do terrible things.


Trump is a friend of the LGBT community, he's stuck his neck out for them on more than one occasion this campaign and is obviously not a religious ideologue like Ted Cruz for example.

I think Trump is the only person that can accomplish any of this, Hillary will do nothing!



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,391
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

17 Jun 2016, 11:17 am

Jacoby wrote:
Edenthiel wrote:
Which brings it back to my earlier statement. In the early 2000's, Bush Jr. decided to 'privatize' many services such as shelters, any remaining mental health and services counselors remained, etc. by cutting the flow of dollars to state and local governments. Instead, the money went into "faith based initiative" contracts, such as the ones Catholic Charities gets to provide services in many cities to the tune of $20 million/contract. Again, while religion can comfort and it can also guide healthy people, the injection of assuming mental illness as a moral failure ends up guaranteeing failure. Meanwhile, the shift in funding means that after a decade and a half, in many locales there simply is nowhere for mentally ill people to go. Where it does exist, there is no structure left for assisting them so they can actually take advantage of said services.

The only way out I can see is indeed some form of universal healthcare, and one that assumes mental health is as important as physical health.

Wouldn't hurt in this case, though, if the GOP & conservative religious leaders could stop their near constant rhetoric about how 'evil' and 'dangerous' and 'immoral' LGBT people are. In such an environment, it takes very little for someone with the right instabilities to do terrible things.


Trump is a friend of the LGBT community, he's stuck his neck out for them on more than one occasion this campaign and is obviously not a religious ideologue like Ted Cruz for example.

I think Trump is the only person that can accomplish any of this, Hillary will do nothing!


How do you know she won't do anything? After all, she has a tremendous record on women's rights, so it's easy to see how she'd help LGBT people.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


TheSpectrum
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2014
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,116
Location: Hampshire

17 Jun 2016, 11:35 am

Trump is already going to the NRA to discuss how to help citizens (particularly LGBT in light of what's happened) defend themselves. Hillary has so far indicated she believes that more gun control will help. The gay community is opting for the first option over the latter, seeing how gun control laws are exactly what allowed this most recent mass shooting to happen.


_________________
Yours sincerely, some dude.


jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,280
Location: The end of the northwest passage

17 Jun 2016, 11:45 am

thoughtbeast wrote:


Excellent. I hope he becomes a great spokesman.


_________________
"I find that the best way [to increase self-confidence] is to lie to yourself about who you are, what you've done, and where you're going." - Richard Ayoade


Edenthiel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Sep 2014
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,819
Location: S.F Bay Area

17 Jun 2016, 12:21 pm

No. Just...no. Trump is not pro-LGBT, despite the horse he's trying to sell in the media since the shootings. In fact right now there is a truly massive lgbt backlash *against* him - you might want to check it out.

Nor has he ever done anything to actually help LGBT people. He has, however, very closely allied himself with the crowd of conservative Christian pastors that include all the big names in LGBT hatred, including the "kill the gays" subset.

He's not fooling anyone, nor will he.


_________________
“For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love.”
―Carl Sagan


Lukeda420
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,640
Location: Chicago suburbs.

17 Jun 2016, 12:27 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Edenthiel wrote:
Which brings it back to my earlier statement. In the early 2000's, Bush Jr. decided to 'privatize' many services such as shelters, any remaining mental health and services counselors remained, etc. by cutting the flow of dollars to state and local governments. Instead, the money went into "faith based initiative" contracts, such as the ones Catholic Charities gets to provide services in many cities to the tune of $20 million/contract. Again, while religion can comfort and it can also guide healthy people, the injection of assuming mental illness as a moral failure ends up guaranteeing failure. Meanwhile, the shift in funding means that after a decade and a half, in many locales there simply is nowhere for mentally ill people to go. Where it does exist, there is no structure left for assisting them so they can actually take advantage of said services.

The only way out I can see is indeed some form of universal healthcare, and one that assumes mental health is as important as physical health.

Wouldn't hurt in this case, though, if the GOP & conservative religious leaders could stop their near constant rhetoric about how 'evil' and 'dangerous' and 'immoral' LGBT people are. In such an environment, it takes very little for someone with the right instabilities to do terrible things.


Trump is a friend of the LGBT community, he's stuck his neck out for them on more than one occasion this campaign and is obviously not a religious ideologue like Ted Cruz for example.

I think Trump is the only person that can accomplish any of this, Hillary will do nothing!


How do you know she won't do anything? After all, she has a tremendous record on women's rights, so it's easy to see how she'd help LGBT people.


Hillary gave a speech a secretary of state at the UN where she addressed leaders of countries actively persecuting gays and declared "Gay rights are human rights." Her entire speech was about embracing the LGBT community around the world.

It's been the democratic party leading the charge for gay rights and Republicans claimed that it was a sign that the traditional family values were crumbling. So if Hillary wins she'll have an army of people who support gay rights behind her. If Trump wins he'll have an entire army of republicans against gay rights.

He also didn't help himself when he congratulated himself for predicting it in a tweet.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,367
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

17 Jun 2016, 12:38 pm

Edenthiel wrote:
No. Just...no. Trump is not pro-LGBT, despite the horse he's trying to sell in the media since the shootings. In fact right now there is a truly massive lgbt backlash *against* him - you might want to check it out.

Nor has he ever done anything to actually help LGBT people. He has, however, very closely allied himself with the crowd of conservative Christian pastors that include all the big names in LGBT hatred, including the "kill the gays" subset.

He's not fooling anyone, nor will he.


Trump is building a coalition to win, that includes Christian pastors and the LGBT community. Maybe the 90s culture wars are something people care that much about anymore, it's about the future of this country than petty wedge social issues. Looking at Trump's life there is no way anybody can seriously call him racist or homophobic, he stuck his neck out there on transgender bathroom issue and the truth is if a few people in that club could of fired back then maybe far far fewer would of died and if the gunman didn't think that everyone disarmed he might not of even attacked. That nightclub is called a soft target, every 'no gun zone' is a soft target asking to get hit. We need to be able to protect ourselves, that is a fundamental right. Gay men in particular I think should take heed since SJWs are increasingly now saying they are among the privileged class as cis gay white men are no longer discriminated against apparently, that's how far they're taking their hatred of white men.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,367
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

17 Jun 2016, 12:41 pm

Lukeda420 wrote:

Hillary gave a speech a secretary of state at the UN where she addressed leaders of countries actively persecuting gays and declared "Gay rights are human rights." Her entire speech was about embracing the LGBT community around the world.

It's been the democratic party leading the charge for gay rights and Republicans claimed that it was a sign that the traditional family values were crumbling. So if Hillary wins she'll have an army of people who support gay rights behind her. If Trump wins he'll have an entire army of republicans against gay rights.

He also didn't help himself when he congratulated himself for predicting it in a tweet.


The Clinton's were elected in 1992 to stop gay marriage and passed DOMA, Hillary was against gay marriage until she wasn't against when the political winds finally turned.





she's an "ally" only when it benefits her politically



Lukeda420
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,640
Location: Chicago suburbs.

17 Jun 2016, 1:01 pm

Jacoby wrote:
Edenthiel wrote:
No. Just...no. Trump is not pro-LGBT, despite the horse he's trying to sell in the media since the shootings. In fact right now there is a truly massive lgbt backlash *against* him - you might want to check it out.

Nor has he ever done anything to actually help LGBT people. He has, however, very closely allied himself with the crowd of conservative Christian pastors that include all the big names in LGBT hatred, including the "kill the gays" subset.

He's not fooling anyone, nor will he.


Trump is building a coalition to win, that includes Christian pastors and the LGBT community. Maybe the 90s culture wars are something people care that much about anymore, it's about the future of this country than petty wedge social issues. Looking at Trump's life there is no way anybody can seriously call him racist or homophobic, he stuck his neck out there on transgender bathroom issue and the truth is if a few people in that club could of fired back then maybe far far fewer would of died and if the gunman didn't think that everyone disarmed he might not of even attacked. That nightclub is called a soft target, every 'no gun zone' is a soft target asking to get hit. We need to be able to protect ourselves, that is a fundamental right. Gay men in particular I think should take heed since SJWs are increasingly now saying they are among the privileged class as cis gay white men are no longer discriminated against apparently, that's how far they're taking their hatred of white men.


Yeah that's what we need. More guns at a in a dark nightclub with music blasting, lights flashing and a room full of people who have been drinking. :roll:

The NYPD even missed a suspect and ended up hitting innocent bystanders. Just imagine a bunch of untrained people in a less than ideal environment.

The times change and so do people. So I'm not worried a bit about Clinton and gay rights.