and one would still have to be able to show that that illness actually affected one's ability to do the work before justly discriminating against them in terms of their "right" to volunteer.
That would be like defending known self-proclaimed pedophiles in various activities because you would have to prove pedophilia actually interferes with the task at hand. You're missing the point. This is straight up progressive ideology you are spouting that everyone is upvoting. You should all be ashamed. Give someone an inch and they'll take a mile.
Sorry but I don't accept dank memes in place of citation. I'm sure this is passed around like wildfire by people as stupid as yourself but I don't think "novel reading" or "politics" are believable reasons for institutionalizing people in the 1800s. And even if it were, who cares? What's your point? Let's say they put half the US in an institution for wearing backwards hats and jacking off in the shower, so fucking what?
Fair enough. From what I can find it's not completely false. The list is real but was more related to symptoms they thought would cause the underlying illnesses they were concerned with.
My point? Well you said it there, there's not enough resources to keep everyone with a condition (that's not a violent offender) imprisoned. I don't have an argument if you think it'd be okay for half of the USA population to be imprisoned, you're just fucking insane.
Although this list was sourced from a contemporaneous hospital log, its entries should not be considered as denoting things that were all considered symptoms of mental instability. Rather, among patients who were treated at West Virginia Hospital for the Insane for various illnesses such as chronic dementia, acute mania, and melancholia, these entries recorded the reasons or causes why those patients were said to have developed their underlying maladies. That is, people didn’t think that novel reading, asthma, the marriage of one’s child, politics, or falling from a horse were symptoms of mental illness, but rather factors that might have produced or exacerbated such an illness. (To use an example from a different field, nobody claims that playing violent video games is itself a crime, but some people maintain — rightly or wrongly — that such an activity might be a factor that leads gamers into committing violent crimes)
Who trusts Snopes on this site? And if you actually bothered to comprehend what I said, that's pretty much exactly what I was saying. My source is credible and you'd have realized that if you bothered to research more than looking at the first result.
Are you really that retarded though? Actually, I'm the idiot here for even giving you my time and consideration to keep responding. I'll let you try to figure it out though, this really isn't a complex idea if you're a sane functioning member of society.
It's credible for certain things like debunking chain mail style garbage like you just posted, uncredible for other things like politics.
You tried to downplay it to pussy foot around the fact you are flat out lying to try to convey a meaningless point against a made-up argument that I never made in the first place. It's not complicated at all, you're intentionally making it appear that way.
view the rest of the comments →
SketchyFishSandwich ago
That would be like defending known self-proclaimed pedophiles in various activities because you would have to prove pedophilia actually interferes with the task at hand. You're missing the point. This is straight up progressive ideology you are spouting that everyone is upvoting. You should all be ashamed. Give someone an inch and they'll take a mile.
Grifter42 ago
Well, he DOES defend known pedophiles. He should have banned Hecho a long fucking time ago.
Dae_Bae ago
I fully agree. You seem hysterical though and seem to be in need of being put into an insane asylum as well.
SketchyFishSandwich ago
Sorry but I don't accept dank memes in place of citation. I'm sure this is passed around like wildfire by people as stupid as yourself but I don't think "novel reading" or "politics" are believable reasons for institutionalizing people in the 1800s. And even if it were, who cares? What's your point? Let's say they put half the US in an institution for wearing backwards hats and jacking off in the shower, so fucking what?
Dae_Bae ago
Fair enough. From what I can find it's not completely false. The list is real but was more related to symptoms they thought would cause the underlying illnesses they were concerned with.
My point? Well you said it there, there's not enough resources to keep everyone with a condition (that's not a violent offender) imprisoned. I don't have an argument if you think it'd be okay for half of the USA population to be imprisoned, you're just fucking insane.
SketchyFishSandwich ago
http://www.snopes.com/reasons-admission-insane-asylum-1800s/
You'd have to be an idiot to believe this. Or just blatantly lying to fulfill an agenda, or both.
Where did this even come up? Really, what the fuck are you even talking about?
I'm giving you as much rope as you want to hang yourself with in order to make whatever nonsensical point your trying to make.
Dae_Bae ago
Who trusts Snopes on this site? And if you actually bothered to comprehend what I said, that's pretty much exactly what I was saying. My source is credible and you'd have realized that if you bothered to research more than looking at the first result.
Are you really that retarded though? Actually, I'm the idiot here for even giving you my time and consideration to keep responding. I'll let you try to figure it out though, this really isn't a complex idea if you're a sane functioning member of society.
SketchyFishSandwich ago
It's credible for certain things like debunking chain mail style garbage like you just posted, uncredible for other things like politics.
You tried to downplay it to pussy foot around the fact you are flat out lying to try to convey a meaningless point against a made-up argument that I never made in the first place. It's not complicated at all, you're intentionally making it appear that way.