Psychiatric disorders are very common. About a third to half of the population have such conditions to a clinical level at some point of their lives.Wait...what???
Please, link me to at least one reasonable study that has such numbers. Those number don't resemble anything I ever read or heard (studying educational science to be a social worker).
Well, given that any study I chose to link to would quickly be defeated by your declaration that it is not reasonable, you will have to forgive me for not putting in the effort for you.
Using the DSM IV criteria, typically quoted figures are depression alone at 15 % lifetime prevalence. Point prevalence varies between 5-8 %. Substance abuse disorders get alcohol alone weighing in at around 10 %. Bipolar disorder is at 1-5 %, schizophrenia is at 1 %, the spectrum of anxiety disorders is at 10-20 %. Add in the numbers of people who have a single anxiety attack, crisis of clinical relevance or the like, and I think you will find that 50 % is a pretty conservative estimate. That is without adding in dementia, psychiatric consequences of acquired brain damage like MS, stroke or trauma, personality disorders, eating disorders, mental retardation and so on and so forth.
But, please, do tell me what kind of numbers you, as a social worker, consider reasonable. Or is the disconnect that you don't understand what I mean by clinical level?
Some random stuff I found should give you a starting point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Including the bit about African-Americans only counting as 3/5ths of a person, we should obey that as well
I will bet you a full set of Pathfinder rule books that there is nothing in the Constitutuion saying "African-Americans" are to be treated as 3/5ths a person.
You might have serves your country, but you apparently never took the time to read the document you swore to defend.
Article 1, section 2.
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
Now was that hardback or PDF?
Including the bit about African-Americans only counting as 3/5ths of a person, we should obey that as well
I will bet you a full set of Pathfinder rule books that there is nothing in the Constitutuion saying "African-Americans" are to be treated as 3/5ths a person.
You might have serves your country, but you apparently never took the time to read the document you swore to defend.
Article 1, section 2.
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
Now was that hardback or PDF?
He has you on semantics, I'm sorry to say. At no point are the words "African-Americans" to be found.
Ok, so slaves getting three fifths of the taxes instead of no tax, of course that is inflammatory. And, really, I am sure all the slaves in America today are angry because they only get to pay three fifths of what free people pay. Anyone interview the slaves recently to check what they feel about it? :-)
He has you on semantics, I'm sorry to say. At no point are the words "African-Americans" to be found.
If he wants to be that disingenuous he can undermine his own credibility if he wishes, particularly as he's taking the federalist papers as evidence for one position but not the other.
Article 1, section 2.
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
Now was that hardback or PDF?
Sorry, "all other persons" does not equal African Americans. Doesn't even mean slaves, although they were included. Do you know why slavery isn't mentioned? Because many of the Founding Fathers believed slavery to be wrong, and calling it out by name would legitimize it.
Thanks for playing. Don't take your loss too hard.
Article 1, section 2.
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
Now was that hardback or PDF?
Sorry, "all other persons" does not equal African Americans. Doesn't even mean slaves, although they were included. Do you know why slavery isn't mentioned? Because many of the Founding Fathers believed slavery to be wrong, and calling it out by name would legitimize it.
Thanks for playing. Don't take your loss too hard.
Thank you for demonstrating a lack of knowledge about history that can only be described as blithering. We will keep it in mind as you continue to tell us the meaning of the constitution and its historical context.
Let me know when you get to the lightsaber duel.
Article 1, section 2.
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
Now was that hardback or PDF?
Sorry, "all other persons" does not equal African Americans. Doesn't even mean slaves, although they were included. Do you know why slavery isn't mentioned? Because many of the Founding Fathers believed slavery to be wrong, and calling it out by name would legitimize it.
Thanks for playing. Don't take your loss too hard.
If you weren't a Free Person, what were you?
I am so excited that I can start recycling links from previous gun control threads!
Also, you guys are such poor losers. Citizen Doug is right, the Constitution doesn't ever once use the word "African-American."
Thank you for demonstrating a lack of knowledge about history that can only be described as blithering. We will keep it in mind as you continue to tell us the meaning of the constitution and its historical context.
Let me know when you get to the lightsaber duel.
So the free "African Americans" were . . . What, exactly? Oh, right, not part of the 3/5 clause.
It's okay to admit you were wrong. I was wrong once, and the process of learning made me a better person.
Huh. According to this article, free blacks who could vote in the early 19th century did so for the Federalist Party.
Comrade Freehold, if you're out there, African-American antipathy to Thomas Jefferson goes back a long way.
Also, you guys are such poor losers. Citizen Doug is right, the Constitution doesn't ever once use the word "African-American."
It wouldn't. However, it doesn't use a lot of modern terminology. A game of semantics doesn't win an argument except in court. In a real conversation, semantics like this don't mean anything.
Um. Hi, we haven't met, Citizen Loblaw, but I am a wise-ass.
Anyway, interesting reading under that link.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's okay to admit you were wrong. I was wrong once, and the process of learning made me a better person.
I find that hard to believe.
You don't seem to understand the blatantly obvious fact that that the 3/5ths they were talking about were slaves.
You don't seem to understand that slavery was so prevelant that black and slave were synonymous.
You asserted that the founders didn't want to mention slavery in the constitution because they knew it was wrong, which is odd since you know *whisper* they owned slaves.
You treat the founding fathers as some kind of mythic collective, when in fact they disagreed with each other as to the intent and meaning behind the very constitution they wrote, just like any other committee of politicians.
You somehow failed to note that when faced with actual armed rebellion against their own tyranny, the founders acted pretty much the same way as everyone else in power ever has by shooting the rebels.
All you have is a purile, disingenuous semantic argument whose depths of ignorance are matched only by the brobdingnagian arrogance you have in your own ability; an arrogance inversely proportional to any reason or rationale for your position.
I thought I was wrong once, but I was wrong.
You treat the founding fathers as some kind of mythic collective
Vive Tom Paine!
I thought I was wrong once, but I was wrong.
No, you weren't.
Thank you. I think.
You're welcome. Maybe.
So why is Scott the troll? Did I miss something?
Because I don't suffer poor arguments, but I encourage terrible ones.
Or something.
If you weren't a Free Person, what were you?
A Personne of nebulus self ownershippe Status.
Obviously.
I encourage you to shut up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you're actually worried about a military take over, how about, i don't know, voting to have a smaller military?
I encourage you to shut up, too.
And, before any moderators come around here and start deleting my posts, well, you can also shut up.
Truly, no one else deserves the title of Burgomeister.
You don't seem to understand the blatantly obvious fact that that the 3/5ths they were talking about were slaves.
I love how Mexico issuing thousands of gun licenses a year is "effectively banned" but the 1% or so of blacks who were free somehow means that when the Constitution calls out non-free persons, it doesn't mean black people.
By the way, fun little fact! The southern (slave) states' success in getting a provision for the counting of slaves for the purpose of delegate allotment added to the Constitution meant that they were literally able to buy wholesale political power. Southern states ended up with an effective monopoly on many national political offices right up until the Civil War.
But I'm sure the founding fathers knew what they were doing, right?
|
Psychiatric disorders are very common. About a third to half of the population have such conditions to a clinical level at some point of their lives.Wait...what???
Please, link me to at least one reasonable study that has such numbers. Those number don't resemble anything I ever read or heard (studying educational science to be a social worker).Well, given that any study I chose to link to would quickly be defeated by your declaration that it is not reasonable, you will have to forgive me for not putting in the effort for you.
Using the DSM IV criteria, typically quoted figures are depression alone at 15 % lifetime prevalence. Point prevalence varies between 5-8 %. Substance abuse disorders get alcohol alone weighing in at around 10 %. Bipolar disorder is at 1-5 %, schizophrenia is at 1 %, the spectrum of anxiety disorders is at 10-20 %. Add in the numbers of people who have a single anxiety attack, crisis of clinical relevance or the like, and I think you will find that 50 % is a pretty conservative estimate. That is without adding in dementia, psychiatric consequences of acquired brain damage like MS, stroke or trauma, personality disorders, eating disorders, mental retardation and so on and so forth.
But, please, do tell me what kind of numbers you, as a social worker, consider reasonable. Or is the disconnect that you don't understand what I mean by clinical level?
The disconnect is probably the 'clinical level' and that might well be a language disconnect (my native tongue is German) - google and online dictionarys weren't helpful in this case.
I would take 'psychiatric disorder on a clinical level' as someone whose disorder needed to be treated stationary, at a clinic - a reasonable number here would be somewhere between 8% and 14% depending on the medical system involved (about 8.4% in Germany 2010, including dementia, mental retardation and eating disorders. If 'clinical level' means something else, that woul explain the disconnect.Mind you, that in your numbers, some disorders group together - substance abuse often results in schizophrenic disorders, anxiety disorders and bipolar disorders, depressions often group with anxiety disorders and bipolar disorders.
I wonder what leads you to the believe that I would simply declare studies you would link to as unreasonable? My field of education/work has to do with studies like these and I am simply interested in the origins of numbers I had not heard before. Sadly, the link you posted doesn't work for me, it seems the site is US? only (or at least not accessible with a German IP adress).
Let me know when you get to the lightsaber duel.
Aaron Burr shot first!
The disconnect is probably the 'clinical level' and that might well be a language disconnect (my native tongue is German) - google and online dictionarys weren't helpful in this case.
That does appear to be the likely cause of the miscommunication. Typically when we discuss whether a malady warrants clinical diagnosis, it simply means that it has been observed as showing a set of defined clinical characteristics that make a formal diagnosis possible. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with actually being present in a physical clinic building or the like.
The fact of the matter is that it's a bit silly of us as a society to make the assumption that most people are, and will forever be, in good mental health. It is altogether common for someone to suffer a physical ailment, and it should come as no surprise that mental ailments are common as well. If we are to restrict firearm ownership to those of sound mental health, then, we need to take care to allow those barred from owning guns to receive treatment and then be re-evaluated to determine health once a certain amount of time has passed. There is no reason that a temporary or completely manageable mental illness should prevent a person from ever being considered for firearm ownership.
You just agree with him on gun control. what you plan after getting it might differ greatly.That wouldn't be nearly as much fun. Besides, he's stopped short of actually calling me Hitler. He's just insinuated that I'm equivalent.Scott.
Flag it and move on at this point, bro.
I'm going to have to burst your bubble and blow your mind here, sir. The National Socialist party didn't ban guns--THEY LIFTED A BAN THAT EXISTED since the treaty of Versailles.Read about it here. Basically it put in place a gun registration scheme, but ONLY for handguns, and actually deregulated the acquisition of shotguns and rifles.
It also made the hoops to jump through for getting a handgun trivially easy if not nonexistent if you were a member of the Nazi party. Cuz even Fascism doesn't exist without an incentive scheme.
It was, however, aimed at keeping Jews and specific political dissidents from having guns. Nevertheless, overall the 1938 German Weapons Act deregulated firearm acquisition.
If you're actually worried about a military take over, how about, i don't know, voting to have a smaller military?
This, this, a thousand times this.
Our military is so comically huge, corrupt, and mismanaged that cutting it by about half would probably solve a LOT of our problems--including the deficit.
As was stated, clinical means that the condition meets the criteria for the diagnosis in question, according to the current best knowledge, typically defined in the latest edition of the DSM manual. Some studies choose to use the ICD manual instead, but the differences between the two are pretty subtle. Thing is, psychiatry alone among the specialties of medicine uses criteria-based diagnoses. This means that a depression means the same thing worldwide, which is a dramatic improvement on the old model where american schizophrenia and european schizophrenia could differ severely. In short: if someone matches a certain number of criteria for a diagnosis, they have it. Depression, for example, boils down to having five out of nine criteria, and no other diagnosis explains the situation better. These criteria are things like affected sleep pattern, loss or gain of appetite, difficulties concentrating, loss of interest in things that normally are enjoyable, and so on. The condition needs to have been roughly consistent for at least two weeks. Clinical simply means that you have five of the nine criteria. Note that this is the cutoff value for what psychiatry generally considers "in need of treatment". Whether this is medical or cognitive psychological treatment is of no importance to the diagnosis. In general, the criteria as a group match most what you see in grief. Grieving is a healthy reaction, and one of the exclusion criteria for depression.
Now... This is no laughing matter. Untreated depression makes the person more at risk from further depressions, worse depressions, and ones that are more difficult to treat. The end stage of that is a person in their sixties with "refractory depression", i.e. Untreatable depression that is chronic. Depressions are the leading cause of death among young people through suicide. Depression, due to killing off many young people, is one of the main medical costs in society. And so on. Retrospective studies give a low estimate on frequency, due to people underreporting depressive episodes, and the figure 10-20% is based on such studies. Prospective studies are naturally more costly, since you need to follow people for a long time, but those that exist show a markedly higher figure for lifetime prevalence.
Okay. Say we treat those who match five or more of the criteria (nice dream, but I can wish, right?) Does this mean the problem is solved? Well, maybe. The criteria are clear, and they are common enough that tons of people match two or three for various periods of time. Those people need no psychiatric help. However, if you have particularly severe versions of three criteria, or four criteria, especially if you do so for long periods of time, you would probably call it a pretty bad life. You suffer. And that is what is meant by a subclinical depression. Take note, the medications still work, psychological methods still work. If you want help, is that wrong? From a medical insurance standpoint, yes. The money is already in short supply for the five and worse crowd. However, I would not see it as sacrilege. The reason is merely that criteria-based diagnoses end up with border cases no matter what you do, and some sense also needs to be applied.
Let me reassure you, it is not advertising from big pharma that gives these numbers. Look at it this way: the brain, if you would let size correspond to complexity, would be far, far bigger than the rest of our bodies total. As random factors affect us, a scattershot over such a topheavy human would hit the brain quite often. Most think nothing of admitting their radius bone was fractured so they had to go to the emergency ward. You don't become "someone like that" because you're useless enough to let your broken radius bone prevent you from functioning properly. Neither should psychiatric issues do so.
Article 1, section 2.
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
Now was that hardback or PDF?
Sorry, "all other persons" does not equal African Americans. Doesn't even mean slaves, although they were included. Do you know why slavery isn't mentioned? Because many of the Founding Fathers believed slavery to be wrong, and calling it out by name would legitimize it.
Thanks for playing. Don't take your loss too hard.
I don't think it's okay to hide racism behind semantics.
Do you?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh... Two more things: in all likelihood, illegal drugs generally only trigger a schizophrenia that would have happened anyway, plus many with serious psychiatric disorders use illegal drugs to help them deal with their conditions. Some feel that marijuana and alcohol makes their hallucinations easier to deal with.
Second, psychiatric disorders is not something that happens to "such people". It happens to literally anybody, their children, their friends, their parents... If you do get involved in it, I sincerely hope you are mentally prepared to help them, or to receive help.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you for demonstrating a lack of knowledge about history that can only be described as blithering. We will keep it in mind as you continue to tell us the meaning of the constitution and its historical context.
Let me know when you get to the lightsaber duel.
So the free "African Americans" were . . . What, exactly? Oh, right, not part of the 3/5 clause.
It's okay to admit you were wrong. I was wrong once, and the process of learning made me a better person.
As someone who spent two years taking graduate-level courses in Constitutional law, I'd like to note that the 3/5 clause was intended, and is still understood, to refer to slaves. Delegates to the Constitutional Convention who opposed slavery wanted to reduce the power of states who were pro-slavery by not counting slaves as part of the population for the purposes of determining numbers of representatives. Pro-slavery delegates wanted to count the slaves because higher population numbers meant more representatives, and therefore more votes/power. Counting 3/5 of the slave population was a compromise between the sides.
We're not talking the Second Amendment, here, with all its attendent ambiguity and controversy as to what was intended by the Framers. The Three-Fifths Compromise is relatively straightforward history. The Framers were not a monolithic group -- some supported slavery, and some opposed it, and as the name implies, this was a compromise between their different viewpoints and agendas.
And despite its use in The West Wing and other pop-culture examples as something insulting to African-Americans, the intent of the compromise was ultimately to limit the power of slaveholders, not to enshrine subhuman status for African-Americans. James Madison, who first suggested the 3/5 ratio (although the actual language was proposed by others), was pretty clear in Federalist 54 that if slaveholders wanted to count their slaves for purposes of representation, then they had to acknowledge that slaves are not merely property, but persons as well. But he also called the anti-slavery side on the problems with their position -- if you insist that African-Americans shouldn't be enslaved because they are people, then they should be counted in the population. If you refuse to count them, you're saying that they are only property. So he was saying to both sides, essentially, that you can't have it both ways -- either slaves are people, in which case they should be counted as part of the population for purposes of determining representation and taxation (thus giving slaveholders more power), but in which case they also should receive the protections the law extends to "persons"; or, slaves are property, in which case they don't have the protections the law extends to "persons," but they also shouldn't be counted for purposes of determining representation and taxation.
The full implications of acknowledging that binary, however, were never going to be acceptable to either side, which he acknowledged by pointing out that the law treats slaves both as property and as people; hence the ratio as compromise.
So you would gladly give up the first amendment? Happily go to what church the gov says to and only say what is allowed?Well Mr. Betts,
You and yours can continue to malign the constitution, and the flag, and all the instituions that me and mine hold dear.
To me and mine, the fact that a nation formed a social contract, and agreed to found a nation on the principles enshrined in the constitution is more than enough reason to revere it - and obey it.
Including the bit about African-Americans only counting as 3/5ths of a person, we should obey that as well?
Because if not, then you're admitting that we are allowed to change it, and that change can be for the good.
Also, while I didn't lose my life, I did serve my country for 7 years. Please don't assume you talk for me (because you don't).
Is your argument that you cannot possibly be free without a gun?
|
|
Oh... Two more things: in all likelihood, illegal drugs generally only trigger a schizophrenia that would have happened anyway, plus many with serious psychiatric disorders use illegal drugs to help them deal with their conditions. Some feel that marijuana and alcohol makes their hallucinations easier to deal with.
Second, psychiatric disorders is not something that happens to "such people". It happens to literally anybody, their children, their friends, their parents... If you do get involved in it, I sincerely hope you are mentally prepared to help them, or to receive help.
First: Thank you for the clarification of terms, I guess that settles our 'disagreement' on the numbers. And yes, thankfully the diagnostic criteria are internationally settled now - unfortunatly for me, the term 'clinical level' isn't ;-)
And second: I absolutley agree with you on this post - this is something everybody should remember. If someone close to you suffers from from a psychiatric disorder, chances are he/she bears little or no responsibility- it doesn't take drugs, bad habits or any other bogey to get to that. Nor should they be considered 'mad', 'looney' or 'insane'. Don't be ashamed of them and don't let them suffer shame - and at the very least don't reject help or treatment out of shame. There is no reason for that.
Thank you.
I really need to stop producing Ye wall of text to end all walls of text. Guh.
Thank you for demonstrating a lack of knowledge about history that can only be described as blithering. We will keep it in mind as you continue to tell us the meaning of the constitution and its historical context.
Let me know when you get to the lightsaber duel.
So the free "African Americans" were . . . What, exactly? Oh, right, not part of the 3/5 clause.
It's okay to admit you were wrong. I was wrong once, and the process of learning made me a better person.
As someone who spent two years taking graduate-level courses in Constitutional law, I'd like to note that the 3/5 clause was intended, and is still understood, to refer to slaves. Delegates to the Constitutional Convention who opposed slavery wanted to reduce the power of states who were pro-slavery by not counting slaves as part of the population for the purposes of determining numbers of representatives. Pro-slavery delegates wanted to count the slaves because higher population numbers meant more representatives, and therefore more votes/power. Counting 3/5 of the slave population was a compromise between the sides.
We're not talking the Second Amendment, here, with all its attendent ambiguity and controversy as to what was intended by the Framers. The Three-Fifths Compromise is relatively straightforward history. The Framers were not a monolithic group -- some supported slavery, and some opposed it, and as the name implies, this was a compromise between their different viewpoints and agendas.
And despite its use in The West Wing and other pop-culture examples as something insulting to African-Americans, the intent of the compromise was ultimately to limit the power of slaveholders, not to enshrine subhuman status for African-Americans. James Madison, who first suggested the 3/5 ratio (although the actual language was proposed by others), was pretty clear in Federalist 54 that if slaveholders wanted to count their slaves for...
Bah! Subtlety and sophistry, just like I'd expect from a law student!
plus many with serious psychiatric disorders use illegal drugs to help them deal with their conditions. Some feel that marijuana and alcohol makes their hallucinations easier to deal with.
[bubble bubble bubble]
In all seriousness, though, I saw the first half of Occupy Unmasked today. It was pretty awesome. I don't watch much television, so all of that news footage was new to me. And I'm wicked jealous because, in comparison, Occupy NH was wicked lame.
I don't agree with much of what was said, obviously, but it was interesting how they got a lot of stuff right on, imho. Of course, they also got just as much stuff wrong, again, imho.
Worth watching anyway, although I didn't get to the part about mass murder plots.
:(
Gaaaaaaah the gobbo's bubbling!!!! Why is it bubbling???