My concern is not what Duncan thinks, my concern is, If we are going to have laws to protect the public then how can we implement them in the most beneficial way while also doing the least amount of damage to our freedom. I am not privilege of knowing all the facts of Duncan's case. I only know what he tells us. I have no 'feelings' involved with this particular case, as he is not harassing me. I am trying to look at the facts I know and act as if I am an impartial observer. In order to do this I have to look at justice from all angles, including: if I were imprisoned, rightly or wrongly, If I were the victim, how society would be harmed either way, if there is chance for rehabilitation (and if so would rehabilitation (teaching society to conform) be beneficial or would it just bury the larger problem.)
The thing is we do not have the facts, only DBs, as such impartial is not possible, although thank for explaining why and I understand your concern about such things as injustice, harm and rehabilitation.
LOL You wanna hear something really frightening about my "cute" yank attitude? Yanks even think it's 'cute'! How's that for scary?
I'd not be surprised given some of the yank males I've met.
I do listen to DB. But what you are forgetting is that everyman wished to implement his ideals onto women...that is what mankind does. Women are so used to it we don't even fight it anymore. We just say, 'whatever' and go about our business.
The problem for me with these thoughts is that it does not appear to be the case, as why you can now 'go about your business' is exactly because men and women opposed ideas such as DBS, as before 'you' weren't fighting it at all, this is a recent 'invention', i.e. men who do not wish to "implement his ideals onto women".
I don't have time to think about the "self absorbed male" I am not interested in Duncan's prejudice/sexist ways. To me that's old hat...what interests me is that someone can be jailed for being prejudice. If one of us is jailed for daring to speak the truth about our prejudice then all of us should be jailed. We are such hypocrites to jail "a thought." Jail an illegal action if you must...but to jail a thought? That is wrong...because that is me...that is you...that is everyone...we are all just "thoughts."
They generally can't, at least not over here, they have to act. But I agree that DB has a real problem as he's fallen into one of the 'catches' in our 'mental health' system, i.e. he got referred because of a refusal to obey a legal requirement, i.e to withdraw the threat of violence to his ex. Now getting referred by the criminal law courts for a mental problem is a problem over here, as it puts you in the criminally insane bracket and as such under more stringent conditions, so I don't envy the 'chemical cosh' treatment DB must have suffered.
AS: If he can't share a thought aloud...then how can society prove him wrong?
He's not in there for voicing his thoughts is my guess, but for repeatedly voicing them to those who've requested him not to.
If that was the case a large chunk of interweeb users would be inside. My guess would be harrassment of people and they have complained. Or that he's not been keeping to his agreed medication regime when on the outside.
AS: Ok...you know better how your system works. Is it possible to be sanctioned for having an opinion there or does there have to be more evidence that physical harm will be done or a harmful action will be taken?...
In general you actually have to do something physical to be sectioned and this has led to problems as we shut down our mental institutions a while back(not a bad thing) but did not fund the "care in the community" part as promised(a bad thing), still it lead to the joke name "scare in the community" to describe our newest residents, what's really bad is that now the ones who know they need treatment also know that the only way to get it is to behave in a more and more violent manner as its the only way they'll get it(a truly bad thing for all concerned).
... Here, someone can't be put in jail (for long)for just having a sexist 'thought' they actually have to have physical proof that that person is dangerous. Hearsay is not proof enough to convict anyone...at least not in theory. I am just going off of what I know about Duncan...do you have any more evidence than I do?
Most of the males of England would be in prison if this was the case.
All I understand about DB is that he's not coped well with his sexual life experiences, is probably what my generation would consider an 'eccentric' Englishman and is mentally unwell because he knows how to stay out but keeps refusing too? A definition of mental ill-health if I've ever heard it. But since he also appears to be educated and intelligent I take his proposals seriously and whilst I agree that there are problems for what it is to be a male in current 'western' society, the solutions he suggests I oppose.
So I think his argument for a 'Mens Studies' is unassailable given there is such a subject as "Womens Studies"(do you think they study how they've had this "Womens Studies" implemented upon them?). Which is why I've always thought "Womens Studies" is a farce subject, but if its there then DB should be allowed his "Mens Studies", which will be another farce. So I oppose both as over here the taxpayer should not be paying for either.
DB knows what he has to do to stay out of the 'system', I know this because he went 'sane' enough to get himself out. As such his putting himself back is a sign of 'mental illness' in my book.
Yes, I am imagining this. Do you have proof that they did take that into account? This is the problem with allowing ourselves to trust authorities without challenging them from time to time. People have a tendency to make up their own rules as they go along, Duncan is not the only one ya know.
All I have is DB's word that this is what happened, balanced against the idea that our mental health system is not privatised and as such most are fairly professional and inspected reasonably often.
This reminds me of a story a long while back, which basically said that some states in America allow people to be sectioned by their spouses testimony, 'arrested' by private mental institution staff and sectioned into private mental institutions, with costs paid by the 'patients' own medical insurance
I think as a man you need to think about a world where women are aware of a world full of DB's and that it comes as no shock. This is where your "cute" male attitude comes in...but you are not alone....even Kierkegaard showed his cute male attitude. I think it is ingrained in all ya'alls DNA...Even my sons think they know women (and the world for that matter) better than we know ourselves... and thus...know how to change the world to protect women.
If this is the case then I'm shocked you give DB the time of day, a women thing I suppose? But you mistake why I oppose the views of the DBs of the world, its self-preservation as I would not wish to do time for battering the man who beat my daughter, sister, mother or any loved female in my life, because it was his legal right. Especially since if it was his legal right then I'm likely to get double-pain inside for being a 'pussy'.
Still, I think you have been correct in pricking my male pomposity about what 'you should be aware of...'.