MomentsofSanity
Lifer
- Jan 25, 2011
- 17,100
- 9,586
- 146
Sorry I misread your earlier post. The bill does state:
"unless the information is relevant to the patient’s medical care or safety, or the safety of others"
I think it would be hard to prove that a mental health provider asking about guns isn't covered in that exception. But there isn't explicit protection. I also think it would be hard to prosecute a pediatrician on those grounds.
realibrad, Perhaps its not a folly on my side 
M: Yes, perhaps. I saw in your first post an important idea that got quickly lost in the chain of logic that followed, that a lot of these shootings are a cry for attention. I think that is where the meat of this conversation should have gone. But what happened instead was a chain of logical connections one following the other to nowhere, with me introducing the idea that you see your analogies easily but not so much mine. There isn't any folly in the logic of the conversation. One idea flows easily from it to the next and all of it basically empty of essence,
r: To be fair I often don't. I think you do get things wrong, and I have never once see you change your position. I don't mean that to provoke, but I cannot recall a single time where you have accused someone of thinking or feeling something and then retracted that.
Or being a Young Male.
The context was if the gun(s) would be taken away from this kid. If this was due to mental illness that can be rectified, then I see no reason they would take them away. If the illness cannot be addressed, they may take them away. He may not be ill at all and that would be a whole different path to talk about.
M: What is this need for attention that shooters have? Tell me more about what you know about that? Do you think that might be more important? I do.
M: Yes, perhaps. I saw in your first post an important idea that got quickly lost in the chain of logic that followed, that a lot of these shootings are a cry for attention. I think that is where the meat of this conversation should have gone. But what happened instead was a chain of logical connections one following the other to nowhere, with me introducing the idea that you see your analogies easily but not so much mine. There isn't any folly in the logic of the conversation. One idea flows easily from it to the next and all of it basically empty of essence,
r: To be fair I often don't. I think you do get things wrong, and I have never once see you change your position. I don't mean that to provoke, but I cannot recall a single time where you have accused someone of thinking or feeling something and then retracted that.
Or being a Young Male.
The context was if the gun(s) would be taken away from this kid. If this was due to mental illness that can be rectified, then I see no reason they would take them away. If the illness cannot be addressed, they may take them away. He may not be ill at all and that would be a whole different path to talk about.
M: What is this need for attention that shooters have? Tell me more about what you know about that? Do you think that might be more important? I do.
- Jan 2, 2001
- 25,340
- 5,008
- 136
From what I know Scott did not appeal the decision and the time to do so has passed.
Also it is disingenuous cherry picking to say that "Florida is fighting hard to prohibit mental health professionals asking patients if they have access to guns" when the bill included all health providers, never mentioning mental health professionals and when the entire discussion before the bill was passed never included the mental health professionals. Not only is Florida NOT fighting hard to prevent mental health professionals from asking patients about guns, as far as I am aware Florida is not fighting hard to prevent ANYONE from asking. And I not only live in Florida, I live in the state capital where the governing happens. I do not know of any bills that have been introduced this year that would attempt to reinstate this.
realibrad, Perhaps its not a folly on my side
M: Yes, perhaps. I saw in your first post an important idea that got quickly lost in the chain of logic that followed, that a lot of these shootings are a cry for attention. I think that is where the meat of this conversation should have gone. But what happened instead was a chain of logical connections one following the other to nowhere, with me introducing the idea that you see your analogies easily but not so much mine. There isn't any folly in the logic of the conversation. One idea flows easily from it to the next and all of it basically empty of essence,
r: To be fair I often don't. I think you do get things wrong, and I have never once see you change your position. I don't mean that to provoke, but I cannot recall a single time where you have accused someone of thinking or feeling something and then retracted that.
Or being a Young Male.
The context was if the gun(s) would be taken away from this kid. If this was due to mental illness that can be rectified, then I see no reason they would take them away. If the illness cannot be addressed, they may take them away. He may not be ill at all and that would be a whole different path to talk about.
M: What is this need for attention that shooters have? Tell me more about what you know about that? Do you think that might be more important? I do.
I was talking to Interchange about this before. A lot of people have their happiness linked to their status. Feeling powerful and in control is a great sense of comfort for a great many people. They seek out a narrative that gives them those things. That story leads people down a path that can sometimes be good, but sometimes bad.
Mass shootings sometimes seem to be driven by a desire to take back control. The ability to exert power over others instead of having others exert power over you. It is a rather unproductive method which causes great harm to those that suffer at this path on both sides. Superficially the goals are reached and walls put up to protect the accomplishment.
MomentsofSanity
Lifer
- Jan 25, 2011
- 17,100
- 9,586
- 146
My point was more it's disingenuous to lay the blame at the foot of mental health when you've actively taken steps to prevent those professionals from asking all the relevant questions. Of course that was with the understanding that he was appealing the court imposed block which was something I had heard this morning. Since it appears that information was incorrect the topic is dead.
On the current status it's great to know the law is gone and staying gone.
realibrad: I was talking to Interchange about this before. A lot of people have their happiness linked to their status.
This would imply to me that errors can occur in the psyche as to what happiness and status are. If so then some insight into what they actually are, how they are acquired, and what the mistakes consist of could be a worthwhile subject for children's education. That in turn would imply that there would have to be some form of adult agreement as to what real understanding might consist of.
r: Feeling powerful and in control is a great sense of comfort for a great many people. They seek out a narrative that gives them those things. That story leads people down a path that can sometimes be good, but sometimes bad.
M: That instantly raised in my mind the question as to why. My theory is that this is a description of a symptom of something deeper that seems to answer a question but doesn't. It is true of course, like if you see puss there's an infection but killing the germs causing the puss is the real solution,
r: Mass shootings sometimes seem to be driven by a desire to take back control. The ability to exert power over others instead of having others exert power over you. It is a rather unproductive method which causes great harm to those that suffer at this path on both sides. Superficially the goals are reached and walls put up to protect the accomplishment.
M: That would imply, it seems to me, that what is needed for kids is a kind of education that does not create a feeling of loss of control. What kind of education would do that? What kind of miseducation would create the feeling of loss? Why do you suppose these are not the kinds of topics that dominate the news?
This would imply to me that errors can occur in the psyche as to what happiness and status are. If so then some insight into what they actually are, how they are acquired, and what the mistakes consist of could be a worthwhile subject for children's education. That in turn would imply that there would have to be some form of adult agreement as to what real understanding might consist of.
r: Feeling powerful and in control is a great sense of comfort for a great many people. They seek out a narrative that gives them those things. That story leads people down a path that can sometimes be good, but sometimes bad.
M: That instantly raised in my mind the question as to why. My theory is that this is a description of a symptom of something deeper that seems to answer a question but doesn't. It is true of course, like if you see puss there's an infection but killing the germs causing the puss is the real solution,
r: Mass shootings sometimes seem to be driven by a desire to take back control. The ability to exert power over others instead of having others exert power over you. It is a rather unproductive method which causes great harm to those that suffer at this path on both sides. Superficially the goals are reached and walls put up to protect the accomplishment.
M: That would imply, it seems to me, that what is needed for kids is a kind of education that does not create a feeling of loss of control. What kind of education would do that? What kind of miseducation would create the feeling of loss? Why do you suppose these are not the kinds of topics that dominate the news?
I feel my analysis is timid at best, so I don't know I could give a response to that would meet my standards. I do think people can make themselves feel happiness, but, I think you are asking me if there is objective causes and I can't say. Status is more often than not deeply subjective and personal, but that too, I am unsure about how to form an answer.
Sure. It could be one layer down, 50 layers, maybe even a collective of issues that are all at different depths. Again, I don't have an answer that comes to my mind here.
Well its fundamental to the human condition as far as I can tell. If a group of people were being mistreated this could be a mechanism to drive change. Channeled "correctly" it could be an effective too for change. I don't think its a problem with the mechanism so much as people have lost many avenues to change their life. Its also true that we have a culture that promotes the idea that everyone can succeed and that people who are not successful are just unlucky. That idea breeds malcontent and that is directed at those who are successful.
This is my best attempts to express my views which have a 100% chance of being flawed.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter