FreedomAdvocate

So I'm a fool for believing the board members, but you're not the fool for believing some random journalist printing a rumour with no sources, with nothing even remotely supporting it, who reached out to the company for comment and then refused to print their comment denying it, and printed the unsubstantiated rumour anyway?

Especially when its the reputation of the WSJ

I'm assuming you were using this as a way of defending the WSJ, but it really doesn't.

I’ll give you a hint: what do you think would happen to the stock price of literally any company if the board confirmed they were ousting the CEO before the CEO was out?

No comment. No reply. An outright denial leaves them open to all sorts of lawsuits if they then go and do it.

Your understanding of what companies can and will sue for is remarkably bad.

None of what you just talked about is relevant to any of this. The rising cost of living doesn't cause schizophrenia.

Forced hospitalization is, at best, the same as jail,

You can't just walk out of jail 24 hours later because you've taken your meds again, or shown that you don't need to be held.

Let’s see how you feel after sedatives and anti psychotics get forcibly put into your system you you statistically get sexually abused by an orderly

Well that escalated quickly!

To your second statement, absolutely no part of this proposal limits the action to indigent or houseless persons.

Because it's not supposed to be limited to just indigent or homeless people. It isn't pretending to be only aimed at them.

If you can’t pay your rent on time you, objectively, cannot house yourself.

Ah so you're deliberately being misleading. No, not paying your rent doesn't make you meet the criteria for being put on a mental health hold.

Congrats, you’re now in a ‘hospital’ and have to prove you’re not crazy. Something that is famously difficult to do in the best situations as it’s proving a negative.

Congrats, you’re now in a ‘hospital’ and have to prove you’re not crazy. Something that is famously difficult to do in the best situations as it’s proving a negative.

You don't have to prove you're not crazy, they have to prove that you are too mentally unwell to be able to meet your basic needs in the outside world, and no, that doesn't mean you paid your bills late or accidentally overcooked your steak.

"Let them die on the streets" is your answer, apparently.

But what happens when they are released and can’t afford treatment or become non-compliant with treatment?

So you might say that they cannot meet their own basic needs?

I'm sorry but you can't just let all mentally ill people go free to do whatever they want, and you definitely can't just throw money and houses at them and expect the problem to go away. That's not how mental illness works. You might not like it, but there are people with mental illnesses who either need someone to be a full time carer for them - and that is either a friend/family member/care worker, or it's in an institution. The other option is you just let them die on the streets, maybe killing some other people along the way.

"Forcibly hospitalize" is not "jail".

A day late on your rent and keep your apartment messy? Congrats, you get a nice vacation under this proposal.

Completely untrue misinformation.

As long as the library owner has a Plex Pass nothing changes for ANYONE who is streaming from that Plex Server.