FreedomAdvocate

the one that explicitly states being homeless is a mental illness, being unable to procure food legally is a mental illness

It doesn't state that at all. That's your poor reading and comprehension skills at play.

and that all first responders, i.e. cops that are absolutely not trained to deal with mental illness, are the sole arbiters of who gets these holds now.

The whole point of this is that now instead of police being dispatched as first responders, it will be unarmed trained mental health professionals. So it's the exact opposite of what you're saying it is.

In 2022, there were over 1 million vacant houses just in the state of New York.

Vacant does not mean government owned. Homeowners can do whatever they want with their homes, including leaving them vacant. So again, what free housing would be used to house all these people? Also the way you describe this, it would be ripe for abuse by people who just want a free house wouldn't it? Just don't pay your rent and get taken away to be given a free house and food and all your bills paid!

If there are over a MILLION vacant houses, and 350k (or slighty more) homeless people, what the fuck are we doing?

See above.

5150 holds are a minimum of 24 and have no maximum. Not ‘just’ 24 hours.

I didn't say they are ONLY 24 hours, read what I said again. I said that you can't walk out of jail 24 hours later. With mental health holds you absolutely can sometimes, probably most times. Not all, but I didn't say you could.

You also have to prove the conditions that caused you to be admitted arent going to happen immediately, which is impossible if you’re homeless or were made homeless by your confinement.

If the condition that caused you to be admitted was "being homeless", which it isn't.

That is actual reality and actually what happens.

those forced into hospitalization have such a significantly higher incidence of being assaulted

So you get put on a mental health hold and you just start getting molested by orderlys immediately? What stats do you have for how many people on these holds are sexually abused almost immediately?

And to your third point, that’s my point. Its not just going to be used on the unsightly or dangerous

But that wasn't your point. Your point was that it was vague enough so it isn't only used against the homeless, despite it never being aimed at just the homeless lol.

one that has extremely low standards to apply, and one that is applied by people that objectively are not trained to make the determination.

Sources please :)

There is no due process or evidence before they are kidnapped in this instance.

If you ignore the due process and evidence I guess. This is for when police would have been dispatched to a mental health emergency.

They are homeless because they lack funds.

And they often lack the funds because of their severe mental illness that makes them unable to function properly in society. It's hard to hold down a job (or even get one) when you think that everyone is a lizard person who is trying to take over the world and are laying eggs in peoples brains, because of severe mental illness.

I have suggested multiple times that they be given all social supports that are available to them. If they require that, they should be given that option.

And every time you've suggested that and people have asked "but what if they don't take any of the help or suggestions" you've just gone "oh well that's up to them because it's a free country" and wiped your hands of it. That is not good enough, that's why I'm saying that your solution is essentially "let them die in the streets".

There are people that literally cannot take care of themselves due to mental illness. No matter how many services you offer them, it's just more services that they won't use. If the option is commit them and take care of them, or let them die, you're saying let them die.

Your characterization of people suffering from mental illness or homeless people in general being violent

I didn't characterize them "in general" as being that. It absolutely is a possibility, which is why I said "maybe".

I'll ask again - if a homeless severely, severely mentally ill person refuses all help, what do you suggest the government do?

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.