Just because I’m pointing out just some of the deeply unjust and inherent flaws in your proposal, doesn’t mean it’s spin.

You realize that you’re not making these arguments on a libertarian forum, right?

The vast majority of us here are left wing and not inherently opposed to the concept of government or regulation, yet the vast majority of us here seem very much opposed to your ideas.

Just some food for thought.

The homeless and those with untreated mental health disorders don’t have social or societal support, or they wouldn’t be homeless and untreated.

As someone who’s battled chronic depression since 1989, I can tell you that of all the antidepressants I have tried (just about all of them) only one triggered erectile dysfunction and it went away once I stopped taking the pill. None reduced my sexual appetite, some actually increased it (one dramatically). The most common sexual side effect I found was difficulty climaxing, which combined with increased sexual appetite made for some extended and amazing sex.

I’m all in favor of rehabilitation instead of punitive imprisonment too, but you did say “they should be disallowed from participating in a close, intimate relationship”, not that they should be sent to rehab. We’re not twisting your words at all. There’s no other way to read that. You didn’t say anything about rehabilitation, you were talking solely about restriction of relationships. If you meant something else, you should say what you meant.

Just because I’m pointing out just some of the deeply unjust and inherent flaws in your proposal, doesn’t mean it’s spin.

You are saying I’m suggesting it affect “all adults”. That’s false, I gave a very specific example and circumstance for which this could be applied. Probation officers manage almost all aspects of those they are monitoring that are on probation and all adults don’t need to abide by that system.

You realize that you’re not making these arguments on a libertarian forum, right?

Are you seriously suggesting I am a right-wing libertarian for suggesting that there be terms for probation after somebody domestically abuses somebody, especially repeat offenders? Have you ever known somebody on probation or a violent offender and have experience with the systems they go through to reenter society?

The restrictions can be quite harsh and I don’t agree with all of them, but therapy and preventing abuse is desirable after somebody is released from incarceration (and during) for domestic violence.

The vast majority of us here are left wing and not inherently opposed to the concept of government or regulation, yet the vast majority of us here seem very much opposed to your ideas.

They saw your spin and took you at face-value. I’m not hurt.

I’m not mad the study exists. It’s a useful finding. It’s the framing of the article I object to. It could just as easily be framed that mental health treatment for men at risk or incarceration improves outcomes and is more cost effective.

You didn’t say anything about rehabilitation

I clarified that I did mean that umpteen times if you cared to look (including in the edit to the comment you just responded to), but the other commenter refused to listen to the nuance and called it “rhetorical flourishing”.

People have terms for probation. I said that if you are violent and reoffending (domestic abuser) that there should be restrictions for you entering into a new or existing relationship. Which is a viable term for probation to prevent abuse.

The system for probation already exists, I said nothing about licenses or licenses affecting all adults - which the other commenter repeatedly asserts I’m suggesting. It is twisting and it is likely in bad faith.

Those articles contradict your claims, because you’re wrong.

They very clearly state that men report intimate partner violence at lower rates than women do, which explains why M/M IPV numbers are low and F/F higher.

Thank you for proving youself wrong! I trust you’ll update your opinions and beliefs accordingly.

You later clarified it, yes, but you’re getting bent out of shape when people responded to what you had initially written. We can’t see the future edits, nor read your mind for intent. We can only read what you have written.

The intent was clarified within minutes of me responding (and ignored) - and if you look deep, a commenter still asserts that I’m suggesting licenses for all adults.

See: https://lemmy.world/comment/20879263

Can you not see the disconnect and the spin the person is continuing to push? They are suggesting an entirely new system (licenses for all adults) and applying that to me, while I’m over here pointing to something that already exists as a likely implementation: probation terms (which they refuse to address).

I never suggested “offender lists”. I’m not saying probation terms retroactively apply to past offenders, either.

Or… OR!.. Or: we treat the root cause of depression in men.

At risk of incarceration for what

are you suggesting public funds be used to help the public? what are you? a filthy commie?

What do you believe the root cause of depression in men to be?

The article: “it appears that domestic violence has roots in the mental health of men, as this antidepressant appears to reduce incidents of DV in some cases. A more comprehensive mental health care system would improve these results.”

The Chuds in the comments who didn’t read the article: “SO NOW THEY WANT TO DRUG ALL MEN TO PROTECT WOMEN! WHAT ABOUT A MORE COMPREHENSIVE MENTAL HEALTH CARE SYSTEM!? MEN ARE THE VICTIMS IN THIS SCENARIO!”

Lol, right?

…are you aware of what ‘antidepressants’ are for? The answer may shock you.

Study: “Treating depressed men who commit domestic violence can reduce the amount of domestic violence that occurs.”

Internet scum: “WHAT ABOUT THE MEN??? THOSE FEMINAZIS ARE TRYING TO DRUG US!!!”

Turning the frogs gay?

Drugs, minor theft, any of the various excuses police use to lock up the homeless and those having a mental health crisis. Lots of options.