[SpaghettiCat]

Not every mental disorder warrants institutionalisation; I never said that. My point was to clarify that a medically diagnosed person who does some crazy action should be institutionalised, whereas a person who does the exact same crazy action but has no mental disorders should not be.

[chris_wot]

Define "crazy action"? And under what mental disorder should someone be institutionalised? All you've referred to is the DSM, so it's very unclear which illnesses and disorders you are referring to.

Incidentally, are you aware that there is a difference between a mental disorder and a mental illness?

[SpaghettiCat]

By "crazy action" I mean for 2 years wilfully undereating, not washing, living in filth, not responding to basic communication (even to your own daughter) and standing for long stretches of time at road intersections.

>And under what mental disorder should someone be institutionalised?

Under those that are responsible for causing a person to suffer and damage their own health and fail to try to recover, or seek help with recovery, as in the example above.

>All you've referred to is the DSM, so it's very unclear which illnesses and disorders you are referring to.

You've taken this comment thread on a totally different tangent. We're arguing a wholly different point now.

> Incidentally, are you aware that there is a difference between a mental disorder and a mental illness?

No, wasn't aware. I use them interchangeably.

[chris_wot]

I haven't actually taken this on a different tangent. You literally wrote that you would only institutionalize those with a mental illness that is in the DSM, when questioned you said only certain illnesses would apply, so now I'm asking what illnesses and disorders you believe apply.

There are a group of people in Australia called Ferals. They don't eat well, and they never bathe. They do it out of choice. I'm sure some of them are mentally ill. I wouldn't be locking them up in an institution!