Slab organization

drsteve wrote:

Beentherefixedthat wrote:

drsteve wrote:

Beentherefixedthat wrote:

But there are many serious problems that should not be overlooked or glossed over here under the false notion of freedom

That definition of freedom approves of "allowing" the mentally ill to live under a bridge in a cardboard box because they don't like the mental institution.

I am not sure how the mentally ill living under bridges relates to the slabs???

I am also not sure quite how to understand your comment. Maybe you can expand on it?

I was agreeing with you.

One of the main rationales used by those who backed deinstitutionalization was that these people should be free to choose whether they were treated for mental illness or not, even if their condition impaired their ability to make an informed choice, or to effectively care for their own needs.

It sounds like a fair number of the people who end up living at the slabs fit that description.

Thank You. I thought that might be the case but rather than jump to conclusions I wanted to check first. As one of the posts above shows it is very easy to misunderstand or misread what is written in this media.

And I agree with you that the slabs seem to be a place where a number of people may be dealing with some mental issues for sure. But we can only speculate.

garyhaupt wrote:
Beentherefixedthat...."fell into your trap?" Is that what you were trying to do? Trap someone? geeezus....what a waste. Imagine if you were trying to be helpful? Or nice, even. Now, when I see you have written something, I shall just scroll on by, knowing you are setting "traps".


Gary Haupt

Once again you have misrepresented or misunderstood what I wrote. The "trap" I wrote about was not one of my doing at all but rather the trap anyone can fall into by not reading something carefully enough and then responding from the heart or gut instead of a more reasoned approach.

It's kind of like the same trap one falls into when they don't read the assembly instructions on that new purchase carefully enough and end up wishing they had. That trap exists without anyone having to "Set it" for you.

I regret you misunderstood me.

Beentherefixedthat wrote:

drsteve wrote:

Beentherefixedthat wrote:

But there are many serious problems that should not be overlooked or glossed over here under the false notion of freedom

That definition of freedom approves of "allowing" the mentally ill to live under a bridge in a cardboard box because they don't like the mental institution.

I am not sure how the mentally ill living under bridges relates to the slabs???

I am also not sure quite how to understand your comment. Maybe you can expand on it?

I was agreeing with you.

One of the main rationales used by those who backed deinstitutionalization was that these people should be free to choose whether they were treated for mental illness or not, even if their condition impaired their ability to make an informed choice, or to effectively care for their own needs.

It sounds like a fair number of the people who end up living at the slabs fit that description.

Beentherefixedthat...."fell into your trap?" Is that what you were trying to do? Trap someone? geeezus....what a waste. Imagine if you were trying to be helpful? Or nice, even. Now, when I see you have written something, I shall just scroll on by, knowing you are setting "traps".


Gary Haupt

drsteve wrote:

Beentherefixedthat wrote:

But there are many serious problems that should not be overlooked or glossed over here under the false notion of freedom

That definition of freedom approves of "allowing" the mentally ill to live under a bridge in a cardboard box because they don't like the mental institution.

I am not sure how the mentally ill living under bridges relates to the slabs???

I am also not sure quite how to understand your comment. Maybe you can expand on it?

As a historical fact many thousand of people in this country from the beginning of the 20th century (and before) were wrongly committed to mental institutions. The cases of Wyatt v. Stickney (1972) and Wyatt v. Aderholt (1974) challenged the conditions of hospitalization for those with mental illness and developmental disabilities, leading to significant reductions in the institutions' populations this was the basis of all further laws to move to "deinstitutionalization" an already growing movement in the US and abroad.

I think the treatment of the mentally ill has much more to do with the lack of funding by congress than it has anything to do with freedom.

My comments on the slabs here and in previous threads are meant to bring a balance to those that write about it as if it is some kind of utopia of freedom and carefree life which I think is a huge disservice to those that know nothing about it and is frankly a complete whitewash of a place with serious problems.

Happy New Year.

Beentherefixedthat wrote:

But there are many serious problems that should not be overlooked or glossed over here under the false notion of freedom

That definition of freedom approves of "allowing" the mentally ill to live under a bridge in a cardboard box because they don't like the mental institution.

garyhaupt wrote:
"In addition, no matter how I feel about certain behaviours or the freedom to engage in them I think that anyone who is drinking beer regularly at 7am with a joint is someone with a substance/alcohol abuse problem...typically those folks are troublemakers on some level at some time and make others lives difficult. Reasonable recreational use and those that engage in it are usually NOT troublemakers. IE most people drink alcohol and many millions use Marijuana responsibly but they are not the ones who wake up and light up first thing and crack a beer open. You have to question what the mental and psychological place a person like that is in and if it is a healthy addition to any community."

What poppycock...who here hasn't at least wanted to have beer at 7am? But didn't cause mamma was gonna have something to say. And there-in lies the beauty of the Slabs...no one is pestering you because you are having a beer..or a joint. THAT is a sound of freedom that many enjoy....silence.


Gary

Ah! you fall so easily into the trap of not reading carefully. As you well know "wanting" to have a beer at 7am is one thing... actually doing it and actually having one DAILY accompanied by a joint are vastly different things.

As I CLEARLY pointed out. One is recreational. The other is a lifestyle/addiction with all it's accompanying problems.

If you are going to take me to task at least read carefully what I write.

And from what I could see the slabs are bereft of "beauty" as the word is normally used. It is a sad, ugly place. FREEDOM is never a word I would use to describe it. It is has much more in common with the average refugee camp. (Of which I have been to several from Africa to Thailand and Bangladesh)

Are there good people there? Of course. But there are many serious problems that should not be overlooked or glossed over here under the false notion of freedom

Beentherefixedthat wrote:

...anyone who is drinking beer regularly at 7am with a joint is someone with a substance/alcohol abuse problem...

Or they are a third shift worker relaxing before they hit the sack.

"In addition, no matter how I feel about certain behaviours or the freedom to engage in them I think that anyone who is drinking beer regularly at 7am with a joint is someone with a substance/alcohol abuse problem...typically those folks are troublemakers on some level at some time and make others lives difficult. Reasonable recreational use and those that engage in it are usually NOT troublemakers. IE most people drink alcohol and many millions use Marijuana responsibly but they are not the ones who wake up and light up first thing and crack a beer open. You have to question what the mental and psychological place a person like that is in and if it is a healthy addition to any community."

What poppycock...who here hasn't at least wanted to have beer at 7am? But didn't cause mamma was gonna have something to say. And there-in lies the beauty of the Slabs...no one is pestering you because you are having a beer..or a joint. THAT is a sound of freedom that many enjoy....silence.


Gary

socal wrote:

fla-gypsy wrote:
There is a difference between freedom and anarchy.

Fla-gypsy you ever been here to the slabs? Not sure where you get anarchy from but whatever. In fact if anything a number of these folks are dependent on uncle sugar for their care and wellbeing. I'm not but many are and yes there are people here not liking big brother but most of the polls indicate this to be true nation wide. Anarchy? That's a joke.

Socal

I am familiar with the slabs. But I have to say that the residents have really brought this on themselves. Poor sanitation, garbage, no respect for their environment, graffiti, and while it may not rise to the level of Anarchy it does in some ways meet the definition of anarchy which is the absence of rules and law.

In addition, no matter how I feel about certain behaviours or the freedom to engage in them I think that anyone who is drinking beer regularly at 7am with a joint is someone with a substance/alcohol abuse problem...typically those folks are troublemakers on some level at some time and make others lives difficult. Reasonable recreational use and those that engage in it are usually NOT troublemakers. IE most people drink alcohol and many millions use Marijuana responsibly but they are not the ones who wake up and light up first thing and crack a beer open. You have to question what the mental and psychological place a person like that is in and if it is a healthy addition to any community.

All freedoms have an opposing and integral responsibility inherent in that freedom. So if you have a right to free speech...you have the responsibility not to yell FIRE! in a theatre or commit slander or libel.

In other words "Freedom" means having a set of rules built in.

The slabs want to pretend they are freer than the rest of the country but many are trapped there economically and socially...that is not freedom.