Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Interestingly, back in the 70's or so, people who were deemed NOT to be a threat to others or themselves were "let out" to fend for themselves.
I would argue that someone incapable of keeping themselves in good order are a threat to themselves.
The problem, won't be solved until we get rid of the camps that say:
(1) These people are all just lazy and should get a job.
(2) These people are just like you and me and just need a hand.
I agree with you that treatment of those who are mentally ill falls short much, if not most of the time. I disagree somewhat with your statement of "someone incapable of keeping themselves in good order are a threat to themselves." This is incredibly subjective. You could argue that a person who is obese with consequent life-threatening health problems is not keeping themselves in good order and is a threat to themselves, and I don't think that person should be involuntarily hospitalized and treated. I actually think people who want to be homeless should be left alone. But I tend to be pretty extreme in my views on personal freedom, as long as it is not a drain on tax payer dollars. I say leave the helping to private charities so that tax payers can choose where to put their money and which groups they want to help.
I disagree somewhat with your statement of "someone incapable of keeping themselves in good order are a threat to themselves."
It doesn't sound like you disagree.
It sounds like you would simply like to have a good definition of "keeping themselves in good order."
Being 100% overweight is one thing.
( I see them at Weck's from time-to-time. )
Being 400% overweight might be cause to be institutionalized involuntarily.
My time living in the UNM Ghetto showed me that there are some street people who would be much better off involuntarily cared for.
It's like saying that a quadruple-amputee should just learn to navigate the
stairs and not depend on assistance. Some people are never going
to be OK because they don't have what it takes between their ears.
They are just that disabled. I don't think they should have to fend
for themselves any more than someone with huge physical disabilities.
It sounds like you would simply like to have a good definition of "keeping themselves in good order."
Being 100% overweight is one thing.
( I see them at Weck's from time-to-time. )
Being 400% overweight might be cause to be institutionalized involuntarily.
My time living in the UNM Ghetto showed me that there are some street people who would be much better off involuntarily cared for.
It's like saying that a quadruple-amputee should just learn to navigate the
stairs and not depend on assistance. Some people are never going
to be OK because they don't have what it takes between their ears.
They are just that disabled. I don't think they should have to fend
for themselves any more than someone with huge physical disabilities.
Well, I agree with everything you said here! I actually think deinstitutionalization was a bad idea. You are right, some people need help - all the time.
They waste more food in the third world due to spoilage. What percentage is acceptable, particularly considering our bulging waistlines as it is? Or maybe we should grow less food in case famine or drought doesn't come?
They entertain (so much so that stadiums sell tickets for ridiculous sums and yet aren't empty), and they incentivize you to buy the products they hawk. Are you saying their corporate sponsors should pay them less and let the CEO keep the difference?
Methinks maybe what you're listening to/watching/reading isn't really news.
Some people go hungry, but for the first time in world history, there will be more people who are overweight than underweight on this planet. Most likely to be overweight? the poor.
I'm just pointing out symptoms of a sick society, I can't see "treating" the symptoms individually.
I dislike your cavalier statement "some people go hungry." According to the World Food Programme, hunger is on the rise worldwide, with 1 in 7 people undernourished, or almost 1 billion people. And 15 million children a year die of hunger. What are your stats for the death rate from being overweight?
Most likely to be underweight? Also the poor BY FAR. India has the highest rate of underweight children, and it's not the rich kids.
Having spent a lot of time in Asia, I never got over the ( repeated ) shock of
returning to the US ( after having gotten used to slender Chinese or Japanese
people who walk a lot more ) and seeing the 'guts' and 'butts' on people in the U.S.
For some reason, I didn't notice the difference when I headed East.
I also found it shocking coming from my occasional trips to Europe.
It ain't genes. It's behavioral.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aries63
I dislike your cavalier statement "some people go hungry."
I don't think Zoidberg meant it that way.
Zoidberg can be blunt ( and how ), but how else do you describe the fact that many
are starving 24x7? You can sugar coat it, but "some people go hungry" is not incorrect
or inherantly insensitive. If he had added something like "that's life," then yeah.
Most people in the U.S. have no idea of what "poor" really means.
I think Zoidberg does.
I don't mind giving a buck or spare change here or there. I agree I'd much rather donate to charities who help, though. What REALLY bugs me is the intimidation factor. I remember in Philly once, we handed our (very nice) dinner leftovers to someone who was begging on the street, and he complained bitterly about it and swore at us. Nice. There's often someone standing by the I-25 ramp near Central - he usually seems very nice, but the other day someone handed him something and he starting ranting and cussing about how cheap the person was. I agree with marmom, that would be disturbing if someone approached me in the parking lot with my kids. People need to realize that many of us want to help but will back off if we feel intimidated.
Offramp beggars are very irritating, particularly when they cause the flow of traffic to stop while some well-meaning moron holds up the line to give them something.
If police would start enforcing jaywalking ordinances (perhaps with jail time for a second offense), the practice might be curtailed significantly. They're not out raping, robbing, and murdering, but they still negatively impact quality of life for everyone.
If police would start enforcing jaywalking ordinances (perhaps with jail time for a second offense), the practice might be curtailed significantly.
No thanks. Not crossing where I am supposed to cross is often the easiest way to avoid getting hit by cars, since too many drivers have no respect for pedestrian rights.
If police would start enforcing jaywalking ordinances (perhaps with jail time for a second offense), the practice might be curtailed significantly. They're not out raping, robbing, and murdering, but they still negatively impact quality of life for everyone.
You are about 50 years late. At that time, nearly all municipalities had vagrancy laws to address the issues in the threads. One by one, "well meaning" advocacy groups challenged the laws until they are all gone. (Of course, many of THOSE folks live in gated communities away from themess that they have created.)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
