Illegal Now For Homeless To Use Blankets?

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Pretty sure it would have to happen before we could know that.

We've never see a situation where the homeless all switch roles with the well to do, unloess it was with eddie muprhy and that turned out ok, unless you're mortimer.

reply to post by SilverStarGazer


You are right, Not every person would be down for it. But that should not stop us from trying to help the ones that do not want to be on the street.

I too have worked in shelters and bottle depots in my early years and have had many conversations with homless people about this subject. In my area about 90% of them would rather be in a house then living on the street. They would rather have a job to buy food then to scrounge for cans or eat food out of dumpsters.

You have to put your selves in their shoes, would you want help?

Everything that I purposed could be done and then some to help the homless and the people in poverty in general.

Some may say that my views are socialist, I say they are humanitarian.

I've been homeless before. I couldn't afford tuition and shelter so I chose to live on the streets. I would spend the mornings/afternoons in class, sleep in the evenings in the library or on a bench, and spend the nights once the campus closed in hiding dodging the cops. This was before my town had a hidden homeless community (or perhaps before I knew about it, I suppose it could have always been there). Living on the streets for a period of years changes you... I know I'll never be the same. I really feel for these people... the way it is here in southern Ohio it's illegal to be homeless within the city limits. Just outside of town there's a group of homeless that hide in the trees near the river.

Every couple months the city will come by and wreck their homes, take their stuff, and so on... basically saying go away. Because they're outside the city limits it's not illegal, so they just keep trying to push them elsewhere (the ones in the city get jailed indefinitely). The problem is, every town has this mentality. Where are they supposed to go? If given proper medical care many wouldn't be homeless. If we had an actual economy many wouldn't be homeless. That's not even getting into the constitutional issues where their rights are being blatantly violated, but I guess it's ok when the victim can't afford to fight back.

They're essentially an untouchable class. Sooner or later some real problems are going to erupt from that. Especially when most people are never more than 1 or 2 paychecks away from joining them.

I believe the only fair way to judge a society is by how it treats it's lowest members. The way we treat homeless and the prisoners says a lot about our society these days.

bigfatfurrytexan

bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by snypwsd

 

"They" are so human that if the roles were reversed, nothing would change.

Yes, "poor people" tend to be more giving. But remove that poor state from their finances, and they become the same scumbags that we are decrying here.

Behavior is 10% individual outlook, and 90% human nature.

Noting that this post is not very popular in this thread (yes, i get it...we need to bash those evil politicians for trying to screw the good guys around)....

Let me share some insight into human nature. Using the following study, done on behaviors during a game that has destroyed families for decades: Monopoly.

www.pbs.org...

PAUL PIFF: We’re playing a game of Monopoly that’s rigged.

PAUL SOLMAN: This game is typical of another kind of experiment Piff likes to run. Instead of studying actual rich people, Piff gets subjects to feel rich in the lab. The designated Monopoly moneybags starts with a few legs up, $2,000 dollars vs. the poor man’s $1,000 dollars, an upscale playing piece the Rolls vs. an old shoe, the right to toss two dice instead of just one.

Two. I have got snake eyes — meaning I, assigned the role of rich person, get an extra turn.

So, but I roll again, because I have got …

PAUL PIFF: Yes, because you rolled doubles.

PAUL SOLMAN: Doubles. Six. One, two, three, four, five, six, and that’s Tennessee Avenue, and, of course, I will buy that.

Meanwhile, poor Paul Piff.

PAUL PIFF: I only get to roll one die. And as it says here, when I pass go, I collect a lower salary. I collect $100 dollars.

PAUL SOLMAN: Here’s your one die.

PAUL PIFF: Great. Thanks so much. I can’t roll doubles. I don’t get opportunities to move very far along the board.

PAUL SOLMAN: Piff has run this experiment with hundreds of people on the Berkeley campus. The rich players are determined randomly by coin toss, the game rigged so they cannot lose. And yet, says Piff, despite their presumably liberal bent going in …

PAUL PIFF: When we asked them afterwards, how much do you feel like you deserved to win the game? The rich people felt entitled. They felt like they deserved to win the game. And that’s a really incredible insight into what the mind does to make sense of advantage or disadvantage.

PAUL SOLMAN: So, even though a subject like myself is just play-acting — you consistently find that I begin to attribute success to myself, even though it’s a coin flip that got me on this side of the board as opposed to that?

PAUL PIFF: You, like a real rich person, start to attribute success to your own individual skills and talents, and you become less attuned to all of the other things that contributed to you being in the position that you’re in.

Long story short: they found that people who were wealthy in real life were much more fluid in their ethics, choosing to lie/steal/cheat far more often than the lowest earners in real life. So to remove that "real life" factor, they played Monopoly and infused arbitrary rules so that the "rich" person in the game was rigged and determined on a coin toss. By the end of the game, people who in real life were not wealthy would tend to exhibit the same core traits as mentioned above by real life wealthy people.

Long story even shorter: just about every one of us would be a douche is put in a position of influence and affluence. It is human nature. When you decry those evil city council members, you are looking in the mirror while doing so.

Just food for thought.

Speak for yourself. I must disagree to an extent. You must have no element of trust or control in your 'soul' (use the word loosely here - you know what I mean) if you think your whole character will change based on your situation. I'm so tired of having debates with people who think like that. You are basically saying you are 90% robot and have no real choice over anything you do. Do you know why that's scary? Because it is that thought or that lack of faith in your own ability to understand who YOU really are (rather than flowing through life and adapting your behavior entirely on environment) which allows very dark human acts to be committed.

"Ah I changed man...I changed...the money...it got to me..."

What an utter load of NONSENSE. Yes, that theory holds for children because they are sponges. The idea is that by the time you're an adult you've had various life experiences and outlooks and can be 'trusted' with the control of your body and mind to a finer tuned degree. But applying this concept to adults is a different ball game - it is nonsensical completely. If someones going to suddenly be a prick when they're rich or advantaged...then THAT IS THEIR CHARACTER.

If they were 'good' and 'caring' and 'humble' before then it was a complete facade that they were upholding to 'play the game'. Their true desires were always superiority and self-righteousness. A lot of people do it without even realizing because a lot of people don't actually 'judge' themselves or their thoughts - because as I said they have no control over their true essence - they are just watching the movie called life. For me that monopoly study is a no brainer. I would always say no. It is the principle - you had an unfair advantage. Only a fool would play a monopoly game using 2 dice vs 1 dice (not to mention the other advantages) and still think he won fairly. A FOOL.

My dad used to let me win games on Playstation and such when I was a kid and I would notice the advantage straight away and tell him to stop immediately. On the contrary, all my feeling of accomplishment was ruined if I believed I had an advantage. That is my character. Always will be because I am aligned with my own 'soul' or consciousness/self-awareness.

So for your little study - I say all it does is highlight the inherent problem with the majority of the adult population on the Earth right now. A bunch of people who don't truly know who they are and simply exist in a Limbo state awaiting the moment they can pounce and get back at the world because they 'deserve' so. Like the kid who got bullied in school and now he can't think about anything else than getting his own back on the world. Low level states of the human consciousness - ultimately self-obsession and ultimate self-righteousness. This is the same mentality that allows humans to kill others for the sake of a ideology/religion/country and claim it was an act of right-doing.

Have you ever seen the TV show Goldenballs? You would steal everything wouldn't you? Because it's just a game right? And utilizing game theory is natural right? So you should steal from the other person because you win and that's the aim of the game, right? Natural, right? That's how humans are meant to act because that's how the majority think, right?

The majority are lost. The study doesn't reflect on some ultimate, objective HUMAN NATURE. The study reflects on the prevalent attitude in modern humans - the rat race, the survival of the fittest, run anyone and everyone over to achieve, you must be the best! etc.

As for the OP - I'm speechless. No blankets is simply too far. I give homeless people food and money all the time. Even if they are going to use it on drugs - # it. What am I meant to do? Let them chill in the cold all night with no one for company and nothing to do or entertain themselves with? No way. I'd rather they had fun even if they were killing themselves in the process. Life is too short to be suffering everyday just for the sake of being clean or some crap that is the new issue being forced on homeless people. And nobody give me that 'they need to change their lives' crap. How can we comprehend what it's like in that existence? Have empathy.

tinner07
reply to post by chiefsmom

 

IDK there is no easy answers to these problems. I don't see homeless people where I live but I was head cook at a "soup kitchen" in the city for a couple years so I know they exist. But I don't want to feed them in my town. I will gladly feed them in yours.

It's not exactly outlawing the homeless, it says come here during the day but when time for sleepy sleepy, get out of town.

I'm not sure I have a problem with that

So you wpuld want droves of homeless people hoofing on foot out of state lines or vity limits?

Even of its like 15 milee out?

I understand not wanting disheveled looking individuals in front of your property, fine. but get out of town?

Common

reply to post by Kmhotaru


This is only a natural consequence of the belief of 90% plus of people that those in government should have MORE rights than those not in government. I don't have a right to take away a police man's blanket, but he has a right to take away my blanket under the view of the vast majority of the population. Its a government of the people, and the people are very tyrannical in their political foundations. The vast majority of people around the world are also manage their money badly with a borrow and spend mentality, so you get governments that borrow and spend as a way of life.

There is no point in fighting the government. Your neighbor is the problem, not your government.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Also, I am completely aware of the apparent inherent contradiction in my reply to you.

I claim the majority are lost but I also claim they are self-righteous, which in fact could make me appear self-righteous. The difference is, I've not lulled myself into some sort of illusion of competition with every other human being on this planet. I have no one to be righteous over because I am not competing with other humans to achieve or reach a perceived state in my mind. I have my principles, I have my experiences and I have my choices - nothing else.

I did not go to University to be 'better' and achieve more than the next person because I 'deserve' so. I did not get a decent job because I 'deserved' it - many deserved it to a far greater extent than I ever could - I was lucky with my fate of events. What I did deserve is the CHANCE, because I worked towards the chance - BUT I did not deserve the ability to have the chance either - that was lucky as well. However, everyone deserves a chance - that is the most basic principle of humanity.

The attitude highlighted in your study is of a completely different wavelength though.

"I deserved the ability to have the chance as well as the chance itself as well as a better chance than those with the same ability for the chance as me and ultimately I deserved the win".

That is almost an illness. To adopt that mentality just because 'you can' is not far from a serious social problem in my opinion. Surely, that attitude will only end up leaving you a very empty 'soul' throughout your life. No real sense of identity and brotherhood/sisterhood with humanity - just a sense of 'war' with your peers.

So, are we naturally thieves, rapists and murderers as well? Human nature, right? We just don't do it because we have law, right? But if we had no law we would all steal, rape and murder - right? That's what your study effectively says. It is an extreme analogy but the principle is the same.

I'm sorry but if I accept that notion than I accept that we as a human race are eternally doomed by the virtue of our bodies.

Ooops. Double post. MOD delete please if you stumble upon this - thanks.

reply to post by sn0rch


Did you read the study i provided? It has been studied, and the results are markedly similiar across all people.

snypwsd
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

You my friend are missing the point, I said take money out of government. Im not just talking about election money, I am talking about the money they earn as well. If you get rid of the money factor you get rid of the greed. who is going to be more humble... a politician making 30 grand or a politician that makes 130 grand a year?

YOu think your senator is getting rich off of his paycheck? LOL....nope....its about power broking. They get rich by peddling influence.

DazDaKing
Speak for yourself. I must disagree to an extent. You must have no element of trust or control in your 'soul' (use the word loosely here - you know what I mean) if you think your whole character will change based on your situation. I'm so tired of having debates with people who think like that. You are basically saying you are 90% robot and have no real choice over anything you do. Do you know why that's scary? Because it is that thought or that lack of faith in your own ability to understand who YOU really are (rather than flowing through life and adapting your behavior entirely on environment) which allows very dark human acts to be committed.

"Ah I changed man...I changed...the money...it got to me..."

Do you think people like to admit to their human flaws? No, they don't. So there would never be that point of "I changed...the money". People have egos, and those egos tend to rule them.

The study I provided, it isn't about me. I am the man I am. I am not wealthy, as I choose to avoid wealth. I am successful, and I know why: because I am smart, and have had wonderful opportunities in my life. Everyone is smart, so the differene is my opportunities. But like i said...it isn't about me, its about human nature. And that human nature is the same, whether it makes you uncomfortable or not. That is, unless you have a study (and not just an uncomfortable feeling) that can support your claim.

What an utter load of NONSENSE. Yes, that theory holds for children because they are sponges. The idea is that by the time you're an adult you've had various life experiences and outlooks and can be 'trusted' with the control of your body and mind to a finer tuned degree. But applying this concept to adults is a different ball game - it is nonsensical completely. If someones going to suddenly be a prick when they're rich or advantaged...then THAT IS THEIR CHARACTER.

Except I provided a study, by real scientists, that proves you wrong.

If they were 'good' and 'caring' and 'humble' before then it was a complete facade that they were upholding to 'play the game'. Their true desires were always superiority and self-righteousness. A lot of people do it without even realizing because a lot of people don't actually 'judge' themselves or their thoughts - because as I said they have no control over their true essence - they are just watching the movie called life. For me that monopoly study is a no brainer. I would always say no. It is the principle - you had an unfair advantage. Only a fool would play a monopoly game using 2 dice vs 1 dice (not to mention the other advantages) and still think he won fairly. A FOOL.

Yup. We live in a world of fools. And you and I are among their ranks. It seems you are ironically missing the whole point about ego. To the point of hubris.

My dad used to let me win games on Playstation and such when I was a kid and I would notice the advantage straight away and tell him to stop immediately. On the contrary, all my feeling of accomplishment was ruined if I believed I had an advantage. That is my character. Always will be because I am aligned with my own 'soul' or consciousness/self-awareness.

So for your little study - I say all it does is highlight the inherent problem with the majority of the adult population on the Earth right now. A bunch of people who don't truly know who they are and simply exist in a Limbo state awaiting the moment they can pounce and get back at the world because they 'deserve' so. Like the kid who got bullied in school and now he can't think about anything else than getting his own back on the world. Low level states of the human consciousness - ultimately self-obsession and ultimate self-righteousness. This is the same mentality that allows humans to kill others for the sake of a ideology/religion/country and claim it was an act of right-doing.

Wait....a minute ago it was all nonsense. Now you are admitting that it highlights a darker part of human nature?

Have you ever seen the TV show Goldenballs? You would steal everything wouldn't you? Because it's just a game right? And utilizing game theory is natural right? So you should steal from the other person because you win and that's the aim of the game, right? Natural, right? That's how humans are meant to act because that's how the majority think, right?

Are you talking about the topic, or me? I don't think you know me....

....it would be nice if we could dig that inner intellectual out of you so that you could discuss the topic instead of making up your own little story about who I am and what I would "probably" do.

The majority are lost. The study doesn't reflect on some ultimate, objective HUMAN NATURE. The study reflects on the prevalent attitude in modern humans - the rat race, the survival of the fittest, run anyone and everyone over to achieve, you must be the best! etc.

You really are clueless about human nature, aren't you? Have you live on this planet more than 20 years? "Modern humans" is a statement that displays ego. Humans are no different today than 1000 years ago, other than our relative ability to live in modern times (technological knowledge, etc). We are the same damn dirty apes we always have been.

tinner07
Ok here is my perspective on that.

I live in Michigan, snowing to beat hell. I want to vacation in florida but can't afford the resorts. Can I set up tent in your front yard? No.

Business owners are the same. People have compassion but you get people sleeping in front of a business its going to hurt business.

An anti-camping law will also make prolonged peaceful protests illegal, such as the Occupy Movement. Except now it will be illegal for even one solitary person to peacefully protest for longer than a day.

Authorities stopped making citizens safety a priority long ago, any new legislation is created to either tighten their control or profiteer from by way of fines.

Legislation isn't for the safety of you or I or anyone - it is for authorities to benefit from.

Local councils can be tools, im going through a tortusous battle with my council to add one friggin speed hump in front of house, oh the bull# they make as excuses to not do it, for FFS just get on with it you tools I have paid you guys for many years and asked for nothing. Buearacracy is alive and well.

doobydoll
An anti-camping law will also make prolonged peaceful protests illegal, such as the Occupy Movement. Except now it will be illegal for even one solitary person to peacefully protest for longer than a day.

Authorities stopped making citizens safety a priority long ago, any new legislation is created to either tighten their control or profiteer from by way of fines.

Legislation isn't for the safety of you or I or anyone - it is for authorities to benefit from.

Legislation is for authorities and the corporations that bought them out to benefit from.

I suppose the anti-camping law will not apply to those camping out before black friday or the next iphone release.

bigfatfurrytexan

bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by snypwsd

 

"They" are so human that if the roles were reversed, nothing would change.

Yes, "poor people" tend to be more giving. But remove that poor state from their finances, and they become the same scumbags that we are decrying here.

Behavior is 10% individual outlook, and 90% human nature.

Noting that this post is not very popular in this thread (yes, i get it...we need to bash those evil politicians for trying to screw the good guys around)....

Let me share some insight into human nature. Using the following study, done on behaviors during a game that has destroyed families for decades: Monopoly.

www.pbs.org...

PAUL PIFF: We’re playing a game of Monopoly that’s rigged.

PAUL SOLMAN: This game is typical of another kind of experiment Piff likes to run. Instead of studying actual rich people, Piff gets subjects to feel rich in the lab. The designated Monopoly moneybags starts with a few legs up, $2,000 dollars vs. the poor man’s $1,000 dollars, an upscale playing piece the Rolls vs. an old shoe, the right to toss two dice instead of just one.

Two. I have got snake eyes — meaning I, assigned the role of rich person, get an extra turn.

So, but I roll again, because I have got …

PAUL PIFF: Yes, because you rolled doubles.

PAUL SOLMAN: Doubles. Six. One, two, three, four, five, six, and that’s Tennessee Avenue, and, of course, I will buy that.

Meanwhile, poor Paul Piff.

PAUL PIFF: I only get to roll one die. And as it says here, when I pass go, I collect a lower salary. I collect $100 dollars.

PAUL SOLMAN: Here’s your one die.

PAUL PIFF: Great. Thanks so much. I can’t roll doubles. I don’t get opportunities to move very far along the board.

PAUL SOLMAN: Piff has run this experiment with hundreds of people on the Berkeley campus. The rich players are determined randomly by coin toss, the game rigged so they cannot lose. And yet, says Piff, despite their presumably liberal bent going in …

PAUL PIFF: When we asked them afterwards, how much do you feel like you deserved to win the game? The rich people felt entitled. They felt like they deserved to win the game. And that’s a really incredible insight into what the mind does to make sense of advantage or disadvantage.

PAUL SOLMAN: So, even though a subject like myself is just play-acting — you consistently find that I begin to attribute success to myself, even though it’s a coin flip that got me on this side of the board as opposed to that?

PAUL PIFF: You, like a real rich person, start to attribute success to your own individual skills and talents, and you become less attuned to all of the other things that contributed to you being in the position that you’re in.

Long story short: they found that people who were wealthy in real life were much more fluid in their ethics, choosing to lie/steal/cheat far more often than the lowest earners in real life. So to remove that "real life" factor, they played Monopoly and infused arbitrary rules so that the "rich" person in the game was rigged and determined on a coin toss. By the end of the game, people who in real life were not wealthy would tend to exhibit the same core traits as mentioned above by real life wealthy people.

Long story even shorter: just about every one of us would be a douche is put in a position of influence and affluence. It is human nature. When you decry those evil city council members, you are looking in the mirror while doing so.

Just food for thought.

So very true. I read so many posts on here decrying capitalism on one hand and moaning about not having enough money etc on the other, so yes, I doubt many people would turn down the opportunity to be wealthy and whilst (in their poor state) would claim that they would spend it on the poor, doing good works etc the reality would probably be very different e.g. they would doubtless buy that nice house/car put money aside for their kids and their own retirement first before once thinking about those poorer than themselves, it is just human nature as you say

tinner07
Ok here is my perspective on that.

I live in Michigan, snowing to beat hell. I want to vacation in florida but can't afford the resorts. Can I set up tent in your front yard? No.

Business owners are the same. People have compassion but you get people sleeping in front of a business its going to hurt business.

I've got two words for you;

Common sense.

Here's four more;

Affordable housing, Human compassion.

Due to the fact that the doors in the building I live have been vandalised and don't lock, a homeless woman sometimes sleeps in the close. She is always drunk, she will start randomly shouting at all hours of the night, she urinates on the stairs, she smokes, dropping the matches, ash, cigarette ends all over the floor, she even set fire to some newspaper one night. Would you want her camping in your building?

Having made complaints to the police about her, they say she causes a nuisance in many places, the local council have given her countless accommodations, B&B's, hostels, her own flat, but her life is so chaotic that she gets evicted from everywhere. So what is the solution? She's a danger to all of the other residents, I live on the 3rd floor, if she lights a fire that gets out of control, mine and my daughter's life is at risk, so sometimes to just say "What about compassion" is a bit unfair What about compassion for all of the people who pay their rent and deserve to live in a safe environment?

Sadly, she is an example of the problems that some homeless people can cause and moving them on is the only solution, she clearly doesn't accept the help she is given, so what else can be done?

MysterX


Affordable housing, Human compassion.

Great Idea, but for who and for how long? How much more money should we spend? What is the goal? Are we just going to give them free housing for the rest of their lives?

TheConspiracyPages
reply to post by SilverStarGazer

 

I agree with your ideas... My only issue with it is that they have to want what you're proposing. I worked at an adult crisis home and a majority of the people who lived there cycled in and out of the system of their own free will, only wanting to be off the streets long enough to eat and maybe clean up or sleep a bit. Within a couple of days they would AWOL and then they'd be back in a few weeks.

I struggled with this too when I was working with the homeless. Of course if you work with them you want to see them succeed and you work to try and increase the number that do. But ultimately, even if they refuse or unable to transition out of that world, I don't think the efforts are wasted.

Some people, for various reasons, just don't thrive. None the less, I still think they're owed a little compassion.

Yes, but I still think would should discourage them from interfering with the lives/businesses of others.

How are you supposed to deal with people who lead a pitiful existence through their own behaviour, but refuse to change it? Why let them negatively affect the people around them?

I'd actually like to see the UK govt get more proactive about dealing withe homeless mentally ill. Not their fault, they need care; not to be released unsupervised and off their meds.

reply to post by Kmhotaru


Why don't we just execute those without homes this way
there is nothing to argue about?
Seems to me this would be less cruel then these ordinances!
We have become so accustomed to this out of site out of mind
ideal that if we don't see their pain then we don't have to feel
guilty for being warm and safe in our own homes!
Maybe there was a time when homelessness could be mostly
blamed on laziness but not anymore not in this world!