|
|
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 13:58:15 -0500, "Jacobe Hazzard"
wrote: DonQuijote1954 wrote: I know it's political, EVERYTHING is political. Whether in my bicycles--that go unused--or my kayaks--that now will go unused--I feel at the bottom end of the food chain. Polluting SUVs and motorboats have it all; bikers and kayakers, get the scraps--if any. Whether we are intimidated or regulated, we face the beast. It's a jungle out there... And what would you like done with the homeless? Have them scooped up and dispatched to some burnt out industrial district so they can't make the yuppies nervous when they go for strolls in the park? I too wondered what the OP thought he would accomplish bringing in the homeless to his arguement for the right to kayak. I also felt that it made him sound petty. One has "nothing" to do with the other and if he continues to include his rant on the homeless, it will just blur his arguement for kayaking. Life is Good! Jeff |
Felsenmeer wrote:
And what would you like done with the homeless? Have them scooped up and dispatched to some burnt out industrial district so they can't make the yuppies nervous when they go for strolls in the park? Two words: HOMELESS SHELTER OK so we lock them away in 'shelters' from which they are not free to leave. That's f***ing brilliant. I have yet to see a homeless shelter in which the homeless are "locked away" and are "not free to leave." Do these exist in your country? They don't in mine. You'll have to forgive me if I misunderstood your two words, I was filling in some blanks for myself. I assumed that you meant for the homeless in question to be removed to a homeless shelter, either forcibly or through strong encouragement. If it's the case that the homeless are not kept prisoner in their shelters (and it is, both in your country and mine), then how do the two words 'HOMELESS SHELTER' solve the problem of homeless that choose to inhabit a public piece of land? The public in general *does* feel uncomfortable with homeless people, warranted or not. The general driving public *does* feel uncomfortable sharing the road with cyclists. A park may be a much nicer place than a shelter to a homeless person, but a park is *not* a nicer place for the public when it becomes a collecting point for the homeless. The road may be the nicest place for a cyclist on the go, but it is *not* the nicest place for SUVs when it becomes a collecting point for slow moving poorly protected vehicles. You obviously have some sort of thing for the homeless, and that's good. But I think if you're going to intellectually honest, you're going to have to realize that the public at large in general does not approve of having their parks turned into impromptu homeless shelters. If the public is so concerned about some homeless people in a park, whom to the best of my knowledge have never been known to do anything illegal or threatening, then maybe there's a problem with the public? Maybe, and bear with me here, we should treat the homeless like others, innocent until proven guilty? So... you've missed the point. People typically feel somewhat threatened by the homeless, yet they have free rein of the place. People do *not* typically feel threatened by sea kayakers, yet they're prohibited. This makes no sense. It's not an issue of "play." You've missed *my* point. The OP was expressing his dissatisfaction with being marginalized by society. He feels that he is being oppressed by the LAW OF THE JUNGLE, by which the mightier creatures, those driving cars and motorboats, backed by money and the law, are keeping him from pursuing his innocent interests. He also has a holier-than-thou attitude towards those making use of polluting forms of transportation/recreation. In the same sentences he tries to marginalize the homeless in the exact same way, on the same flimsy pretexts, using the same laws of the land, and completely ignores the environmental impact of his owning a home (not insignificant). I was not arguing that the homeless are more fun to have around than kayakers, or safer, or anything like that. I was pointing out a glaring double standard in the OP. This kind of hypocrisy upsets me, like the person who will gladly steal from a big corporation (it's not like they need the money, piracy is a victimless crime) but refuses to give to the needy (why should they get handouts from MY pocket?). In the end, his arguments boil down to a very selfish demand for respect, and respect is not something he's willing to give in return. |
"Jacobe Hazzard" wrote in message ...
DonQuijote1954 wrote: I know it's political, EVERYTHING is political. Whether in my bicycles--that go unused--or my kayaks--that now will go unused--I feel at the bottom end of the food chain. Polluting SUVs and motorboats have it all; bikers and kayakers, get the scraps--if any. Whether we are intimidated or regulated, we face the beast. It's a jungle out there... And what would you like done with the homeless? Have them scooped up and dispatched to some burnt out industrial district so they can't make the yuppies nervous when they go for strolls in the park? Listen the yuppies get nervous, I get nervous and everybody gets nervous. The problem is they are OUT OF PLACE in a park, and there shouldn't be homeless to begin with. While there's homeless out there I call it a JUNGLE. Guns N' Roses - Welcome To The Jungle Song Lyrics Welcome to the jungle We got fun 'n' games We got everything you want Honey we know the names We are the people that can find Whatever you may need If you got the money honey We got your disease Chorus: In the jungle Welcome to the jungle Watch it bring you to your shun n,n,n,n,,n,n,,n,n,n,,n,n,,n knees, knees I wanna watch you bleed Welcome to the jungle We take it day by day If you want it you're gonna bleed But it's the price you pay And you're a very sexy girl That's very hard to please You can taste the bright lights But you won't get them for free In the jungle Welcome to the jungle Feel my, my, my serpentine I, I wanna hear you scream Welcome to the jungle It gets worse here everyday Ya learn ta live like an animal In the jungle where we play If you got a hunger for what you see You'll take it eventually You can have anything you want But you better not take it from me Chorus And when you're high you never Ever want to come down, so down, so down, so down YEAH! You know where you are You're in the jungle baby You're gonna die In the jungle Welcome to the jungle Watch it bring you to your shu n,n,n,,n,n,,n,n,n,,n,n,,n,n,,n knees, knees In the jungle Welcome to the jungle Feel my, my, my serpentine In the jungle Welcome to the jungle Watch it bring you to your shun n,n,n,n,,n,n,,n,n,,n,n,,n.n, knees, knees In the jungle Welcome to the jungle Watch it bring you to your It's gonna bring you down! Ha! |
"Jacobe Hazzard" wrote in message ...
How can he demand respect for people who go without motor vehicles, for whatever personal reasons they have, if he's completely unable to respect people who go without homes for their own personal reasons? It's easy to see how the most common complaints one might have about the homeless (IE they're dirt poor, are probably crazy and are homeless because they can't manage a real lifestyle, they're an inconvenience and a hazard to the rest of us) could easily be applied to a cyclist by a motorist. And if we can say nothing else for homelessness, we can be sure it has less environmental impact than owning a home, even a home with no SUVs. To begin with MY CAR WAS SWALLOWED BY THE JUNGLE (ie. got stolen), and even though I already put money on another, it's Geo Tracker with no racks possible. A trailer down the line is a possibility though... But how dare you in your American mind compare being without car to being without a roof. Sure, it's pretty much the only option left to get around, but hey, that's the issue. People without an engine are treated like s*** and then people like you come up with excuses for the homeless. Yeah right... How about a permanent solution for the homeless like having them pay back to society in exchange for a decent salary--and a roof? Picking up litter seems a good start to me (it's dirty enough out there)... |
|
"Felsenmeer" wrote in message ...
And what would you like done with the homeless? Have them scooped up and dispatched to some burnt out industrial district so they can't make the yuppies nervous when they go for strolls in the park? Two words: HOMELESS SHELTER OK so we lock them away in 'shelters' from which they are not free to leave. That's f***ing brilliant. I have yet to see a homeless shelter in which the homeless are "locked away" and are "not free to leave." Do these exist in your country? They don't in mine. My point was the OPs apparent hypocrisy in being outraged about kayaking being banned as 'potentially dangerous' and in the same breath condemning the homeless as 'potentially threatening'. The fact is, a park is a much nicer place to be than a homeless shelter. Have you ever seen the inside of one? My reading of his arguments (which really needn't have involved the homeless at all, as they were irrelevant to his kayaking problem) was a sort of juvenille, "If I can't play here then why should they?" The public in general *does* feel uncomfortable with homeless people, warranted or not. A park may be a much nicer place than a shelter to a homeless person, but a park is *not* a nicer place for the public when it becomes a collecting point for the homeless. You obviously have some sort of thing for the homeless, and that's good. But I think if you're going to intellectually honest, you're going to have to realize that the public at large in general does not approve of having their parks turned into impromptu homeless shelters. So... you've missed the point. People typically feel somewhat threatened by the homeless, yet they have free rein of the place. People do *not* typically feel threatened by sea kayakers, yet they're prohibited. This makes no sense. It's not an issue of "play." It's easy to see how the most common complaints one might have about the homeless (IE they're dirt poor, are probably crazy and are homeless because they can't manage a real lifestyle, they're an inconvenience and a hazard to the rest of us) could easily be applied to a cyclist by a motorist. Huh? That's silly hyperbole. Unless, of course, you truly believe that bicyclists are dirt poor, crazy, and can't manage a real lifestyle. And if we can say nothing else for homelessness, we can be sure it has less environmental impact than owning a home, even a home with no SUVs. What does this have to do with the whole thing? Within the context of this thread, where does the environmental impact of homelessness come into play? Well, you said it all. What else can I say... But let me add a couple of points: 1-The people making these regulations--privileged public officers--don't ever go on a kayak. They go on motorboats which are much higher up in the social ladder. 2-They don't go to the park, since they are probably associated to some private club or are out there in their motorboat. If they did, they would take care of the homeless problem. Of course, these are not accepted in their clubs... ;) |
Ronsonic wrote in message . ..
The Little Ant, then, gathered the whole cooperative and said: "Comrades, our world is being threatened by the dinosaurs, so..." And at that precise moment the Earth was hit by a big ball of fire, destroying all but the small animals... A stroke of tremendous good fortune for such creatures that it would be foolish to count on. Rather than sit around hoping conditions change: A - change them yourself. B - change yourself to suit them. I recommend "A" but your mileage may vary. Either is more productive than waiting for a meteor to hit. Ron Multiple choice... __ God will run out of patience and hurl the asteroid (Armageddon). __ Become a dinosaur yourself. __ Stop feeding the stupid hungry dinosaur (lend God a hand). __ Gather all the ants and fight the beast (it may justify the dinosaur)... |
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 23:17:14 -0600, Jeff Starr
vaguely proposed a theory .......and in reply I say!: remove ns from my header address to reply via email So you have NEVER thought or said something similar? "Why is this being done to me because you are bothered by it and I can't understand why, when that over there (which bothers me and other people but not you)is being ignored?" There is probably a statute against living in that park, and certainly there would be health issues. There is no statute against paddling on a lake. I too wondered what the OP thought he would accomplish bringing in the homeless to his arguement for the right to kayak. I also felt that it made him sound petty. One has "nothing" to do with the other and if he continues to include his rant on the homeless, it will just blur his arguement for kayaking. |
Old Nick wrote:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 23:17:14 -0600, Jeff Starr vaguely proposed a theory I too wondered what the OP thought he would accomplish bringing in the homeless to his arguement for the right to kayak. I also felt that it made him sound petty. One has "nothing" to do with the other and if he continues to include his rant on the homeless, it will just blur his arguement for kayaking. ......and in reply I say!: So you have NEVER thought or said something similar? "Why is this being done to me because you are bothered by it and I can't understand why, when that over there (which bothers me and other people but not you)is being ignored?" Regardless of whether one may think such things, it's not an effective argument for having the rules changed to allow your activity. And it's likely to distract from the main points you want to make as well as alienating some people who might otherwise be your supporters. Better to first find out what reasons, if any, there are for the prohibition. Then find ways those concerns can be addressed while also stressing that paddlesports are a healthy activity that could benefit families in the community and enhance the usefulness of the park to the city residents and visitors. There is probably a statute against living in that park, and certainly there would be health issues. There is no statute against paddling on a lake. If this is a typical city park there are probably rules against overnight stays and the OP found out there are also rules against paddling on the lake in that park. Other parks may allow either or both of these activities. But the issues are separate and should be dealt with separately. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:31 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com