Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Miami Parks hostile to kayakers | General | |||
rec.boats.paddle sea kayaking FAQ | General | |||
Ontario Camping Fees | General | |||
rec.boats.paddle sea kayaking FAQ | General | |||
Over nite parking in WA State parks | Cruising |