3 ms·

So if the purpose of your comment is to point out that the homeless tents are not illegal, you are incorrect. The tents are illegal. But my frustration, as you

So if the purpose of your comment is to point out that the homeless tents are not illegal, you are incorrect. The tents are illegal. But my frustration, as you can see by my comments elsewhere in this thread, are grounded in that a city of such wealth and technological progress cannot take care of it's lowest citizens. Aside from the odd choice of perspective - have you considered that the homeless may be infringing on others rights as well? The right to an unobstructed sidewalk? The right to feel safe in my neighborhood? The right to not have to watch out for needles when I visit my nearest Muni station (Van Ness)?

Nuzzerino 8y ago
You could always do what I did and leave. Waiting for it to get fixed is unlikely to work out, and the tech industry is past it's glory days.
forapurpose 8y ago
> illegal Legality, while an important factor, is not the end of the discussion. Helping freed slaves was once illegal, using an extreme example. Legality depends on who is powerful, referring back to the GP. > odd choice of perspective Who says it's odd? Why would that be relevant? Is it odd to you because it isn't your perspective? It isn't the perspective you expect to see in this community? Is it good or bad to have 'odd' perspectives? > the homeless may be infringing on others rights as well? The right to an unobstructed sidewalk? The right to feel safe in my neighborhood? The right to not have to watch out for needles when I visit my nearest Muni station (Van Ness)? None of those things are really rights. Mostly, they are frustrations, and that's my point: I'm not saying people shouldn't come to accommodations with each other. I'm saying that frustrations of the powerful are not a basis of rights or of imposing on the powerless. Imagine your homeless neighbors had a representative negotiating with you and your housed neighbors on an equal basis. How would you work it out? Has anyone asked your homeless neighbors what they need or want? > purpose of your comment ... That purpose is a creation of the parent, not me (the author of the GP). I'm going to stick with the words on the page.
- kirubakaran 8y ago
  It was you who brought up legality in the first place! Relevant snippets: googlemike: "I am very, very tired of the homeless tents everywhere" forapurpose: "Let's be careful about confusing our frustrations with something that is wrong or illegal." googlemike: "The tents are illegal" forapurpose: "Legality, while an important factor, is not the end of the discussion."
  - forapurpose 8y ago
    I don't see how the parent adds to the conversation or says anything important about the accuracy of the GP. If the conversation was a contest between googlemike and me then we might need a referee to make sure we played fair. But it's not; we're just trying to advance ours (and hopefully others') knowledge a little. Would it be better if I anticipated every possible response and addressed it in my GGGP comment? Uhhh ... probably not; that would be a very long comment and I don't have time for it. Sorry if that makes the thread confusing, but while suboptimal, I don't think it's hard to follow.
zaarn 8y ago
IMO your right to not have to fear needles, to feel safe in your neighboorhood and have an unobstructed sidewalk is trumped by the right of these people to survive. Even more important their right to live in dignity, which they are obviously not. I consider the right to live in and be treated with dignity the utmost important one.
- manigandham 8y ago
  Nobody is saying these people need to be destroyed. Not jumping to some extreme dystopian conclusion would help with the actual discussion. And if you're going to be ranking the importance of rights, how is the right to live in dignity more important than the right to survive?

Nuzzerino 8y ago

You could always do what I did and leave. Waiting for it to get fixed is unlikely to work out, and the tech industry is past it's glory days.

forapurpose 8y ago

> illegal Legality, while an important factor, is not the end of the discussion. Helping freed slaves was once illegal, using an extreme example. Legality depends on who is powerful, referring back to the GP. > odd choice of perspective Who says it's odd? Why would that be relevant? Is it odd to you because it isn't your perspective? It isn't the perspective you expect to see in this community? Is it good or bad to have 'odd' perspectives? > the homeless may be infringing on others rights as well? The right to an unobstructed sidewalk? The right to feel safe in my neighborhood? The right to not have to watch out for needles when I visit my nearest Muni station (Van Ness)? None of those things are really rights. Mostly, they are frustrations, and that's my point: I'm not saying people shouldn't come to accommodations with each other. I'm saying that frustrations of the powerful are not a basis of rights or of imposing on the powerless. Imagine your homeless neighbors had a representative negotiating with you and your housed neighbors on an equal basis. How would you work it out? Has anyone asked your homeless neighbors what they need or want? > purpose of your comment ... That purpose is a creation of the parent, not me (the author of the GP). I'm going to stick with the words on the page.

kirubakaran 8y ago
It was you who brought up legality in the first place! Relevant snippets: googlemike: "I am very, very tired of the homeless tents everywhere" forapurpose: "Let's be careful about confusing our frustrations with something that is wrong or illegal." googlemike: "The tents are illegal" forapurpose: "Legality, while an important factor, is not the end of the discussion."
- forapurpose 8y ago
  I don't see how the parent adds to the conversation or says anything important about the accuracy of the GP. If the conversation was a contest between googlemike and me then we might need a referee to make sure we played fair. But it's not; we're just trying to advance ours (and hopefully others') knowledge a little. Would it be better if I anticipated every possible response and addressed it in my GGGP comment? Uhhh ... probably not; that would be a very long comment and I don't have time for it. Sorry if that makes the thread confusing, but while suboptimal, I don't think it's hard to follow.

zaarn 8y ago

IMO your right to not have to fear needles, to feel safe in your neighboorhood and have an unobstructed sidewalk is trumped by the right of these people to survive. Even more important their right to live in dignity, which they are obviously not. I consider the right to live in and be treated with dignity the utmost important one.

manigandham 8y ago
Nobody is saying these people need to be destroyed. Not jumping to some extreme dystopian conclusion would help with the actual discussion. And if you're going to be ranking the importance of rights, how is the right to live in dignity more important than the right to survive?