4 ms·
This is just a "slippery slope" argument. If you do not give people a place to use the restroom, do not be surprised when they use the restroom. If people do no
by TACIXAT 8y ago
This is just a "slippery slope" argument. If you do not give people a place to use the restroom, do not be surprised when they use the restroom. If people do not have a place to sleep, do not be surprised that they still need to sleep. No, you do not need to let them shit in your mouth or sleep with your wife. No one is arguing to abolish private property and give it to homeless. People are saying that until there is an alternative, homeless people need a place to sleep and use the restroom, and that place is likely going to be public property such as parks.
Let's say your friend is shot and you are driving them to the hospital. There is no parking at the hospital. You need to park. Will you just say "oh well" and head home. Sorry buddy, no parking. Nope, you need to park. You will do it illegally. It is like that. Not that we don't get parking tickets because we parked on the sidewalk to go to the mall.
- autokad 8y agoits not a sloppery slope argument. imo, the slope is already slipped if you are claiming they can sleep anywhere just because they can't find a place to sleep. your counter example is not quite there. I dont think anyone is saying they can't sleep in ALL public places, just that there are limitations on where they can sleep in public. for instance, is it OK for you to park in front of a hospital in such a way that it blocks ambulances from entering? no.
- refoundglory 8y agoActually yes, the law being overturned said it was illegal to sleep in public places anywhere in the city. What kind of limitations on where people can sleep are you imagining?