3 ms·
Defending the civil and human rights of mentally disabled and addicted people does not require that you permit them to defecate in public, take drugs in public,
by LurkingPenguin 5y ago
Defending the civil and human rights of mentally disabled and addicted people does not require that you permit them to defecate in public, take drugs in public, harangue and harass passersby, aggressively panhandle, and engage in theft.
In fact, I would argue that creating an environment in which this is permitted does a disservice to not just the local community, but to these people as well.
- trevyn 5y agoI disagree with your opinion, and I’m proud that SF is performing the experiment, even if unintentionally. Yes, there is a line, but my opinion is that it’s closer to physical violence against another person’s body. A possibly more interesting question: In what ways has the line been shifting over time, in what places, and why? What benefits have been reaped from increasing permissiveness, and why? What areas of the world are low-permissiveness, and what problems do they see as a result? Is all of this coincident or causal to innovation, and why? Why does this topic impassion people? Is clear thinking hindered by passion, and why?