4 ms·

How narrowly defined will "care" be? Can a man choose to be homeless? Does that mean he "can't care for himself" and should be imprisoned in a mental hospital o

How narrowly defined will "care" be? Can a man choose to be homeless? Does that mean he "can't care for himself" and should be imprisoned in a mental hospital or asylum of some kind?

lazyasciiart 4y ago
Being homeless doesn't cut it. Not being aware enough to seek shelter from rain or snow might - that would put them literally at risk of physical harm due to their own inability to avoid it. Shelter doesn't need to be a house, it can be an underpass with tents/sleeping bags etc. If you are trying to stay warm and the sleeping bag is not warm enough that would be considered lack of resources, not lack of mental capability.
unethical_ban 4y ago
On an individual level, I think homeless people who are in obviously poor health (pervasive sores, immobility, etc) would meet the metric. I would also say that many with mental issues who behave unpredictably are ipso facto a danger to others if people feel endangered by them. That may not warrant immediate involuntary detention, but evaluation. On an aggregate level, I would say two things: 1) I assume most people who are homeless did not choose to be homeless with sound mind and free will. If I am right, then we should do what we can to get them off the streets if they are sane and willing, and take them off the streets involuntarily if they are in decrepit health or are in any way violent. 2) Let's say most of the homeless were living the vagabond life. I asserr there exists a limit on the sustainable homeless population in any community or city. At some point, when do cities say "no you can't shit in the bushes in the park, no you can't have entire parks taken over as makeshift campsites, no we will not tolerate IV drug use which litters our streets"? More needs done, out of compassion and out of necessity for the housed community.

4 ms·

How narrowly defined will "care" be? Can a man choose to be homeless? Does that mean he "can't care for himself" and should be imprisoned in a mental hospital o

by PostOnce 4y ago

How narrowly defined will "care" be? Can a man choose to be homeless? Does that mean he "can't care for himself" and should be imprisoned in a mental hospital or asylum of some kind?

lazyasciiart 4y ago
Being homeless doesn't cut it. Not being aware enough to seek shelter from rain or snow might - that would put them literally at risk of physical harm due to their own inability to avoid it. Shelter doesn't need to be a house, it can be an underpass with tents/sleeping bags etc. If you are trying to stay warm and the sleeping bag is not warm enough that would be considered lack of resources, not lack of mental capability.
unethical_ban 4y ago
On an individual level, I think homeless people who are in obviously poor health (pervasive sores, immobility, etc) would meet the metric. I would also say that many with mental issues who behave unpredictably are ipso facto a danger to others if people feel endangered by them. That may not warrant immediate involuntary detention, but evaluation. On an aggregate level, I would say two things: 1) I assume most people who are homeless did not choose to be homeless with sound mind and free will. If I am right, then we should do what we can to get them off the streets if they are sane and willing, and take them off the streets involuntarily if they are in decrepit health or are in any way violent. 2) Let's say most of the homeless were living the vagabond life. I asserr there exists a limit on the sustainable homeless population in any community or city. At some point, when do cities say "no you can't shit in the bushes in the park, no you can't have entire parks taken over as makeshift campsites, no we will not tolerate IV drug use which litters our streets"? More needs done, out of compassion and out of necessity for the housed community.