4 ms·

I'm sure he has plenty of ire towards those people, but that doesn't solve anything. Lots of folks saying that his actions are inexcusable, but nobody's provid

I'm sure he has plenty of ire towards those people, but that doesn't solve anything. Lots of folks saying that his actions are inexcusable, but nobody's provided anything even remotely resembling a solution to them (as you have not here). If this guy is going to end up losing his business because of this woman, and he has already exhausted the appropriate legal/government avenues for solving this issue, what should he do? What you're proposing is that he just lose his business. Obviously being sprayed with water is bad, but is that worse than losing a business that you've invested years of your life and large amounts of money in? If not, what is your better solution here? What would you have done if you were him?

John23832 4y ago
>Lots of folks saying that his actions are inexcusable, but nobody's provided anything even remotely resembling a solution to them (as you have not here). Not spraying a homeless person with water is the solution to the current issues he's caused. Suing the city for damages is the solution to homelessness. > If this guy is going to end up losing his business because of this woman, and he has already exhausted the appropriate legal/government avenues for solving this issue, what should he do? What you're proposing is that he just lose his business. Obviously being sprayed with water is bad, but is that worse than losing a business that you've invested years of your life and large amounts of money in? If not, what is your better solution here? What would you have done if you were him? If he has not sued the city for damages, he has not "exhausted the appropriate legal/government avenues for solving this issue". He's not losing his business. I would have sued the city. You don't get to assault people because you want to. What if he decided he wanted to use a hammer instead of water? Are you "oh well his business" then?
- idopmstuff 4y ago
  > Not spraying a homeless person with water is the solution to the current issues he's caused. You're clearly avoiding answering the actual question. The question is what is the solution to the issues that the homeless person is causing. > If he has not sued the city for damages, he has not "exhausted the appropriate legal/government avenues for solving this issue". You know this costs thousands and thousands of dollars, plus it takes years, right? If he doesn't have thousands of dollars and years to wait, what is the appropriate solution?
  - John23832 4y ago
    > You're clearly avoiding answering the actual question. The question is what is the solution to the issues that the homeless person is causing. I'm not. The answer is that there is no legitimate immediate response. You need to invoke the city into action. Which is why I reiterated that he needs to sue. His spraying of a homeless person who is not actively harming him has no justification. Full stop. > You know this costs thousands and thousands of dollars, plus it takes years, right? If he doesn't have thousands of dollars and years to wait, what is the appropriate solution? Again, we are not entitled to microwave solutions. That's not how the world works. When you fall into that mental trap you do something stupid, like spraying homeless people with water, and that lands you in legal trouble. If he needs to get a loan to sue, he needs to get a loan. If he needs to find coplaintifs to split costs with, then he needs to find coplaintifs (this is probably the appropriate route give how pervasive homelessness is in the city). He can sell his business and move away (which famously happened to the city of Detroit's tax base). Or he does not thing and deals with it. In short he needs to determine what the cost of this problem are to him, and what he is willing to do to have it fix. The idea that there can be no problems or that any problems must have simple costless solutions is a modern fallacy.
    - idopmstuff 4y ago
      > If he needs to get a loan to sue, he needs to get a loan. If he doesn't have the money to sue, how will he get a loan? A lawsuit against the city is not something a bank will lend against, so he'd have to be able to fully collateralize that loan. > He can sell his business and move away Based on the constraints you're giving, this is the only actual solution you've provided. But this is a solution that is incredibly harmful to him - you're suggesting that he should change his entire life to resolve this. Being sprayed with water is clearly harmful, but stress and financial problems are also harmful - these are things that cause physical harm and take time off a person's life. You're basically saying that there should be absolutely no limit on the amount of financial, emotional, and long-term physical harm he should suffer, as long as no immediate physical harm is done. Why should he have to endure what is a clearly greater amount of harm than he inflicted in an attempt to solve the problem? Is there no line? Are you okay with someone ending up bankrupt and homeless in a situation like this, as long as nobody touches them?
- ss108 4y ago
  Is there any precedent for the success of such lawsuits?
tshaddox 4y ago
> If this guy is going to end up losing his business because of this woman, and he has already exhausted the appropriate legal/government avenues for solving this issue, what should he do? Not commit misdemeanor battery.
- idopmstuff 4y ago
  You're doing the same thing as others here - not providing any kind of a useful or coherent solution. It is very, very easy to say that someone shouldn't do something. Everyone gets that he shouldn't spray her with a hose. What is a better thing that he is practically able to do that has any reasonable chance of resolving this issue?
  - tshaddox 4y ago
    > You're doing the same thing as others here - not providing any kind of a useful or coherent solution. For what exactly? I’m not proposing a solution for all societal problems or even all of his, of course. > Everyone gets that he shouldn't spray her with a hose. It doesn’t seem like you get that, given your next sentence: > What is a better thing that he is practically able to do that has any reasonable chance of resolving this issue? Literally not spraying her with a hose is a better thing to do than spraying her with a hose. That’s exactly what I’m saying.
    - idopmstuff 4y ago
      > For what exactly? I’m not providing a solution for all societal problems, of course. For the specific situation we're talking about - come on now, I think that's pretty apparent. > Literally not spray her with a hose is a better thing to do than spraying her with a hose. That’s exactly what I’m saying. You're ignoring the second half of the question, which I'll repeat here: "that has any reasonable chance of resolving this issue?" If the goal is to stop her from doing the things that she is doing, then you're incorrect. Not spraying her with a hose has absolutely no chance of resolving the issue. Spraying her with a hose does have a chance of resolving the issue. It's not a happy or positive solution, and you can debate the ethics of it all you want, but as a way to get her to leave him and his business alone, it is clearly better than doing nothing.

John23832 4y ago

>Lots of folks saying that his actions are inexcusable, but nobody's provided anything even remotely resembling a solution to them (as you have not here). Not spraying a homeless person with water is the solution to the current issues he's caused. Suing the city for damages is the solution to homelessness. > If this guy is going to end up losing his business because of this woman, and he has already exhausted the appropriate legal/government avenues for solving this issue, what should he do? What you're proposing is that he just lose his business. Obviously being sprayed with water is bad, but is that worse than losing a business that you've invested years of your life and large amounts of money in? If not, what is your better solution here? What would you have done if you were him? If he has not sued the city for damages, he has not "exhausted the appropriate legal/government avenues for solving this issue". He's not losing his business. I would have sued the city. You don't get to assault people because you want to. What if he decided he wanted to use a hammer instead of water? Are you "oh well his business" then?

idopmstuff 4y ago
> Not spraying a homeless person with water is the solution to the current issues he's caused. You're clearly avoiding answering the actual question. The question is what is the solution to the issues that the homeless person is causing. > If he has not sued the city for damages, he has not "exhausted the appropriate legal/government avenues for solving this issue". You know this costs thousands and thousands of dollars, plus it takes years, right? If he doesn't have thousands of dollars and years to wait, what is the appropriate solution?
- John23832 4y ago
  > You're clearly avoiding answering the actual question. The question is what is the solution to the issues that the homeless person is causing. I'm not. The answer is that there is no legitimate immediate response. You need to invoke the city into action. Which is why I reiterated that he needs to sue. His spraying of a homeless person who is not actively harming him has no justification. Full stop. > You know this costs thousands and thousands of dollars, plus it takes years, right? If he doesn't have thousands of dollars and years to wait, what is the appropriate solution? Again, we are not entitled to microwave solutions. That's not how the world works. When you fall into that mental trap you do something stupid, like spraying homeless people with water, and that lands you in legal trouble. If he needs to get a loan to sue, he needs to get a loan. If he needs to find coplaintifs to split costs with, then he needs to find coplaintifs (this is probably the appropriate route give how pervasive homelessness is in the city). He can sell his business and move away (which famously happened to the city of Detroit's tax base). Or he does not thing and deals with it. In short he needs to determine what the cost of this problem are to him, and what he is willing to do to have it fix. The idea that there can be no problems or that any problems must have simple costless solutions is a modern fallacy.
  - idopmstuff 4y ago
    > If he needs to get a loan to sue, he needs to get a loan. If he doesn't have the money to sue, how will he get a loan? A lawsuit against the city is not something a bank will lend against, so he'd have to be able to fully collateralize that loan. > He can sell his business and move away Based on the constraints you're giving, this is the only actual solution you've provided. But this is a solution that is incredibly harmful to him - you're suggesting that he should change his entire life to resolve this. Being sprayed with water is clearly harmful, but stress and financial problems are also harmful - these are things that cause physical harm and take time off a person's life. You're basically saying that there should be absolutely no limit on the amount of financial, emotional, and long-term physical harm he should suffer, as long as no immediate physical harm is done. Why should he have to endure what is a clearly greater amount of harm than he inflicted in an attempt to solve the problem? Is there no line? Are you okay with someone ending up bankrupt and homeless in a situation like this, as long as nobody touches them?
ss108 4y ago
Is there any precedent for the success of such lawsuits?

tshaddox 4y ago

> If this guy is going to end up losing his business because of this woman, and he has already exhausted the appropriate legal/government avenues for solving this issue, what should he do? Not commit misdemeanor battery.

idopmstuff 4y ago
You're doing the same thing as others here - not providing any kind of a useful or coherent solution. It is very, very easy to say that someone shouldn't do something. Everyone gets that he shouldn't spray her with a hose. What is a better thing that he is practically able to do that has any reasonable chance of resolving this issue?
- tshaddox 4y ago
  > You're doing the same thing as others here - not providing any kind of a useful or coherent solution. For what exactly? I’m not proposing a solution for all societal problems or even all of his, of course. > Everyone gets that he shouldn't spray her with a hose. It doesn’t seem like you get that, given your next sentence: > What is a better thing that he is practically able to do that has any reasonable chance of resolving this issue? Literally not spraying her with a hose is a better thing to do than spraying her with a hose. That’s exactly what I’m saying.
  - idopmstuff 4y ago
    > For what exactly? I’m not providing a solution for all societal problems, of course. For the specific situation we're talking about - come on now, I think that's pretty apparent. > Literally not spray her with a hose is a better thing to do than spraying her with a hose. That’s exactly what I’m saying. You're ignoring the second half of the question, which I'll repeat here: "that has any reasonable chance of resolving this issue?" If the goal is to stop her from doing the things that she is doing, then you're incorrect. Not spraying her with a hose has absolutely no chance of resolving the issue. Spraying her with a hose does have a chance of resolving the issue. It's not a happy or positive solution, and you can debate the ethics of it all you want, but as a way to get her to leave him and his business alone, it is clearly better than doing nothing.