3 ms·

> 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 quest

> 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?
  - John23832 4y ago
    > 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 owns a business which has value. > Based on the constraints you're giving, this is the only actual solution you've provided. It's not, he can work a lawsuit through the courts. > 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? This is nonsense and ignores everything I've previously said.
- jakear 4y ago
  The idea that spraying someone with water is some sort of crime against humanity is a modern fallacy. I've been homeless, in SF. It's exceedingly easy to not ruffle any feathers when doing so, perhaps the easiest there of anywhere else I've been. This woman was going out of her way to be a menace to civil society and got what she deserved. The idea that "getting wet" is some high crime against a class of people who quite literally eat, drink, and sleep in the rain is laughable. Before you shower me with 'oh the humanity of it all' responses, have you been homeless? If you had, you'd likely agree with me (as many homeless people do). These bums give hobos a bad name, the fewer of them the better. Celebrate ethical homelessness, chastise whatever this is.
  - John23832 4y ago
    Whether or not spraying someone with water in an attempt to move them is battery has nothing to do with their housing status. So frankly, whether you've been homeless or not does not matter. Sorry that happened to you. https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/242/ https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/242/
    - jakear 4y ago
      Frankly, whatever laws politicians in their ivory towers write to dictate what the State's Officers should do in a given circumstance hold 0 bias in my judgement of what the Right thing to do in that circumstance would be. You seem to be really badgering the idea "wait for the State to intervene, they'll do the Right Thing". I'll give an anecdote to counter that. The one person who really wronged me in all my time as a hobo was a State Official. He decided I had spent too long where I was (<24 hours) and in order to get me to leave he took my only pair of boots, broke my only lamp, and for good measure stole my binoculars too. That's a wrong I would not wish upon anyone, even the bums. Do you have any idea how much harder shit is when you have no shoes? Every store you go in will ask you to leave. As your feet grow dirtier their insistence grows stronger. Fuck that guy. I was soaking wet for unrelated reasons the night prior to that (among many, many others), the collective discomfort of all those soaking hours doesn't hold a candle to what that State Official did to me. For the homeless especially, but also everyone else (besides billionaires perhaps): the State isn't your friend; their solutions won't help you; you want a problem solved: solve it yourself.
- bbkane 4y ago
  I agree with the poster you're replying too. These are not practical solutions.

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?
- John23832 4y ago
  > 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 owns a business which has value. > Based on the constraints you're giving, this is the only actual solution you've provided. It's not, he can work a lawsuit through the courts. > 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? This is nonsense and ignores everything I've previously said.
jakear 4y ago
The idea that spraying someone with water is some sort of crime against humanity is a modern fallacy. I've been homeless, in SF. It's exceedingly easy to not ruffle any feathers when doing so, perhaps the easiest there of anywhere else I've been. This woman was going out of her way to be a menace to civil society and got what she deserved. The idea that "getting wet" is some high crime against a class of people who quite literally eat, drink, and sleep in the rain is laughable. Before you shower me with 'oh the humanity of it all' responses, have you been homeless? If you had, you'd likely agree with me (as many homeless people do). These bums give hobos a bad name, the fewer of them the better. Celebrate ethical homelessness, chastise whatever this is.
- John23832 4y ago
  Whether or not spraying someone with water in an attempt to move them is battery has nothing to do with their housing status. So frankly, whether you've been homeless or not does not matter. Sorry that happened to you. https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/242/ https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/242/
  - jakear 4y ago
    Frankly, whatever laws politicians in their ivory towers write to dictate what the State's Officers should do in a given circumstance hold 0 bias in my judgement of what the Right thing to do in that circumstance would be. You seem to be really badgering the idea "wait for the State to intervene, they'll do the Right Thing". I'll give an anecdote to counter that. The one person who really wronged me in all my time as a hobo was a State Official. He decided I had spent too long where I was (<24 hours) and in order to get me to leave he took my only pair of boots, broke my only lamp, and for good measure stole my binoculars too. That's a wrong I would not wish upon anyone, even the bums. Do you have any idea how much harder shit is when you have no shoes? Every store you go in will ask you to leave. As your feet grow dirtier their insistence grows stronger. Fuck that guy. I was soaking wet for unrelated reasons the night prior to that (among many, many others), the collective discomfort of all those soaking hours doesn't hold a candle to what that State Official did to me. For the homeless especially, but also everyone else (besides billionaires perhaps): the State isn't your friend; their solutions won't help you; you want a problem solved: solve it yourself.
bbkane 4y ago
I agree with the poster you're replying too. These are not practical solutions.