5 ms·

New rule: If a place doesn't have a toilet, you can't say you're "living in it". This guy is living partially in a dumpster AND partially in a gym (where he use

by drcode 12y ago

New rule: If a place doesn't have a toilet, you can't say you're "living in it". This guy is living partially in a dumpster AND partially in a gym (where he uses the bathroom.)

vinceguidry 12y ago
I don't like this definition. Having a place to live isn't necessarily about getting all your needs met in one central place, it's about having a reasonably secure place you can always go where you won't get in legal trouble for being and storing your stuff in. It's mightily inconvenient to not have immediately-ready access to somewhere to take a dump, but I wouldn't make that a precondition for saying you 'live' somewhere.
keenerd 12y ago
By that reckoning, 40% of the world and 99% of your ancestors never "lived" in their homes.
- drcode 12y ago
  Yes, the threshold for poverty/adulthood/homelessness/health/etc varies by location and era
jacquesm 12y ago
That's a 'no true Scotsman' argument. After all, if he installs a bathroom you could say: "Yes, but it has no kitchen". So he adds a kitchen and then you go: "but there is no shower" and so on. There is always going to be one reason left why living in a dumpster does not make it the equal of living in a house. The final argument will be that it isn't at least 400 square feet. The thing that should matter most is whether or not he spends the majority of the time in it that other people would spend in their homes while not living more time in another home or equivalent. And by that definition he's living in it right now.
- gohrt 12y ago
  OK, I live on the street.... but I poop and eat and sleep in a house I bought. The point is that if you can't get through even a single day somewhere (given some time to prepare and stock up), but you rely on access to some other private property, you don't live (only) there.
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    Plenty of student houses have shared dining rooms and toilets, he definitely sleeps in the house.
    - Dylan16807 12y ago
      Shared toilets are fine. You live in the building (and associated sheds in the case of an outhouse) rather than the single room. Dining might be in another building but you don't have to go there if you don't want to. 'kitchen' is just a name for a room, you can put a rice cooker in any room. It's not a no true scotsman. The 'can I comfortably spend 48 hours there' test is a pretty good one. Once he adds the bathroom it'll qualify, though it'll be a few more square feet. And yeah some way to bathe is probably necessary. He'll have that on the dumpster house.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
alistairSH 12y ago
I understand the counter-points to this, but I'm inclined to agree with drcode. We've seen a stream of "I lived in X" stories lately, most of which include sleeping somewhere, but not really living there - trunk of car, dumpster, etc. Sorry, but in most of the US, indoor plumbing (or something close) is generally considered a requisite for a "home".

by drcode 12y ago

New rule: If a place doesn't have a toilet, you can't say you're "living in it". This guy is living partially in a dumpster AND partially in a gym (where he uses the bathroom.)

vinceguidry 12y ago

I don't like this definition. Having a place to live isn't necessarily about getting all your needs met in one central place, it's about having a reasonably secure place you can always go where you won't get in legal trouble for being and storing your stuff in. It's mightily inconvenient to not have immediately-ready access to somewhere to take a dump, but I wouldn't make that a precondition for saying you 'live' somewhere.

keenerd 12y ago

By that reckoning, 40% of the world and 99% of your ancestors never "lived" in their homes.

drcode 12y ago
Yes, the threshold for poverty/adulthood/homelessness/health/etc varies by location and era

jacquesm 12y ago

That's a 'no true Scotsman' argument. After all, if he installs a bathroom you could say: "Yes, but it has no kitchen". So he adds a kitchen and then you go: "but there is no shower" and so on. There is always going to be one reason left why living in a dumpster does not make it the equal of living in a house. The final argument will be that it isn't at least 400 square feet. The thing that should matter most is whether or not he spends the majority of the time in it that other people would spend in their homes while not living more time in another home or equivalent. And by that definition he's living in it right now.

gohrt 12y ago
OK, I live on the street.... but I poop and eat and sleep in a house I bought. The point is that if you can't get through even a single day somewhere (given some time to prepare and stock up), but you rely on access to some other private property, you don't live (only) there.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  Plenty of student houses have shared dining rooms and toilets, he definitely sleeps in the house.
  - Dylan16807 12y ago
    Shared toilets are fine. You live in the building (and associated sheds in the case of an outhouse) rather than the single room. Dining might be in another building but you don't have to go there if you don't want to. 'kitchen' is just a name for a room, you can put a rice cooker in any room. It's not a no true scotsman. The 'can I comfortably spend 48 hours there' test is a pretty good one. Once he adds the bathroom it'll qualify, though it'll be a few more square feet. And yeah some way to bathe is probably necessary. He'll have that on the dumpster house.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

alistairSH 12y ago

I understand the counter-points to this, but I'm inclined to agree with drcode. We've seen a stream of "I lived in X" stories lately, most of which include sleeping somewhere, but not really living there - trunk of car, dumpster, etc. Sorry, but in most of the US, indoor plumbing (or something close) is generally considered a requisite for a "home".