The issue is that tax payers are already paying for it. It cost money for cops to go out and arrest people, then process them. The homeless person ain’t going to show up to court later, and the tax payer usually eats the cost of all that plus any anti homeless benches or windows.
I think if that the cost gets directed toward housing and food, so they have a stable place to grow from, it would be a better option in the long run.
Step 1) defund police to provide free house and food to socially unfit people
Step 2) socially unfit people trash the place because that’s what junkies do.
Step 3) omg what is the police doing
Step 4) it’s defunded.
Step 5) who could have seen it coming?
Currently, my taxes go into destroying homeless encampments and arresting them, so we could probably use that money for housing and feeding them instead.
I know this is a classical bad faith argument and doesn’t warrant a response, but hilariously, i’ve genuinely done that before. I got to know one of those street punk types and he slept on my couch multiple times.
For what little i know of this internet stranger, i’d rather him stay at my place than you
It’s ok, I own my own home and am a functional human being, I don’t rely on hand outs from strangers to make up for an inability to behave like a person.
You’ve taken the comic way too literally. Homelessness is a policy choice, and politicians are responsible for failing to allocate funds towards prevention, housing, etc. That applies to politicians at every level of government, with varying levels of responsibility/ability.
Reality is more complicated than you’re viewing it.
junkies and other socially unfit people
You don’t seem to understand what leads a person to do drugs either.
The financially wise decision is to house people, keep them fed, and in good health. Because when politicians let housing get fucked, when they let people starve, when they let them be ill, you get problems that get expensive in the form of prison time, police budgets, and crime rates. This is an area where doing the morally right thing is the most cost effective thing. Dehumanizing people as “junkies” and “socially unfit” just makes everything worse, for yourself included.
The financially wise decision is to house people, keep them fed, and in good health.
Feel free to invest into housing and then practice what you preach.
Also, I’m not dehumanizing junkies and socially unfit people. They’re definitely human. Being human however does not entitle you to free shift from people who are actually functional.
If anything, it’s the people who say we should give them a home and food that are the ones who do the dehumanizing, treating them like pets that shouldn’t be left outside in the cold.
Feel free to invest into housing and then practice what you preach.
This problem can’t be solved by personal behavior.
Also, I’m not dehumanizing junkies and socially unfit people. They’re definitely human. Being human however does not entitle you to free shift from people who are actually functional.
You are demeaning people as “junkies and socially unfit”. That’s dehumanization.
treating them like pets that shouldn’t be left outside in the cold.
They aren’t pets, nor are they being treated as such. Your jump to calling them pets further shows how you see them as less than human.
Stop putting words in my mouth, I did say they were biologically human.
You’re the one looking to treat them like pets. I have 4 cats that I house, feed and take care of. Brought them from outside for 3 of them and one from a shelter. This is what you want to do to actual human beings.
House them, feed them, care for them. Like a pet. You’re a sick fuck.
How is a mayor responsible for junkies and mentally unstable people unfit for society?
What do you want them to do?
Feed and house them, can you not read?
How many homeless people do you let crash on your couch and eat out of your fridge?
Or is it only ok if someone else pays for it?
The issue is that tax payers are already paying for it. It cost money for cops to go out and arrest people, then process them. The homeless person ain’t going to show up to court later, and the tax payer usually eats the cost of all that plus any anti homeless benches or windows.
I think if that the cost gets directed toward housing and food, so they have a stable place to grow from, it would be a better option in the long run.
You’ll pay cops regardless.
Not if they get defunded
Step 1) defund police to provide free house and food to socially unfit people
Step 2) socially unfit people trash the place because that’s what junkies do.
Step 3) omg what is the police doing
Step 4) it’s defunded.
Step 5) who could have seen it coming?
Currently, my taxes go into destroying homeless encampments and arresting them, so we could probably use that money for housing and feeding them instead.
Be the change you want to see happen
I know this is a classical bad faith argument and doesn’t warrant a response, but hilariously, i’ve genuinely done that before. I got to know one of those street punk types and he slept on my couch multiple times.
For what little i know of this internet stranger, i’d rather him stay at my place than you
It’s ok, I own my own home and am a functional human being, I don’t rely on hand outs from strangers to make up for an inability to behave like a person.
Way to dehumanize the homeless, buddy
Oh no they’re definitely human, like biologically.
We’re already paying for it. It’s cheaper (financially and otherwise) to fix the problem instead.
Do you think a town’s mayor has the ability to turn junkies and other socially unfit people into actual functional human beings?
You’ve taken the comic way too literally. Homelessness is a policy choice, and politicians are responsible for failing to allocate funds towards prevention, housing, etc. That applies to politicians at every level of government, with varying levels of responsibility/ability.
Reality is more complicated than you’re viewing it.
You don’t seem to understand what leads a person to do drugs either.
https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/what-does-rat-park-teach-us-about-addiction
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7234816/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-80897-8
The financially wise decision is to house people, keep them fed, and in good health. Because when politicians let housing get fucked, when they let people starve, when they let them be ill, you get problems that get expensive in the form of prison time, police budgets, and crime rates. This is an area where doing the morally right thing is the most cost effective thing. Dehumanizing people as “junkies” and “socially unfit” just makes everything worse, for yourself included.
Feel free to invest into housing and then practice what you preach.
Also, I’m not dehumanizing junkies and socially unfit people. They’re definitely human. Being human however does not entitle you to free shift from people who are actually functional.
If anything, it’s the people who say we should give them a home and food that are the ones who do the dehumanizing, treating them like pets that shouldn’t be left outside in the cold.
This problem can’t be solved by personal behavior.
You are demeaning people as “junkies and socially unfit”. That’s dehumanization.
They aren’t pets, nor are they being treated as such. Your jump to calling them pets further shows how you see them as less than human.
Stop putting words in my mouth, I did say they were biologically human.
You’re the one looking to treat them like pets. I have 4 cats that I house, feed and take care of. Brought them from outside for 3 of them and one from a shelter. This is what you want to do to actual human beings.
House them, feed them, care for them. Like a pet. You’re a sick fuck.