Breakdown In Civil Order

[Emily Lake]

Strawmanning is abuse.

Being mistaken is different than strawmanning.

True. If somebody new to the forum were to post messages like those we should probably give him the benefit of the doubt and presume the misrepresentations might be due to mere idiocy. But bilby has 35,000 posts under his belt. We know he's not an idiot.

Disagreement over conclusions are not evidence of intention (something straw manning requires). If bilby is correct, your accusations are not straw manning. If bilby is incorrect in good faith, it is not straw manning. Making a mistake is not the exclusive province of idiots.

Where do you place blatant mischaracterization in your hierarchy of what constitutes an innocent mistake?

 

[Emily Lake]

People do not feel safe around homeless encampments.

People don't have the right to abuse other people because of the way those other people make them feel.

What fucking "abuse" is involved in moving people to different location that does NOT deprive other people of the right to access communal spaces?

The question then becomes where are you moving them to?

An area that is not frequently used by the community. A baseball or football field out of season, publicly owned fields that aren't generally used for hiking/camping/playgrounds, empty lots on the outskirts of the city that don't impede travel or business. In my neck of the woods, we had a lot of hotels/motels go out of business during the pandemic, as well as several strip malls and department stores that closed. A large number of those have been repurposed to provide housing and shelter for the homeless. Seems like a pretty good idea to me.

 

[Emily Lake]

If some guy parked himself in the steps down from your bus and blocked the other riders from getting off and blocked customers from getting on, so you asked him to move to a different location, but he declined and just stood right where he was, would you summon a constable? Would it be okay for the constable to decide, without consulting the fellow in any way, to move him to a different location?

Not comparable. The bus steps are not public property.

What private company owns the steps of public transportation?

 

[ZiprHead]

If some guy parked himself in the steps down from your bus and blocked the other riders from getting off and blocked customers from getting on, so you asked him to move to a different location, but he declined and just stood right where he was, would you summon a constable? Would it be okay for the constable to decide, without consulting the fellow in any way, to move him to a different location?

Not comparable. The bus steps are not public property.

What private company owns the steps of public transportation?

Public owned but not public property like a park or a sidewalk. There is a difference.

 

[Bomb#20]

People don't have the right to abuse other people because of the way those other people make them feel.

You abuse Emily because of the way she makes you feel.

I just see you when you make the unwarranted, unreasonable, and downright bigoted conflation of "drug addict" with "homeless person".

If you don't like being thought a bigot, stop doing that.

Seriously, dude, she's not the one talking like a bigot here. If you don't like being thought a bigot by reasonable people, stop doing you.

Sorry, B20. I don't see it your way.

No apology necessary -- it's a free country. That's the great thing about being infidels: it's perfectly okay for us all not to see things one another's way. You don't see it my way and that doesn't make you a bigot, just like Emily doesn't see it bilby's way and that doesn't make her a bigot.

 

[Bomb#20]

If some guy parked himself in the steps down from your bus and blocked the other riders from getting off and blocked customers from getting on, so you asked him to move to a different location, but he declined and just stood right where he was, would you summon a constable? Would it be okay for the constable to decide, without consulting the fellow in any way, to move him to a different location?

Not comparable. The bus steps are not public property.

What private company owns the steps of public transportation?

Public owned but not public property like a park or a sidewalk. There is a difference.

Public property Definition & Meaning

Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com › dictionary › public...
6 days ago — The meaning of PUBLIC PROPERTY is something owned by the city, town, or state.​

What distinction are you drawing? How do we tell which publicly-owned things are "public property" in your sense and which aren't? And why does your distinction make a difference for whether the public has a right to democratically adopt rules for how the stuff it owns can be used?

 

[thebeave]

All this talk about the right of the homeless to set up living quarters on public sidewalks and facilities is giving me an idea. I could save $120/month if I close my storage unit and install a metal garden shed on the sidewalk to store all my excess tools, furniture, sporting equipment.

 

[ZiprHead]

If some guy parked himself in the steps down from your bus and blocked the other riders from getting off and blocked customers from getting on, so you asked him to move to a different location, but he declined and just stood right where he was, would you summon a constable? Would it be okay for the constable to decide, without consulting the fellow in any way, to move him to a different location?

Not comparable. The bus steps are not public property.

What private company owns the steps of public transportation?

Public owned but not public property like a park or a sidewalk. There is a difference.

Public property Definition & Meaning​

​

Merriam-Webster​

https://www.merriam-webster.com › dictionary › public...​

6 days ago — The meaning of PUBLIC PROPERTY is something owned by the city, town, or state.​

What distinction are you drawing? How do we tell which publicly-owned things are "public property" in your sense and which aren't? And why does your distinction make a difference for whether the public has a right to democratically adopt rules for how the stuff it owns can be used?

The county jail is public property. Should it be treated the same as a park or a sidewalk? Let anyone just willy nilly go wherever they want? The mayor's office is public property. Can you just walk in and set up a picnic lunch in the mayor's office. The difference is an incredibly simple concept.

 

[Bomb#20]

If some guy parked himself in the steps down from your bus and blocked the other riders from getting off and blocked customers from getting on, so you asked him to move to a different location, but he declined and just stood right where he was, would you summon a constable? Would it be okay for the constable to decide, without consulting the fellow in any way, to move him to a different location?

Not comparable. The bus steps are not public property.

What private company owns the steps of public transportation?

Public owned but not public property like a park or a sidewalk. There is a difference.

Public property Definition & Meaning​

​

Merriam-Webster​

https://www.merriam-webster.com › dictionary › public...​

6 days ago — The meaning of PUBLIC PROPERTY is something owned by the city, town, or state.​

What distinction are you drawing? How do we tell which publicly-owned things are "public property" in your sense and which aren't? And why does your distinction make a difference for whether the public has a right to democratically adopt rules for how the stuff it owns can be used?

The county jail is public property. Should it be treated the same as a park or a sidewalk? Let anyone just willy nilly go wherever they want? The mayor's office is public property. Can you just walk in and set up a picnic lunch in the mayor's office. The difference is an incredibly simple concept.

Yes, that is a very simple concept -- "not public property" just wasn't a very apt name for it -- so thanks for explaining. You're making my case for me.

Can you just walk in and set up a picnic lunch on a sidewalk the same as if it were a park? Can the jail guards just willy-nilly set up permanent housing for prisoners in a public park? Can the mayor just willy-nilly go set up a picnic lunch in Cell Block E? Anyone can just willy-nilly go to the steps down from bilby's bus -- but if he does he has to move on from there, in or out, within about thirty seconds. Anyone can just loiter on a sidewalk near a clinic -- any one -- but a hundred people can't do it all at the same time. A hundred people can loiter all at the same time in a public park. So it isn't that there is a difference. There are a thousand differences. There aren't two categories of publicly-owned places, but a thousand categories. There aren't two categories of things you can just willy-nilly do in publicly-owned places, but a thousand categories. And the public, through their elected representatives, get to decide what the rules are for each of those thousand activities in each of those thousand kinds of places.

There is no law of nature dictating "Any place where it's okay to set up a picnic lunch it's okay to camp." There is no law of nature dictating "Any place where it's okay to camp overnight it's okay to camp for six months." There is no law of nature dictating "Any place where it's okay for someone to camp overnight it's okay for a hundred people to camp overnight." There is no law of nature dictating "Any rule tolerating an activity from a hundred people enacted when none of them were hurting others can never be reversed when some of them start hurting others." There is no law of nature dictating "Anybody who doesn't invariably prioritize our ingroup's interest in getting free services over the interests of our outgroup whom we intend to force to pay for providing those services to our ingroup is a bigot who thinks our ingroup are human trash." These are doctrines of an aggressive totalitarian religion, not facts of nature all reasonable people should accept as shared premises. The rejection of other people's religious doctrines is evidence of infidelry, not bigotry.

 

[ZiprHead]

If some guy parked himself in the steps down from your bus and blocked the other riders from getting off and blocked customers from getting on, so you asked him to move to a different location, but he declined and just stood right where he was, would you summon a constable? Would it be okay for the constable to decide, without consulting the fellow in any way, to move him to a different location?

Not comparable. The bus steps are not public property.

What private company owns the steps of public transportation?

Public owned but not public property like a park or a sidewalk. There is a difference.

Public property Definition & Meaning​

​

Merriam-Webster​

https://www.merriam-webster.com › dictionary › public...​

6 days ago — The meaning of PUBLIC PROPERTY is something owned by the city, town, or state.​

What distinction are you drawing? How do we tell which publicly-owned things are "public property" in your sense and which aren't? And why does your distinction make a difference for whether the public has a right to democratically adopt rules for how the stuff it owns can be used?

The county jail is public property. Should it be treated the same as a park or a sidewalk? Let anyone just willy nilly go wherever they want? The mayor's office is public property. Can you just walk in and set up a picnic lunch in the mayor's office. The difference is an incredibly simple concept.

Yes, that is a very simple concept -- "not public property" just wasn't a very apt name for it -- so thanks for explaining. You're making my case for me.

Can you just walk in and set up a picnic lunch on a sidewalk the same as if it were a park? Can the jail guards just willy-nilly set up permanent housing for prisoners in a public park? Can the mayor just willy-nilly go set up a picnic lunch in Cell Block E? Anyone can just willy-nilly go to the steps down from bilby's bus -- but if he does he has to move on from there, in or out, within about thirty seconds. Anyone can just loiter on a sidewalk near a clinic -- any one -- but a hundred people can't do it all at the same time. A hundred people can loiter all at the same time in a public park. So it isn't that there is a difference. There are a thousand differences. There aren't two categories of publicly-owned places, but a thousand categories. There aren't two categories of things you can just willy-nilly do in publicly-owned places, but a thousand categories. And the public, through their elected representatives, get to decide what the rules are for each of those thousand activities in each of those thousand kinds of places.

There is no law of nature dictating "Any place where it's okay to set up a picnic lunch it's okay to camp." There is no law of nature dictating "Any place where it's okay to camp overnight it's okay to camp for six months." There is no law of nature dictating "Any place where it's okay for someone to camp overnight it's okay for a hundred people to camp overnight." There is no law of nature dictating "Any rule tolerating an activity from a hundred people enacted when none of them were hurting others can never be reversed when some of them start hurting others." There is no law of nature dictating "Anybody who doesn't invariably prioritize our ingroup's interest in getting free services over the interests of our outgroup whom we intend to force to pay for providing those services to our ingroup is a bigot who thinks our ingroup are human trash." These are doctrines of an aggressive totalitarian religion, not facts of nature all reasonable people should accept as shared premises. The rejection of other people's religious doctrines is evidence of infidelry, not bigotry.

That's a lot of words addressing nothing I spoke about. I was simply demonstrating the difference between bus steps and a sidewalk.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

People do not feel safe around homeless encampments.

People don't have the right to abuse other people because of the way those other people make them feel.

The threat is real. It's not from everyone but you have no way of knowing which ones are going to be a problem.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

People do not feel safe around homeless encampments.

People don't have the right to abuse other people because of the way those other people make them feel.

What fucking "abuse" is involved in moving people to different location that does NOT deprive other people of the right to access communal spaces?

As I've said earlier I'm pretty sure there are some homeless around here living behind transformers. They stay out of the way, they don't leave a mess, they don't threaten people. I haven't heard anyone objecting. Being homeless per se isn't the issue. It's the issues that always crop up around the camps that are the issue.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What ..."abuse" is involved in moving people to different location that does NOT deprive other people of the right to access communal spaces?

I dunno. Would it be OK for someone to decide, without consulting you in any way, to move YOU to a different location?

If some guy parked himself in the steps down from your bus and blocked the other riders from getting off and blocked customers from getting on, so you asked him to move to a different location, but he declined and just stood right where he was, would you summon a constable? Would it be okay for the constable to decide, without consulting the fellow in any way, to move him to a different location?

Exactly. Homeless or not isn't the issue. Obstructing others is.

 

[bilby]

People do not feel safe around homeless encampments.

People don't have the right to abuse other people because of the way those other people make them feel.

The threat is real. It's not from everyone but you have no way of knowing which ones are going to be a problem.

That's a justification for abuse of literally ANY subset of humanity:

Some Jews are criminals; Therefore the fear of Jewish crime is real; Therefore we must do something about the Jews.

People don't feel safe around Jews, and the threat is real. It's not all Jews, but you have no way of knowing which ones are going to be a problem.

Welcome to 1930s Germany.

Now replace "Jews" with "homeless", and tell me how the above doesn't become an accurate reproduction of your statements in this thread.

 

[TSwizzle]

Much to the chagrin of the "homeless activists";

California Gov. Gavin Newsom ordered state agencies Thursday to start removing homeless encampments on state land in his boldest action yet following a Supreme Court ruling allowing cities to enforce bans on sleeping outside in public spaces. Under Newsom’s direction, state agencies — including state parks and the department of transportation — would be required to prioritize clearing encampments that pose safety risks, such as those along waterways. Officials should give “reasonable” advance notice to homeless people, offer to connect them to local services and help store their belongings for at least 60 days. Local cities and counties are urged to adopt similar protocols.

News

About time.

 

[Politesse]

Much to the chagrin of the "homeless activists";

California Gov. Gavin Newsom ordered state agencies Thursday to start removing homeless encampments on state land in his boldest action yet following a Supreme Court ruling allowing cities to enforce bans on sleeping outside in public spaces. Under Newsom’s direction, state agencies — including state parks and the department of transportation — would be required to prioritize clearing encampments that pose safety risks, such as those along waterways. Officials should give “reasonable” advance notice to homeless people, offer to connect them to local services and help store their belongings for at least 60 days. Local cities and counties are urged to adopt similar protocols.

News

About time.

I thought Gavin Newsom was a Progressive activist plotting to have us all murdered by homeless Mexican Muslim parolees? Why would he do such a thing?

 

[TV and credit cards]

Much to the chagrin of the "homeless activists";

California Gov. Gavin Newsom ordered state agencies Thursday to start removing homeless encampments on state land in his boldest action yet following a Supreme Court ruling allowing cities to enforce bans on sleeping outside in public spaces. Under Newsom’s direction, state agencies — including state parks and the department of transportation — would be required to prioritize clearing encampments that pose safety risks, such as those along waterways. Officials should give “reasonable” advance notice to homeless people, offer to connect them to local services and help store their belongings for at least 60 days. Local cities and counties are urged to adopt similar protocols.

News

About time.

Not real clear on where they’re all going. If they are moved out of certain areas that pose a safety hazard and do not want to avail themselves of any public services, I suppose they will wander into safer areas.
You might want to hold any happiness in abeyance until you know where they end up. They’re not going to evaporate.

 

[robnisch]

^
Reminds me of the old days in Southeast Alaska.
If someone was a problem, they gave them a ticket on the next ship to the next town.
Problem solved!

 

[Emily Lake]

Much to the chagrin of the "homeless activists";

California Gov. Gavin Newsom ordered state agencies Thursday to start removing homeless encampments on state land in his boldest action yet following a Supreme Court ruling allowing cities to enforce bans on sleeping outside in public spaces. Under Newsom’s direction, state agencies — including state parks and the department of transportation — would be required to prioritize clearing encampments that pose safety risks, such as those along waterways. Officials should give “reasonable” advance notice to homeless people, offer to connect them to local services and help store their belongings for at least 60 days. Local cities and counties are urged to adopt similar protocols.

News

About time.

I thought Gavin Newsom was a Progressive activist plotting to have us all murdered by homeless Mexican Muslim parolees? Why would he do such a thing?

Because he has aspirations to be President someday, and he's realized that his policies are both ineffective and unpopular.

 

[Politesse]

Because he has aspirations to be President someday, and he's realized that his policies are both ineffective and unpopular.

God help us all.

Your conservative friends have a very inaccurate understanding of the history of Newsom's policies and actions on the homelessness situation, though. To the extent that he has consistent principles at all, he is a statist to the core.