Breakdown In Civil Order

[Jimmy Higgins]

Nobody has suggested slavery for the homeless either.

By “nobody” do you mean Donald Trump?

You’d be well served to read up on some of the shit he has promised.

The fact is, until those who demand that we "do something" discuss what "thing" they want "done", as long as that silence is pregnant, it's a silence pregnant with something dark.

It would be foolish to expect something humane like a social safety net to be promised - or even hinted at - by the dehumanization Party.
Darkness and fear are their promise, their product and their purpose. Only by causing public panic over their phantom monsters can they hope to fool the American people into giving them power.

Suggestions HAVE been made.

Yeah. “Get rid of “them”.”
Anything else?

C’mon Emily - I really want a reason to apologize, and to see the humanity in the Republican platform.

Dude, you can hate on the republican platform all you want. I don't need any apology for you hating the republican platform.

I would, however, very much like you to stop assuming that I am a republican, and I would like you to stop insinuating the views that you believe republicans hold are held by me.

True, your beliefs are much worse than that of a Republican. I'd say Tom Sawyer-esque.

I think you're wrong about the beliefs and motivations of most republicans.

Most Republicans are about to vote for Trump for the third time. They don't get a pass on it at this point, they have to own the ugly 19th century level bigotry.

I'm not Trump, TSwizzle isn't Trump, not a single fucking poster here on IIDB is Trump. So if you want to criticize TRUMP then be fucking explicit about it, and stop aiming your ejaculated hatred at other posters.

"Ejaculated"? Emulating Edgar Allen Poe are we?

 

[Elixir]

Implying that a fellow poster wants to kill homeless people is dishonest emotional manipulation, void of rational thought, and presented without any actual supporting evidence.

Gee, I sure didn’t mean to do THAT, Emily.
I mean it’s not exactly the same thing as supporting and excusing someone who wants to do that.

It demonstrates a supreme lack of empathy and compassion on your part, as well as a willingness to engage in deception as a means of slandering a fellow poster.

<removed>

Where’s your empathy for the PEOPLE - you know, individuals with hopes, dreams, names and addresses - who are being KILLED by the abortion laws you favor?

 

[Elixir]

How about you prove to me that there is no teapot orbiting mercury?

To insulate you from the facts on the ground as well as the likely outcomes of your demand to “do something”?
Ya sure Emily. You got a plan; GET RID OF “THEM”.
Same plan as that of the Republican Party.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You seem to have an expectation that anyone who disagrees with just letting homeless people pop a squat and pop a tent wherever they feel like while being exempted from laws regarding public use of alcohol or drugs, expectations of sanitation, etc. should only be allowed to hold those positions if they provide you with an itemized outline of exactly how to fix everything. You also seem to be laboring under the belief that a failure of those people to provide you with a report of their plan (documented in triplicate, sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to public enquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighters) must therefore want to execute all homeless people in gas chambers.

The problem is we have a proposal--send them elsewhere. The problem is there is no "elsewhere". At best it's internment camps.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You seem to have an expectation that anyone who disagrees with just letting homeless people pop a squat and pop a tent wherever they feel like while being exempted from laws regarding public use of alcohol or drugs, expectations of sanitation, etc. should only be allowed to hold those positions if they provide you with an itemized outline of exactly how to fix everything. You also seem to be laboring under the belief that a failure of those people to provide you with a report of their plan (documented in triplicate, sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to public enquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighters) must therefore want to execute all homeless people in gas chambers.

The problem is we have a proposal--send them elsewhere. The problem is there is no "elsewhere". At best it's internment camps.

I consider it something that they complain about the wrong things. The homeless are doing unsanitary things in public, as if this is a suggestion that the homeless be allowed to do these things on private property. Homeless are squatting on public property because there is no where else for them.

And then they are upset when someone asks how'd they go about it... while kind of making up shit about what liberals think about it... and then getting upset and accusing other people of making up their own positions. Really, the conversation is going no where. The truth is, a number of these people only care about homelessness at this point, because it is adjacent to them.

 

[Jarhyn]

You seem to have an expectation that anyone who disagrees with just letting homeless people pop a squat and pop a tent wherever they feel like while being exempted from laws regarding public use of alcohol or drugs, expectations of sanitation, etc. should only be allowed to hold those positions if they provide you with an itemized outline of exactly how to fix everything. You also seem to be laboring under the belief that a failure of those people to provide you with a report of their plan (documented in triplicate, sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to public enquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighters) must therefore want to execute all homeless people in gas chambers.

The problem is we have a proposal--send them elsewhere. The problem is there is no "elsewhere". At best it's internment camps.

I don't see how this is even so hard of a conversation (for certain participants).

The options are extremely limited: you either send them somewhere they don't want to be by force (such as "up a smokestack"), or you entice them to be somewhere you would rather them be through social means.

 

[Elixir]

Prop 36 will roll back much of the "Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act" Prop 47

So rolling back Prop 36 is your plan to "get rid of them"?

 

[Elixir]

Yes, I know Emily claims not to be a conservative

Seeing how bent out of shape she gets when her "claims" are questioned, it sure looks like troothin' ain't part of the act.

they are upset when someone asks how'd they go about it... while kind of making up shit about what liberals think about it... and then getting upset and accusing other people of making up their own positions.

It is deplorable.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

To again perhaps oversimplify for discussion’s sake, Liberals tend to mostly blame systemic inequalities: Homelessness is the fault of a hyper-competitive capitalist system, income disparity, pervasive racism, lack of affordable housing, underfunded (or non-existent) mental health resources.
Conservatives tend to mostly blame personal failings: Homelessness is the fault of irresponsible life choices, lack of personal responsibility or financial planning, self-inflicted drug and alcohol addiction, overly “woke” or permissive Blue cities that tolerate these outcasts.

The thing is, I think, that neither side is either fully right or fully wrong. I think, very generally, that Liberals want to address “the system” while looking past the individual responsibility component, and Conservatives want to address “the homeless” (themselves, and their irresponsible personal behavior) while looking past the system.

Exactly, but add to this that the Conservatives feel that tough love approaches are the right answer. Make them work or starve, they think they'll shape up.

I'm reminded of a case I read about out of England. Teenager spent months in a locked anorexia ward when the real problem turned out to be partial gastroparesis. She didn't want to eat because she truly was full and trying to cram more in was horrible.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Kinda sounds like you are maybe in favor of incarceration to solve homelessness.

It certainly does. Good thing we gots laws against it, right? And damn those people flouting The Law!!

No one I recall has admitted to holding that view about blastocysts, etc (bolded in your text)

Fixed for accuracy. Yet the arguments I've seen to support laws that kill people and benefit exactly nobody, certainly imply such views.
I am disinclined to accept the arguments based on homeless people's "lawlessness" for the same reason: the laws Emily would use to "get rid of them" are just as draconian and harmful as the ones she supports banning abortions.

IIRC, Emily supports the terms of abortion as per Roe V. Wade. As do I, and most sensible, reasonable people. Its just late term abortions (past viability) that she has problems with (not including health of mother issues, etc). Just take her word for it, and don't assume she is hiding some secret views about it.

Sure sure. But the devil is in the details.

Feel free to elaborate. No need to be coy, Roy.

Isn’t it for Emily to elaborate? At least that was my point.

For myself: yes, Roe was and remains sensible and humane. As for late term abortions: They are rare and not always only to save the life and/or health of the mother. Sometimes, conditions which are incompatible with life are present in the fetus and not discovered until late in the pregnancy. Such decisions are best left to the woman and her medical doctor. These are never easy decisions and those faced with such situations deserve our compassion, not our judgement.

I'd say very few are to save the mother. The thing is if the threat is to her in almost all cases delivery solves the problem.

 

[Politesse]

To again perhaps oversimplify for discussion’s sake, Liberals tend to mostly blame systemic inequalities: Homelessness is the fault of a hyper-competitive capitalist system, income disparity, pervasive racism, lack of affordable housing, underfunded (or non-existent) mental health resources.
Conservatives tend to mostly blame personal failings: Homelessness is the fault of irresponsible life choices, lack of personal responsibility or financial planning, self-inflicted drug and alcohol addiction, overly “woke” or permissive Blue cities that tolerate these outcasts.

The thing is, I think, that neither side is either fully right or fully wrong. I think, very generally, that Liberals want to address “the system” while looking past the individual responsibility component, and Conservatives want to address “the homeless” (themselves, and their irresponsible personal behavior) while looking past the system.

Exactly, but add to this that the Conservatives feel that tough love approaches are the right answer. Make them work or starve, they think they'll shape up.

I'm reminded of a case I read about out of England. Teenager spent months in a locked anorexia ward when the real problem turned out to be partial gastroparesis. She didn't want to eat because she truly was full and trying to cram more in was horrible.

Yeah... a major reason why US states are starting to outlaw gay deconversion camps isn't because of the pseudoscience as such, but because some of the "therapies" widely used in those camps are just targeted child abuse. Denial of food, denial of sleep, gaslighting.

 

[Elixir]

I'd say very few are to save the mother.

Why would you say that?
Ectopic pregnancies are fairly common.
Mrs E had 3.
I’d be okay with restrictions on abortion that don’t KILL PEOPLE.
But letting people bleed out to satisfy the superstitions of religious types is not good. And as long as laws cause healthcare professionals to suffer the fear of prosecution, preventing the administration of healthcare, I think these laws are an abomination.

Again I ask - WHO BENEFITS FROM ABORTION RESTRICTIONS AND BANS?

 

[Toni]

Kinda sounds like you are maybe in favor of incarceration to solve homelessness.

It certainly does. Good thing we gots laws against it, right? And damn those people flouting The Law!!

No one I recall has admitted to holding that view about blastocysts, etc (bolded in your text)

Fixed for accuracy. Yet the arguments I've seen to support laws that kill people and benefit exactly nobody, certainly imply such views.
I am disinclined to accept the arguments based on homeless people's "lawlessness" for the same reason: the laws Emily would use to "get rid of them" are just as draconian and harmful as the ones she supports banning abortions.

IIRC, Emily supports the terms of abortion as per Roe V. Wade. As do I, and most sensible, reasonable people. Its just late term abortions (past viability) that she has problems with (not including health of mother issues, etc). Just take her word for it, and don't assume she is hiding some secret views about it.

Sure sure. But the devil is in the details.

Feel free to elaborate. No need to be coy, Roy.

Isn’t it for Emily to elaborate? At least that was my point.

For myself: yes, Roe was and remains sensible and humane. As for late term abortions: They are rare and not always only to save the life and/or health of the mother. Sometimes, conditions which are incompatible with life are present in the fetus and not discovered until late in the pregnancy. Such decisions are best left to the woman and her medical doctor. These are never easy decisions and those faced with such situations deserve our compassion, not our judgement.

I'd say very few are to save the mother. The thing is if the threat is to her in almost all cases delivery solves the problem.

You’d say but of course you offer no specifics, data, etc.

In reality, there are a number of life threatening conditions which can only be resolved by ending the pregnancy, whether through delivery or termination. Some of these include:
1. Pulmonary hypertension
2. Ectopic pregnancies
3. Severe preeclampsia. Note: the threat to life does not always end with safe delivery of a child. There is an increase, for reasons unknown, of postpartum preeclampsia, which is life threatening to the mother. Multiple women in my family have had pre-eclampsia and at least one was rushed to the hospital after being home with the baby for a couple of days with preeclampsia. Preeclampsia can only resolve with the delivery of the fetus., and even then, there remains a risk to life and health if the mother—se: postpartum preeclampsia. Delivering the fetus prior to 24 weeks is abortion. Complications for the mother include stroke and permanent damage to organs, and loss of life.
4. Cancer. Some treatments for cancer might be safe for a developing fetus but not all are. Some women choose termination in order to improve their own chance for survival but not all states allow this exception. I am aware of one mother who chose to continue the pregnancy and died shortly after delivery.
5. Severe kidney disease. Pregnancy increases demands on all of the mother’s organs. Sometimes kidney disease can be treated during a pregnancy but not always.
6. Severe lethal fetal abnormalities, such as anencephaly.

It is worth noting that at every stage of pregnancy, termination of the pregnancy carries less risk to the mother than carrying the pregnancy to term and delivering.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If indeed you "don't know" what your position is, then I respect your honesty I guess, but your contributions are pretty fucking useless relative to California's homeless situation, aren't they? I work with "the homeless" day in and day out as part of my regular job. I can't just throw up my hands and say "I don't know, I just hate democrats" whenever its time to have a specific discussion about policy. If you "don't know" what to do, than the least you can do is get out of the way of those who are willing to take action on social issues. Your fucking obstructionist party kills or defunds every homeless outreach program it can get its paws on, leaving us with ever fewer resources to work with when we have a student in crisis, and you're not ashamed to point fingers at Democrats for solving homelessness "wrong", but when it comes to doing anything, you fall silent and contribute nothing. The Trumpists in the county drag in Republican "experts" who waste half of every city council meaning, but never have anything to contribute aside from meaningless complaints and accusations. What the fuck good is that? Either give me a plan D, or shut the hell up about plan C.

The sheep are happy with make-the-problem-go-elsewhere and don't think about what that actually means.

 

[Elixir]

You seem support and vote for a party that lets thousands die on the streets.

So do you.
Not to mention rampant violent crime.

Violent crime was down 6% in 2023 and there was a significant drop of 13% in the murder rate

 

[ZiprHead]

To again perhaps oversimplify for discussion’s sake, Liberals tend to mostly blame systemic inequalities: Homelessness is the fault of a hyper-competitive capitalist system, income disparity, pervasive racism, lack of affordable housing, underfunded (or non-existent) mental health resources.
Conservatives tend to mostly blame personal failings: Homelessness is the fault of irresponsible life choices, lack of personal responsibility or financial planning, self-inflicted drug and alcohol addiction, overly “woke” or permissive Blue cities that tolerate these outcasts.

The thing is, I think, that neither side is either fully right or fully wrong. I think, very generally, that Liberals want to address “the system” while looking past the individual responsibility component, and Conservatives want to address “the homeless” (themselves, and their irresponsible personal behavior) while looking past the system.

Exactly, but add to this that the Conservatives feel that tough love approaches are the right answer. Make them work or starve, they think they'll shape up.

I'm reminded of a case I read about out of England. Teenager spent months in a locked anorexia ward when the real problem turned out to be partial gastroparesis. She didn't want to eat because she truly was full and trying to cram more in was horrible.

Yeah... a major reason why US states are starting to outlaw gay deconversion camps isn't because of the pseudoscience as such, but because some of the "therapies" widely used in those camps are just targeted child abuse. Denial of food, denial of sleep, gaslighting.

 Élan School

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Prop 36 will roll back much of the "Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act" Prop 47

So rolling back Prop 36 is your plan to "get rid of them"?

On a quick read 36 doesn't look all that bad. Looks like it's basically string of misdemeanors = felony

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yeah... a major reason why US states are starting to outlaw gay deconversion camps isn't because of the pseudoscience as such, but because some of the "therapies" widely used in those camps are just targeted child abuse. Denial of food, denial of sleep, gaslighting.

Is there any part of the troubled teen industry that's not evil?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'd say very few are to save the mother.

Why would you say that?
Ectopic pregnancies are fairly common.
Mrs E had 3.
I’d be okay with restrictions on abortion that don’t KILL PEOPLE.
But letting people bleed out to satisfy the superstitions of religious types is not good. And as long as laws cause healthcare professionals to suffer the fear of prosecution, preventing the administration of healthcare, I think these laws are an abomination.

Again I ask - WHO BENEFITS FROM ABORTION RESTRICTIONS AND BANS?

Context!!

I was talking about abortions past viability, not all abortions.

 

[Toni]

Yeah... a major reason why US states are starting to outlaw gay deconversion camps isn't because of the pseudoscience as such, but because some of the "therapies" widely used in those camps are just targeted child abuse. Denial of food, denial of sleep, gaslighting.

Is there any part of the troubled teen industry that's not evil?

Why is being a teen and not straight/cis equivalent to being troubled?