The Los Angeles Homeless Containment Thread (convicted, governors, default)

[anikom15]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

So homelessness is not acceptable for an animal ... but we accept it for people? Hmmmm ...

It's acceptable for neither.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by anikom15

It's acceptable for neither.

Animals make their own home. Those made for them by humans are not natural. They may in some ways be better, but are still not natural.

[LuvSouthOC]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

In what way? For something to be a luxury it must provide the possesor some kind of unnecessary pleasure or benefit. Describe for me, if you will, what that would be in the case of pets that only the wealthy deserve.

I provided a literally life-giving example. Do you think only the well off / successful deserve to live?

Pets require a lot of attention and space, if housed. As a society, we have elevated the status of pets to near human levels in many realms. Indeed, as a example, it is not easy to even adopt a pet from many agencies and often adoptions require home inspections! Contrast that scenario with bums with pets; bums who can barely care for themselves let alone their pets. Enter the so-called progressives who are anxious to provide housing to the so-called homeless, who, as we've already established, come in many flavors from RVs to Skid Row box-living drug addicts. Pets are indeed not for persons who cannot provide for said pets. Taxpayers shouldn't have to foot the bill for such things.

[jm1982]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

Pets require a lot of attention and space, if housed. As a society, we have elevated the status of pets to near human levels in many realms. Indeed, as a example, it is not easy to even adopt a pet from many agencies and often adoptions require home inspections! Contrast that scenario with bums with pets; bums who can barely care for themselves let alone their pets. Enter the so-called progressives who are anxious to provide housing to the so-called homeless, who, as we've already established, come in many flavors from RVs to Skid Row box-living drug addicts. Pets are indeed not for persons who cannot provide for said pets. Taxpayers shouldn't have to foot the bill for such things.

Too much common sense for some people to comprehend..

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

Pets require a lot of attention and space, if housed. As a society, we have elevated the status of pets to near human levels in many realms. Indeed, as a example, it is not easy to even adopt a pet from many agencies and often adoptions require home inspections! Contrast that scenario with bums with pets; bums who can barely care for themselves let alone their pets. Enter the so-called progressives who are anxious to provide housing to the so-called homeless, who, as we've already established, come in many flavors from RVs to Skid Row box-living drug addicts. Pets are indeed not for persons who cannot provide for said pets. Taxpayers shouldn't have to foot the bill for such things.

Ok. The first part of your response, while true, is meaningless to the issue of homeless having dogs (few have any animals other than dogs). What we as a society have done to make adopting a dog in some cases ridiculous doesn’t apply to wherever the homeless dogs come from. Furthermore, seeing as humans have had symbiotic relationships with dogs since paleolithic times thousands of years prior to the advent of agriculture (estimates range from 12,000 - 30,000 years ago) any notion that dogs require our recent epiphany as to their “needs” - is just plain silly.

One of the strong theories as to the origins of man/dog symbiosis, in fact, is: paleolithic garbage dumps. Dogs observing human garbage, cast off vittles from the hunts and the like. Canines start hanging around. Each side of the equation eyeing the other ... and, making a very long and interesting story short, hitting it off protecting and serving each other.

Anything there ring a bell? Garbage dumps ... cast off vittles ... homeless camps ... protecting each other and each others’ interests?

Jump forward now to your comments about “pets” not being for people who can’t provide for them ... as if there is no value to the relationship other than to the dogs by people buying dog food and vet visits. The point I raised earlier is that society, as well as individual homeless pet owners, derive value from anything that supports the mental health of desperate people. Reduction in fear and desperation translates to better safety for the general population as well as the homeless.

You, like others here, typically lash out at any semblance of support for these wretched people as if the support is nothing more than coddling. Set all that crap aside a minute. The complaints of the many ways homelessness negatively affects our communities have become a lot of supercilious moralizing and judgmentalism ... when the priority issue is how to safeguard ourselves, our communities, our daily lives up and down the streets, and our economic drain from this scourge.

If your first concern is to alleviate the problem for yourself and the general population you seriously need to prioritize what gets the job done. Housing the homeless - and letting those who find relief in having their little dogs - isn’t capitulation to their immorality. Since they aren’t following socially prescriptive orders, they need to be removed from our streets as affordably as possible - short of unlawful acts. Either put the chronics away, legally and affordably, or keep stepping over them and bit*hing all the way.

And if their pets keep them placated, let Rover and Fido help keep the lid on. It’s a benefit to you. Not an offensive capitulation.

The cost? Cheap. A bargain.

[Social Democrat]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Ok. The first part of your response, while true, is meaningless to the issue of homeless having dogs (few have any animals other than dogs). What we as a society have done to make adopting a dog in some cases ridiculous doesn’t apply to wherever the homeless dogs come from. Furthermore, seeing as humans have had symbiotic relationships with dogs since paleolithic times thousands of years prior to the advent of agriculture (estimates range from 12,000 - 30,000 years ago) any notion that dogs require our recent epiphany as to their “needs” - is just plain silly.

One of the strong theories as to the origins of man/dog symbiosis, in fact, is: paleolithic garbage dumps. Dogs observing human garbage, cast off vittles from the hunts and the like. Canines start hanging around. Each side of the equation eyeing the other ... and, making a very long and interesting story short, hitting it off protecting and serving each other.

Anything there ring a bell? Garbage dumps ... cast off vittles ... homeless camps ... protecting each other and each others’ interests?

Jump forward now to your comments about “pets” not being for people who can’t provide for them ... as if there is no value to the relationship other than to the dogs by people buying dog food and vet visits. The point I raised earlier is that society, as well as individual homeless pet owners, derive value from anything that supports the mental health of desperate people. Reduction in fear and desperation translates to better safety for the general population as well as the homeless.

You, like others here, typically lash out at any semblance of support for these wretched people as if the support is nothing more than coddling. Set all that crap aside a minute. The complaints of the many ways homelessness negatively affects our communities have become a lot of supercilious moralizing and judgmentalism ... when the priority issue is how to safeguard ourselves, our communities, our daily lives up and down the streets, and our economic drain from this scourge.

If your first concern is to alleviate the problem for yourself and the general population you seriously need to prioritize what gets the job done. Housing the homeless - and letting those who find relief in having their little dogs - isn’t capitulation to their immorality. Since they aren’t following socially prescriptive orders, they need to be removed from our streets as affordably as possible - short of unlawful acts. Either put the chronics away, legally and affordably, or keep stepping over them and bit*hing all the way.

And if their pets keep them placated, let Rover and Fido help keep the lid on. It’s a benefit to you. Not an offensive capitulation.

The cost? Cheap. A bargain.

Well, jm had a good comment for a change: : "too much common sense for some people to comprehend."

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Social Democrat

Well, jm had a good comment for a change: : "too much common sense for some people to comprehend."

Not clear which perspective you refer to as common sense: LuvOC’s or tulemutt’s.

[jm1982]

The socialists are very active these days ..did any out of area activists make it for the homeless vigil in WeHo ?
The Park had human poop all over and was unusable for area residents due to the homeless occupying it and


——
Protesters are upset because they feel the county is just pushing the homeless to other neighborhoods and not really taking care of the problem.

Jed Parriott of the Democratic Socialists of America was one of the protesters, he planned a silent vigil for the homeless.

The protests caused tension among the residents who just want their neighborhood safe and clean again.

Protesters Upset After Homeless Removed from West Hollywood Park
https://kfiam640.iheart.com/featured...ollywood-park/

[USDefault]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

You, like others here, typically lash out at any semblance of support for these wretched people as if the support is nothing more than coddling....


The cost? Cheap. A bargain.

If it's so cheap, and a bargain, then YOU pay for it with your OWN money -- you and the bad-behavior apologists just like you. Stop using government force to steal money from taxpayers to subsidize the lazy, drug addicts, and criminals. Have them move in with you. Have your daughter put up a few in her AirBnB. And may as well get started now, before it's declared illegal, just like was done in San Diego.


Put your money where your mouth is. Forego the AirBnB rental income. Do as you preach and house the homeless using your OWN dimes, your own home, and your daugther's BnB.



Chance this will happen? Zero, of course. Just like all the "do as I say, not as I do" moralizers.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by USDefault

If it's so cheap, and a bargain, then YOU pay for it with your OWN money -- you and the bad-behavior apologists just like you. Stop using government force to steal money from taxpayers to subsidize the lazy, drug addicts, and criminals. Have them move in with you. Have your daughter put up a few in her AirBnB. And may as well get started now, before it's declared illegal, just like was done in San Diego.


Put your money where your mouth is. Forego the AirBnB rental income. Do as you preach and house the homeless using your OWN dimes, your own home, and your daugther's BnB.



Chance this will happen? Zero, of course. Just like all the "do as I say, not as I do" moralizers.

Anger is your Default position, again? Tsk.

Aside from me having put one helluva a lot of personal cash into a number of homeless veterans’ assistance ... um, I have never “apologized” for homeless behaviors. Providing factual-based explanations of realities is not the same as excusing.

Further, show us in what way tulemutt is using - or stealing - government money from taxpayers to subsidize “the lazy, drug addicts, and criminals”. How exactly am I, personally, doing such?

As for my daughter’s B&B income, I don’t make a dime off it. It’s her business not mine ... so why don’t we just confine our little foot-stamping tantrums to me, hmmm?

The facts are:
tulemutt doesn’t cause homelessness,
doesn’t apologize for the homeless behaviors,
doesn’t control a dime of taxpayer money that goes to the homeless (or anything else)

- and hasn’t ever proposed spending programs for the homeless beyond what’s already being spent.

The facts are:
The homeless exist having nothing to do with me
Aren’t going away no matter how much you rant ...
unless we take the chronics off the street out of your way ...
by housing them without pre-conditions they mostly won’t accept

... Which ‘housing first’ programs are proven to cost less than YOUR tax dollars already being spent on the homeless by other people than me.

And a major reason that money is wasted is because people like you, who say you want the homeless off the streets, refuse to support the very programs that will clear the streets for a savings ...

Why do you and others oppose ‘housing first’? Because you subscribe to the belief that the homeless shouldn’t get anything for free.

What’s stupid about that?
They’re already costing you a ton and you, and your compatriots, are getting almost nothing in return for results.

Joke’s on angry you. Not me hoss.

Take a pill. Take two. Calm down. Take a walk. Go to bed. Enjoy a good night’s sleep.

Toodles angry default.