The Los Angeles Homeless Containment Thread (crimes, school, camps)

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

Another great find -- thanks for posting this. And this should end the debate in this thread as to whether there's an increased fire risk due to the homeless.

Well, no. It doesn’t.

First off, the story states they don’t know what any increase might be because they are now drawing data from new reporting protocol that didn’t exist a year ago. These fires aren’t a new problem.

Second, the “debate”, as far as I’m concerned, isn’t whether there is serious fire risk from homeless camps in the bush ... and there has always been danger of fires in abandoned houses/buildings caused by squatters.

The “debate” is about whether it is appropriate to generalize, as you do, that “the homeless”, are somehow a bunch of arsonists to be feared as a population. Simply put, again, most homeless aren’t living in bush camps starting fires.

[maduro lonsdale]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

The “debate” is about whether it is appropriate to generalize, as you do, that “the homeless”, are somehow a bunch of arsonists to be feared as a population. Simply put, again, most homeless aren’t living in bush camps starting fires.

The second sentence does not answer the first one.

Most homeless aren't living in bush camps. But those that are...

Homeless not living in camps aren't likely to need to be feared as firestarters.

Different premises.

[Exitus Acta Probat]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Well, no. It doesn’t.

First off, the story states they don’t know what any increase might be because they are now drawing data from new reporting protocol that didn’t exist a year ago. These fires aren’t a new problem.

Second, the “debate”, as far as I’m concerned, isn’t whether there is serious fire risk from homeless camps in the bush ... and there has always been danger of fires in abandoned houses/buildings caused by squatters.

The “debate” is about whether it is appropriate to generalize, as you do, that “the homeless”, are somehow a bunch of arsonists to be feared as a population. Simply put, again, most homeless aren’t living in bush camps starting fires.

The story pretty much addresses the issue as comprehensively as it need be -- there's an increase in fire danger due to illegal fires started by the homeless. What more does anybody need?

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

The story pretty much addresses the issue as comprehensively as it need be -- there's an increase in fire danger due to illegal fires started by the homeless. What more does anybody need?

To be educated about topics and mature in responses, as opposed to seeking to fear monger, for starters.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by maduro lonsdale

The second sentence does not answer the first one.

Most homeless aren't living in bush camps. But those that are...

Homeless not living in camps aren't likely to need to be feared as firestarters.

Different premises.

Yes. That’s the point. Broad brush is counterproductive.

[Exitus Acta Probat]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

To be educated about topics and mature in responses, as opposed to seeking to fear monger, for starters.

You're accusing our local NBC news of fear mongering for broadcasting a story about fires started by the homeless?

[elhelmete]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Yes. That’s the point. Broad brush is counterproductive.

No. The point is it's not logical to ignore 165 fires in one month started by homeless campers just because a minority of homeless live in camps. Most people don't die from gun violence either.

[Finper]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Well, no. It doesn’t.

First off, the story states they don’t know what any increase might be because they are now drawing data from new reporting protocol that didn’t exist a year ago. These fires aren’t a new problem.

Second, the “debate”, as far as I’m concerned, isn’t whether there is serious fire risk from homeless camps in the bush ... and there has always been danger of fires in abandoned houses/buildings caused by squatters.

The “debate” is about whether it is appropriate to generalize, as you do, that “the homeless”, are somehow a bunch of arsonists to be feared as a population. Simply put, again, most homeless aren’t living in bush camps starting fires.

Sure debate only small issues you feel right about and ignore everything else. Luckily other posters do do a broad brush of all the facts.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by elhelmete

No. The point is it's not logical to ignore 165 fires in one month started by homeless campers just because a minority of homeless live in camps. Most people don't die from gun violence either.

The debate hasn’t suggested the camp fires should be “ignored”. The debate, as I frame it, is that the mantle of guilt should not be indiscriminately applied to a broad heterogenous population, the majority of whom are not creating that risk.

Your “gun violence” comment doesn’t make any sense to me. It seems a complete non sequitur, unless you explain it further. However, I’ll draw on a comparison that uses gun violence to make my point, since you’ve brought it up:
Disclosure first: I’m not an anti-gun advocate.

Whenever there is a mass shooting, or cumulative gun violence statistic news story, public outcry erupts from the anti-gun faction, right? Without a doubt, there is quite a lot of gun violence. And nearly all gun violence is committed by gun owners. Right? .... do you think it is appropriate to vilify “Gun Owners” as being dangerous to the public? Or is it more appropriate to identify the perpetrators as per their more specific circumstances (i.e. terrorists, psychotics, irate husband/wife, suicidally depressed, clumsy hunter, careless, paranoid ...)?

Originally Posted by Finper

Sure debate only small issues you feel right about and ignore everything else. Luckily other posters do do a broad brush of all the facts.

I don’t consider vilifying a broad population for the irresponsibilities of a sub-population a “small issue”. Especially when social science tells us through validated studies that such vilification drives violence against the larger population as a whole.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

You're accusing our local NBC news of fear mongering for broadcasting a story about fires started by the homeless?

Almost but not quite. There is a distinction between sensationalizing for commercial survival ... and fear mongering.

News media, commercial news media such as NBC, rely on sensational news for their competitive survival. They necessarily pounce on and present sensational depictions of events and issues - well, sensationally.

Compare with how NPR presents stories absent commercial competitive drive: they cover all sides of issues in depth without focusing on creating “gotcha’s” and fear points.

Fear mongering, on the other hand:

Fear mongering

Fearmongering or scaremongering is the spreading of frightening and exaggerated rumors of an impending danger or the habit or tactic of purposely and needlessly arousing public fear about an issue.

Fear mongering is what some posters are doing for entertainment in this thread.