| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Feed the Homeless, Go To Jail; In Las Vegas | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 28 2006, 07:34 AM (2,000 Views) | |
| QuirtEvans | Jul 28 2006, 07:34 AM Post #1 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/28/us/28hom...artner=homepage |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Jul 28 2006, 07:39 AM Post #2 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
Yeah, I just heard about this, too. How humanitarian. Absolutely horrible, is what it is. |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| John Jacob Jingoism Smith | Jul 28 2006, 08:55 AM Post #3 |
|
Middle Aged Carp
|
While many people become homeless for many reasons (often it is simply that they are lazy and/or substance addicted bums but it also often occurs that they have mental illness or other legitimate problems that are not adequately addressed), and it is also true that some areas are actually attractive to bums such that they will travel there specifically to live there as bums- one has to wonder how many of these Las Vegas homeless were once more or less productive members of society who got enticed into gambling addictions, then lost everything and ended up on the streets. My money says (irony) that a helluva lot of those homeless were created by the mainstream promotion of Las Vegas culture itself. And there is no way Las vegas couldn't have known they would create a lot of gambling addicts. Not to say the addicts themselves have no responsibility for their own behavior, but it is totally predictable that addicts will be created. I have to say, Las Vegas is a place I despise for ugliness on many levels. And I have to wonder if this ban on feeding homeless people, an act of simple charity, can possibly hold up in a higher court. I mean, I don't believe in coddling those who make the choice to live as beggars, but it's a damn awful intrusion to make it illegal to help people. |
|
Jingoism You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do. Anne Lamott | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Jul 28 2006, 09:10 AM Post #4 |
|
MAMIL
|
There's mobsters in Vegas? Say it isn't so! Oh sorry, he said 'reputed mobsters'. Thank goodness for that, for a moment I thought that maybe the whole place was a den of vice and corruption, but no, since I'm guessing most of them were found undeniably not guilty. It's nice to see people so committed to keeping Las Vegas a decent, honourable place, where a man can feel safe from having all of his money taken away from him by some disreputable bum. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Jul 28 2006, 09:34 AM Post #5 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
Yep, couldn't a said it better meself. |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jul 28 2006, 12:04 PM Post #6 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
I am not all that concerned from what I read in the article. It seems to only concern coordinated efforts to feed the homeless in public parks. While I have some concern about infringements of freedom of assembly, it is not untypical that assemblies in public places require permitting. The matter of food distribution comes under public health and safety. Whether it is given away or sold, it seems that municipalities correctly require licenses for this type of activity, and that would be the simplest and most apolitical means of regulating what can be distributed and where. If they don't have a food license, then they are in violation of the statutes. If I owned a vacant lot in Vegas I would consider allowing the folks to set up a food distribution location on the premises. It seems to be a private initiative that should best be handled on private property. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Jul 28 2006, 12:23 PM Post #7 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
Assuming that's the case, don't you think that's a little crazy? Requiring a "food lisence" to give homeless people food? That's procedure gone amok, in my opinion; doing what you believe is a good deed (which does not negatively affect others) does not require consent by lisence. I don't see how this law can be used to uphold the common good. Not only that, but how in the world are you going to enforce this? |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jul 28 2006, 12:28 PM Post #8 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Well it would less the chances of people from unwittingly distributing balony with botulism. That in itself upholds the common good. The enforcement seems to be easy, since the case in question is a concerted effort:
|
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Jul 28 2006, 12:35 PM Post #9 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
Well c'mon now. Botulism. About 100 cases are reported annually in the whole of the United States. If you really want to make things illegal to uphold the common good, why not outlaw driving in a car, since that kills many more people on average, than handing out food. Well my question about enforcement is this: where's the line? You get caught speeding, either you are or you aren't. With feeding the homeless, they say individual cases are okay. So, how much food do you have to distribute to make it "illegal"? And what constitutes "poor"? Middle class folks obviously aren't considered, but what about people living in illegal loft housing, for example? What level of distribution to people of which annual income bracket constitutes a break in the statutes? Will police officers determine this on the street, or will legality be determined after you’re arrested? This article is obviously biased a bit, but still, it just seems ridiculous to me. |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jul 28 2006, 12:56 PM Post #10 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
You are making my argument for me, given that botulism and other food borne illness are not regularly spread precisely because of health laws that mandate safe food handling practices and are regulated by the government through licensure. Thank you.
I would assume that, as with most laws, the terms are defined. In this case they use the word "indigent" -- which might be defined as someone without a registered domicile. I think most people and police are capable of making reasonable distinctions between the picnics who give a spare apple to a begger and a group setting up a soup kitchen or a van distribution of prepackaged meals. The law seems geared toward the latter.
It might seem ridiculous to you, but I suspect it came about due to a real need. Presumably, families felt threatened in the public parks, and there was a public outcry and city council members decided to do something about it. What they did might not be the best solution, or the most political, or even something that will stand up to a judicial challenge, but I see nothing wrong with communities trying to solve problems at this low level of subsidiarity. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Jul 28 2006, 05:58 PM Post #11 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
I really don't see what you mean here. Health mandates that control the spread of botulism doesn't translate to this particular case. How would banning food donations to the homeless curb human health problems, or anything else for that matter? Botulism kills people, whereas feeding the homeless, if anything, has the opposite effect.
Families felt threatened by homeless people? Unless they're drug peddling, being a public nuisance, or something similar, to that I say tough sh!t. Why not, I don't know, increase the funds and manpower social services needs to help fix the problem, other than further limit the impoverished? This might stand up under the law, but it’s both a ridiculous and ineffective attempt to curb the problem. |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jul 28 2006, 07:41 PM Post #12 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Someone please buy IT a dictionary. You'd think someone who quotes from the OED would be able to define "indigent" properly. It means "poor", not "without a registered domicile". Now, watch in amusement as IT twists himself in knots trying to claim that "needy" or "destitute" could mean "without a registered domicile". Even though "indigent" and "poor" are deemed synonyms. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Jul 28 2006, 08:25 PM Post #13 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Quirt, are you not having regular bowel movements the last few weeks or something? You're awfully irritable, more than usual. I'm worried about you, guy.....
|
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jul 28 2006, 08:31 PM Post #14 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
More than usual? Is that even possible? |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Jul 28 2006, 08:35 PM Post #15 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
|
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jul 28 2006, 09:43 PM Post #16 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
I am surprised that I have to explain this one to you. You first claimed that the law had no effect on promoting the common good, and the licenses to distribute food to the public was procedure gone amok. I pointed out that food licensure was part of public safety and is instrumental in helping to ensure standards that prevent the spread of food borne illness -- surely a positive thing in promoting the common good (health and hygiene fall under that). You then tried to argue that so few cases of botulism exist that X would be better law. Of course it does not matter what X is, since that is the argument of utilitarianism. I pointed out the you made my case for me since we DO have food laws and licensure, and these laws seem to have diminished the spread of food borne illnesses. If they work so well for restaurants, school cafeterias, soup kitchens such as St Vincent DePaul, Salvation Army, and Goodwill, then why not insist that people handing out baloney sandwiches in the park must meet the same criteria for public health concerns? My point is not about banning the distribution of food to homeless -- if you go back and read my first message you will see that I am not opposed to that. But I have no problem with it being regulated and that poor people are protected as well by those entrusted to promote public health regarding the distribution of foods. That would also make a more consistent policy (which in matters of law is generally a good thing), and could avoid the obviously political hot button issue that this has become. You got all knotted up in your own internal logic regarding killing people vs feeding them. I have no idea how you extracted that from what I wrote, but it has nothing to do with my point about regulating the health concerns of food distribution.
You can say tough ****, but the homeless population can be quite unbalanced and threatening. We do have the right to walk the public spaces unmolested, and the fact of the matter is that homeless people do tend to more aggressively bother people for money, etc. A tall, strapping, strong lad like you might not need feel fear, but there are many older and frail people who also should be considered in the equation, and the city has a direct responsibility to all its citizens to maintain public order and to promote good conditions whereby public order can be more easily maintained. So, it could be a very good idea to not encourage the homeless from congregating for the purposes of eating on public space that has been set aside for general recreation. I am not a council member in that town, and again I reiterate that there may be problems with their particular solution, but the city is not obligated to provide public space for a private initiative. The city has the right to control its public spaces for uses as designated, provided that the standards of equal access to all citizens are maintained. If a bunch of homeless want to picnic in the park, then they should have the right to do so -- that does not seem to be the case here. It is a private initiative that should best be done on private property.
What precisely is the problem? Homelessness, food distribution, use of public space, freedom of assembly, citizens who can not safely use public spaces because of threatening behavior by homeless people, etc???? You first need to clearly state the problem before you determine the solution is ridiculous and ineffective. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| John Jacob Jingoism Smith | Jul 28 2006, 10:33 PM Post #17 |
|
Middle Aged Carp
|
I wonder if Purina makes Hobo Chow.......? |
|
Jingoism You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do. Anne Lamott | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jul 28 2006, 11:01 PM Post #18 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
From Law.com Legal Dictionary: Indigent: "1) n. a person so poor and needy that he/she cannot provide the necessities of life (food, clothing, decent shelter) for himself/herself." No twisting required. If Q had bothered to read the preceding sentence, in which I point out that key words are typically defined in legislation, he might have appreciated both the subjunctive "might" and the notion that for practical application of what constitutes an "indigent" a standard such as lacking a registered domicile might suffice. Given that he is a lawyer, one might have thought that he would have also appreciated a more "legal" definition of indigency in the context of a legal statute -- which the idea that one cannot provide adequate shelter for oneself reasonably indicates. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Jul 29 2006, 04:05 AM Post #19 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
This thread is actually another good example of the effects of liberal brain rot. Liberals *feel* things. They *feel* the homeless needs fed. They *feel* the (insert your cause of choice). And then there is no other option - *no matter what* - *At all cost*. Feed the homeless at all cost - no matter what. Anyone getting in the way of that is a heartless, cruel, mean spirited person - so they must be, oh..... a fundamentalist Christian right wing Conservative. Get out of Iraq at any cost - no matter what. Anyone getting in the way of that is a heartless, cruel, mean spirited person - so they must be, oh.... a fundamentalist Christian right wing Conservative. Never mind that the Conservative is pointing out that their may be a distribution problem because the homeless people are getting sick off the food. Never mind that the Conservative is pointing out that the way its being done is creating a safety hazard for others. These people must be handed out free food by Gobs, and *you're stopping them from doing it!* Never mind all the reasons given for why the Iraq war was necessary - *war is bad, dammit, people get killed in a war - so stop the war!!* It permeates societies world wide. It eats away the ability to use common sense and logic, replacing those skills with a faux sense of righteousness that convinces them they *are* using logic. As for common sense, well.... we've had a couple of liberals here tell us already they don't even know what that is. This brain rot is why Israel can withstand attack after attack, day after day, for *years*, and when they finally decide enough is enough and attack back, they get painted as being the agressor, the evil ones, the cause of the problem, and the poor Hezbollah get sanitized - "Are they really terrorists? I don't know that they are". "Look at all the good they do for their people". "All they have to do is give up". We have even seen the absolutely ridiculous statement made that the Muslims treated Israelis good back when they ruled the land. Liberalism *is* a mental disorder. That isn't meant to pick on any of you liberals personally (well, maybe a few of you.....) It's meant to get you to open your eyes and see just how silly some of the ideas you hold really are. You don't hold a corner on helping people. You aren't the only ones who care about the homeless, or the environment, or any of the other issues that you think are "progressive liberal values". It's just that some of us are able to understand that your "at all costs" "no matter what" approach to logic is shallow, simple minded, and harmful - not only to the people you're trying to help, but to the world at large. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jul 29 2006, 04:21 AM Post #20 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
You and IT keep heading down this path, as if there's some public health issue here. Let's be clear, the public health issue is something that you and IT invented. Oscar Goodman, the mayor of Las Vegas, has been very clear about the purpose of the legislation. He doesn't like the homeless in the parks. Feeding them in the parks encourages them to stay in the parks. Therefore, he has made feeding them a crime. If you want to talk about mental masturbation, then talk all you like about how the homeless might be getting sick off the food. That is not what this legislation is about. At least Oscar is honest enough to admit it.
What a shock! Indigent means poor! And someone who is poor might not be able to afford housing! Call the newspapers, IT has made a major discovery! Indigent means poor. It doesn't mean only one kind of poor. It doesn't just mean people who don't have a permanent address. There are plenty of people who are indigent who have a permanent address. IT is cherry-picking the pieces of a definition that he wants, and ignoring the rest. Typical tactic on his part. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Jul 29 2006, 04:38 AM Post #21 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
I didn't state as a fact that people were getting sick off the food. I merely used that as an example. It makes no difference to the point I was making. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Dave Spelvin | Jul 29 2006, 05:23 AM Post #22 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
And you've been unable to explain what it is. It just is for you, Larry. I see that sort of acceptance of one's own beliefs as the mark of a simpleton. Have faith in god, Larry, not in every belief of every kind that you may hold. You don't work anything through to its logical conclusion because to do so would challenge your basic (and, to my mind, flawed) view of just about everything. It's always easier to make the ignorant statement - again and again and again - that liberalism is a mental disorder rather than deal with each issue in turn as it comes up. I tried to engage you in a discussion some weeks ago about common sense, specifically in regard to its use in interpreting the Constitution, and you were constitutionally unable to engage in the discussion. I proved, to my satisfaction, that common sense may vary with time and culture and sensibilities. On most issues, what is common sense for one person isn't necessarily common sense for everyone else. Certainly, it's common sense throughout history that one shouldn't put one's hand in a blender, but is it common sense that US citizens have a right to own Uzis under the 2nd Amendment? |
| |
![]() |
|
| John Jacob Jingoism Smith | Jul 29 2006, 05:47 AM Post #23 |
|
Middle Aged Carp
|
....... or maybe Liberal Chow.........? |
|
Jingoism You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do. Anne Lamott | |
![]() |
|
| John Jacob Jingoism Smith | Jul 29 2006, 05:52 AM Post #24 |
|
Middle Aged Carp
|
Maybe some Liberals don't like to look at all the facts when taking a position but I ask you HOW MANY CONSERVATIVES CAN PAINT WITH THEIR PENIS??? Huh? What about THAT??? |
|
Jingoism You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do. Anne Lamott | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Jul 29 2006, 06:08 AM Post #25 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Of course you see it as a mark of a simpleton. That's because one of the marks of a liberal is the inability to REACH A CONCLUSION! You enjoy circle jerking, engaging in long, drawn out theorizing down every little rabbit trail you can find. Coming to a conclusion, making a decision, goes against your nature because to do so ends the mental circle jerk that you see as being "intellectual". Let's put it in real world terms. Several people here are businessmen. We successfully built businesses that employ other people. Those here who have done this will tell you very quickly that it takes more than brains to be successful, or even smart. You have to be able to MAKE A DECISION. I have several very intelligent people who work for me. Over the last 3 weeks, while they have engaged in their own version of your circle jerk, rabbit trailing down every little path they could find to "work everything through to its logical conclusion", I bought another building, remodeled it, and next week will be opening my 8th store in a chain of stores. They are still "working everything through to its logical conclusion", and I have created jobs for 6 more people, and put another wad of cash onto my annual paycheck as well. They think I'm a simpleton also. But then - they are the employees, and *I* am the one who gives them the ability to earn a living. Left to their own devices, they'd sit there forever "working everything through to its logical conclusion", and never get a damned thing done. Simpletons like me get things done. That's because in the grand scheme of things, whether in business or in life, someone has to have a *working* intelligence instead of a theoretical one. You see me as a simpleton because I am able to find the answer, reach a conclusion, and then act on that conclusion, bypassing your mental circle jerk. I see the mental circle jerk as simple minded - it takes you far too long to arrive at a decision or a conclusion. You're too busy impressing yourself with your "intelligence" to get anything done. And for simpletons like me who actually gets things done, your method is about as simple minded as it gets. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |









5:02 PM Jul 10