| 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 (2,004 Views) | |
| Aqua Letifer | Jul 29 2006, 07:29 AM Post #26 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
This is where you lost me. You're telling me that this law in Las Vegas would significantly prevent the spread of food borne illnesses? Sorry, I don't buy it. I think a reasonable person would agree that for one, the number of cases of homeless people contracting food borne illnesses from handouts is VERY small, and for two, that wasn't even a consideration when they wrote the law. They seem to be trying to thin out the high crowds of homeless in public areas, and if anything, are trying to “protect” the taxpaying public, not the homeless.
Again, I seriously doubt the law was created with the well being of the homeless in mind. Besides, no officials mentioned that in the article that would support this. Even if they did, I can’t see it as anything but spin.
Okay, so they're allowed to picnic in the park, but only with other homeless then, because if other people gave them food; that would be a private initiative. Well, I really don't see an afternoon picnic in the park as part of any homeless person's future in Las Vegas. That would require the making of food, something they don’t have, and what is bringing them to the park in the first place. That's like telling them they're allowed to buy their own homes if they wanted to.
Well I see what you mean with this being a private initiative, and yes people do have a right not to be harassed, but I imagine you're not left with a whole lot of options when you're in that position. At least some slack should be given. As for the problem, I don't live in Las Vegas, but I bet I would be close if I hashed out a general idea: in a city with legalized gambling, prostitution, and severe drug and alcohol abuse, I'd be willing to bet they have a higher than average homeless population. Do the homeless favor private aid from citizens over social service programs? If so, why? I know that often times these programs are indeed inadequate, so that would be my first guess as to why they don’t use them. I think it's pretty clear that this attempt to work at the problem does not have the interest of the homeless at heart. Moreover, it doesn't at all address the source of the problem (why their number is so large, why government programs cannot adequately accommodate them, etc.) You may keep people from donating to the homeless, but that does nothing to curb their numbers on the streets. They still have to go somewhere. And if they haven’t turned to government aid already, I doubt this would make them start. |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jul 29 2006, 07:36 AM Post #27 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
What you're talking about is boiled down in the saying, the perfect result is the enemy of the good result. You have to know when good is good enough, and when the extra time and effort in improving the decision isn't justified by the minor improvements you might make. I've worked for and with people who have been paralyzed by the inability to make that kind of cost/benefit calculation. But that's in the real world, not in a theoretical argument on a message board. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| katie | Jul 29 2006, 08:39 AM Post #28 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
I feel I should be able to share my lunch with anyone in a public park. What I object to is people who feed all those bloody geese & encourage all that poop. Talk about squatters: Yuk. It's too bad this woman just can't go to city hall and get a free or low cost permit to distribute food as she's doing now. If she's giving it out to 25 or more, I think she should comply with rules & regulations in place for restaurants/events/outside gatherings, for the sake of public health. Setting aside this botulism thing being discussed, I'll say food borne illness is nothing to laugh about. It's serious.
|
|
| |
![]() |
|
| Dave Spelvin | Jul 29 2006, 09:00 AM Post #29 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
Thank you for that, Larry. Your comments are astute and I appreciate that you took the time to express them. Surely there is great value in the doers of society, but we weren't talking about starting a business and employing people. At least I wasn't. Among other things, you were making pronouncements about my mental health and I was objecting by focusing on what you said. You may not believe this, but I read your posts very carefully. I agree with virtually nothing you say in the political realm, mostly because I find your reactions to be knee-jerk and short on reasoning. That said, I believe that there is usually a solid reason or two for pursuing courses of action with which I disagree, and I always appreciate hearing them. That's why I hang out here with fascists like you, JB, Mik and IT (if I could bear using emoticons, I'd put a smiley face here). You all may not change my mind, but I am happy both to hear opposing viewpoints and to credit thought, and the work that goes into it, where it arises. If I've ever made any of you a little slower to dismiss my opinions, I've contributed enough. All of that being said, I'm a liberal without a mental illness (that anyone's been able to diagnose anyway). As for making decisions, I've made plenty and will continue to, as long as my wife says it's OK. It's a Saturday afternoon and I'm going to the Yankee game with my son. I'll admit to being a lifelong Yankee fan, but that's as far as I'll go in admitting to mental illness. |
| |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jul 29 2006, 09:54 AM Post #30 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Q accuses me of "cherrypicking" when I appeal to a LAW DICTIONARY to define a LEGAL TERM, and I use the FIRST DEFINITION. Of course, Q is even wrong that "indigent" is to be deemed synonymous with "poor". Indigent has come to mean "poor" in the realm of socioeconomics. One would not say "that was an indigent performance for an otherwise great athlete", or even "Q shows indigent analytical skills and social graces in conversation". But the word means not just "poor" but indicates a dire lacking. There are many poor people who are not indigent, and they typically live in houses and slums and projects and apartments and trailer parks. But they are not generally called "indigent". (In the legal profession, those who cannot provide their own legal counsel are considered indigent -- maybe that's what's stuck in Q's craw, but that is no reason for rudeness or his maniacal insistence on his definition.) Why not? Because "indigence" does not mean "poor" but "lacking". It comes from the Latin "indigere" meaning "to lack" or "to want". That is why in the mental health and social care professions, "homelessness" and "indigency" are practically synonymous. It also explains why in the legal profession, a person is considered indigent if they are lacking the resources to pay for a lawyer. But it does not mean "poor" per se. This use and understanding is attested to in the OED regarding indigent, indigency, indigence: 1. The fact or condition of wanting or needing (a thing); want or need of something requisite; lack, deficiency; need, requirement. 2. spec. Want of the means of subsistence; straitened circumstances; poverty, penury, destitution. 3. An instance of want; a want, a need. Obs. The quality or condition of being indigent. 1. Want, deficiency; need; = INDIGENCE 2. spec. Want of the means of subsistence; = INDIGENCE 3. with pl. A want, a need; = INDIGENCE 3. Obs. 1. a. Lacking in what is requisite; falling short of the proper measure or standard; wanting, deficient. arch. b. Destitute of, void of. c. In need of; requiring the aid of. Obs. 2. spec. Lacking the necessaries of life; in needy circumstances; characterized by poverty; poor, needy. Of persons, their condition, etc. B. n. An indigent person; one poor and needy. And that is why the working definition is the LAW DICTIONARY that describes not just poor people, but those who are "so poor and needy that [they] cannot provide the necessities of life (food, clothing, decent shelter)", seems appropriate and hardly "cherrypicking". Of course, had Q been gracious he could have simply said "Oh, I see how you are using the term and, though I would not use it that way, I understand". But instead he needs to assert his ego and continue with his rude, abusive and ill tempered attacks -- no doubt part of his pathology. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jul 29 2006, 10:21 AM Post #31 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
As I've said before, IT, you are one of the rudest people around here, whether or not you sometimes try to hide it in a velvet glove. You're a charlatan, and what's scariest is that you're deceiving yourself. You really believe the tripe you say about yourself. Sad, and scary. But let's go to the first two words of the definition you first cited. "So poor". Seems to me to be a fairly obvious synonym, huh? Even to one as mentally constipated as you are. The rest is just a qualification of what how poor you have to be. Now let's go to dictionary.com:
See synonyms at poor! What a shock, I would never have expected that. So let's try Wordnet:
Poor enough! And all the synonyms mean poor, too. As I said before, it's a great laugh watching IT twist himself in gyrations trying to explain why "poor" doesn't mean "poor". Every time I see him post, I'm reminded of Humpty Dumpty:
|
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jul 29 2006, 10:30 AM Post #32 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Given that neither OED nor Law.com legal dictionary are persuasive for Q to even acknowledge that "indigence" is an especially dire state of being "poor", and "indigent" can be a practical substitute for "homeless" (which is the point of this whole fabricated argument) there is little point going on. Of course, I never really expected Q to acknowledge anything that would challenge his alpha male narcissism. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jul 29 2006, 10:35 AM Post #33 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Law.com works just fine for me. The first two words. "So poor". I can't help it if your own source makes you look like an idiot. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jul 29 2006, 10:37 AM Post #34 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Does anyone else appreciate the irony that Q is arguing from a partial definition and accuses me of "cherrypicking"? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: I wonder if this is part of the storm that is coming. :lol: |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jul 29 2006, 10:44 AM Post #35 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
"So poor". The rest is a qualification of exactly how poor is "so poor". It's English, I wouldn't expect you to understand. Maybe try it in Latin. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jul 29 2006, 11:05 AM Post #36 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
For those of you who wonder why conversations with Q are often so unproductive, here is a perfect example. He challenges me to try in Latin, which I already did above, and showed that indigent does not mean "poor", but "lacking". His grasp of the term is presumably based in his legal experience that indigents are afforded legal counsel because they are poor and lack the resources to provide their own counsel. As much as I tried to show that the simple term "poor" is not the best synonym, and does not do justice to the meaning of the term "indigent", he has this stuck in his craw and will not even acknowledge that other uses are fully appropriate and even give a fuller explanation of what indigence entails, which is essentially a dire lack of resources. So here is where I am getting off the semantic merry go round at Quirtland(tm). |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Jul 29 2006, 08:15 PM Post #37 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
I gather you were unable to follow the point.
Of course you do. We've already discussed why that is.
That is an impossibility, as liberalism by its nature is a mental illness - at least modern liberalism is. Dave, I don't mean to single you out - when I say "you" in reference to liberals, I'm usually talking about the collective "you". Let me ask you - I asked another person here who said she was "100% liberal" what being a liberal meant, and she blew me off. I've always said that 90% of the liberals in the general population don't have a clue what liberalism actually is. What do *you* think being a liberal means? What is liberalism, in your opinion? |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Dave Spelvin | Jul 30 2006, 04:57 AM Post #38 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
Here's a definition of "liberal", the first one I found. I like it just fine: lib·er·al adj. 1. a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism. d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States. 2. a. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor. b. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes. 3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation. 4. Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education. 5. a. Archaic Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman. b. Obsolete Morally unrestrained; licentious. n. 1. A person with liberal ideas or opinions. 2. Liberal A member of a Liberal political party. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/liberal In my opinion, Liberalism reflects the characteristics above. So what is Liberalism to you? Extra points for finding it listed in the DSM IV. |
| |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Jul 30 2006, 05:00 AM Post #39 |
|
MAMIL
|
Isn't it strange that conservatives don't want the government interfering in our everyday lives unless we want to give our sandwiches to a homeless person? |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Jul 30 2006, 05:02 AM Post #40 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
I don't want a dictionary answer. I want to hear *your* answer. If you have to look it up in a book, then you don't know why you are a liberal in the first place, because you don't know what a liberal is. About the only thing your dictionary answer gives me is that you like plenty of potatoes. So, without the aid of books, simply tell me what *you* think liberalism is. I want to hear why *you* choose to call yourself one. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Dave Spelvin | Jul 30 2006, 05:08 AM Post #41 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
I've said I agree with the definition I posted. I can't help you if you're unwilling to accept this. You, on the other hand, seem to have a different understanding of the word. Please share it with us so we can all see why those who ascribe to "liberal" values are mentally ill. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Jul 30 2006, 05:11 AM Post #42 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Dave, all you've done is show me that I'm correct when I say most liberals don't even know what it means. I don't need a dictionary to help me figure out why I'm *not* a liberal. Can you, or can you not, tell me what liberalism means to *you*, in your own words? I don't think you can, because I don't think you even know. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Dave Spelvin | Jul 30 2006, 05:28 AM Post #43 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
We've reached a stalemate, Larry. It's very difficult to argue against what "liberal" actually means, isn't it? But some have with great success. Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter and the rest have developed booming businesses based on describing liberals as something they are not - creating something really detestable (pathetic, waffling milquetoasts, without a spine or moral among them) - then tearing them down. I gave you more credit than that, but you seem to take these hyenas at their word. I honestly believed that when push came to shove you would admit that you were joking about liberalism being a mental illness. OK. I don't believe it's my responsibility at this point to invent a new definition of "liberal" for you. So if you're serious, please share with me your opinion of what liberalism is, though I assume it will be contrary to the dictionary definition. It must be a doozy of a definition if it leads you to believe that it is pathological, or leads people to mental illness, or however you want to think about it. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Jul 30 2006, 05:36 AM Post #44 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
In other words, you *can't* tell me what liberalism means to you personally, what it means, why you are one, without a dictionary. As I said: Most liberals don't even know what it means. For Dave, it appears that he is a liberal because he likes potatoes, and doesn't want a conservative to make him a sandwich because he might not put enough mayonnaise on it. I'll wait just a little longer to give you one more chance to show me that you know what your own principles are, and then I'll tell you what liberalism *really* is, without the fluff descriptions you've hidden behind, such as "b. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes." Can you do it? I don't think you can. I don't think you even know what your own principles are. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Dave Spelvin | Jul 30 2006, 05:39 AM Post #45 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
Nice talking with you, Larry. I believe we're done here. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Number 6 | Jul 30 2006, 05:41 AM Post #46 |
|
Junior Carp
|
Allow me: A liberal is tolerant. Takes the time to evaluate ALL sides of the issue before jumping in with rash conclusions. Realizes that another persons opinions may have validity. Believes that God put us here with the purpose of helping others (among other reasons). Does not spew hatred. |
|
Number 6: Who are you? Number 2: The new Number 2. Number 6: Who is Number 1? Number 2: You are Number 6. Number 6: I am not a number, I am a free man. | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Jul 30 2006, 05:51 AM Post #47 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Dave, yesterday you told me you saw me as simple minded. Today, it is *you* that seems to be simple minded. When I finally *do* answer the question you seem incapable of answering, you'll discover that I am far from being simple minded. I've given you 3 chances now to explain why you are a liberal. You offer a dictionary definition instead of telling me what *you* think, what being a liberal means to you. I'll give you one more. So far, you have told me you like extra potatoes, but you have yet to give me one single reason that you've chosen liberalism as the basis for your principles. You are proving my point, that liberals *have* no principles, nor do they have a clue why they identify themselves with liberalist ideology. I don't want to know about your eating habits, Dave - I want to know what you base your principles on, what your ideology is built upon, and why you think liberalism best fits with your principles. I don't think you know. I don't think you can. No liberal has ever been able to answer me. Now - you're a "deep thinking liberal" - show me you can. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Jul 30 2006, 06:08 AM Post #48 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
deleted |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Jul 30 2006, 06:16 AM Post #49 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
I'm surprised no one has brought up the example of NYC under Dinkens, and the changes made by Rudy, regarding the homeless. Ultimately, it is a quality of life issue for the community... |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Jul 30 2006, 06:31 AM Post #50 |
|
MAMIL
|
I think wikipedia has a pretty good description. Liberalism Please don't let this article get in the way of the insultathon. It's so much more fun to shout and call each other names than to actually try and listen to ideas which clash with our own. After all, everyone who disagrees with me is by definition an idiot. Why is so difficult to except that there are positive sides to both conservative thinking, and to liberalism and social democracy? |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |











5:02 PM Jul 10