Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

-Horatio_Alger_Jr- t1_j3tp5x3 wrote

Reply to comment by LetMeSleepNoEleven in Worcester Walmart violated MA law after homeless camp clearing by HRJafael

>What land would you propose? What land is not “someone else’s”?

If those people were willing to become sober, there are plenty of places that would take them in.

They decided not to be sober, so they need to find a place that can accommodate them.

Is it OK for homeless people to pollute that river?

1

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_j3tpu7v wrote

“Willing to become sober”.

  1. Prove this.
  2. That’s not just a matter of a simple decision.
  3. So what if they were not?
−1

-Horatio_Alger_Jr- t1_j3tqtg7 wrote

>“Willing to become sober”. > >1. Prove this.

Ok, can you list the requirements for the homeless shelters around that area?

>2. That’s not just a matter of a simple decision.

It is though.

>3. So what if they were not?

As we have witnessed, they are not allowed in the homeless shelters (for safety reasons).

0

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_j3tt33x wrote

  1. That homeless shelters have that rule, among several, is not evidence that these individuals were not in the shelters because of that rule.

  2. Medically, no. It is not.

  3. Bad rule but as we have seen, irrelevant unless you can prove that’s the issue.

But also, where then should they go?

1

-Horatio_Alger_Jr- t1_j3tyg4b wrote

So you are willing to make excuses for every action of these individuals.

Do you believe there should be no effort to live?

4

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_j3u3ugl wrote

You don’t know the actions of those individuals and their actions are not relevant.

1