Copied from Fark
S.A.S.Q.U.A.T.C.H.: Can't say I disagree. Puplic [sic] parks are for and paid by usefull responsible members of our society. It's not a free campground, crypt, or place to shoot up.
"Useful."
It presupposes that there is no sanctity of human life for its own sake, and that if someone isn't "useful" then his life is of no value.
I'd agree that someone is "camping" if they put up a tent or even a cardboard box. If they're just sleeping on the ground flat exhausted, then the debate is between whether someone is only worthy of life itself if he somehow justifies his mere existence.
"Useful."
As far as "responsible"--I take it then that whenever one of these individuals is found sleeping on the ground in public that you advocate providing a government-funded psych exam and mental competency hearing to determine if the individual in question is even capable of being "responsible"?
No? So...let's take the feeble-minded, the schizophrenics, the adults with Down's Syndrome, the elderly with Alzheimers, the people with traumatic brain injury and euthanize them like stray dogs, shall we? They aren't "useful" and "responsible" members of society.
Or are the feeble-minded truly like dogs, where if they're somebody's pet it's okay for them to live, but if we pick them up as strays and they're not adopted in ten days, we put them to sleep?
If a homeless vet has his dog tags around his neck, will we allow him to sleep in the park in a patch of sunlight like we'd allow a cat to--as long as it had a collar and tags so we knew it belonged to someone somewhere even if it had strayed off?
Or do we sweep him up and give him his ten days? Budgets are tight. We could economize by combining it into the duties of the dog catcher and hold the "useless" human strays in the pound--for their ten days.
It would certainly be a solution to the homeless problem.
"Useful."
It presupposes that there is no sanctity of human life for its own sake, and that if someone isn't "useful" then his life is of no value.
I'd agree that someone is "camping" if they put up a tent or even a cardboard box. If they're just sleeping on the ground flat exhausted, then the debate is between whether someone is only worthy of life itself if he somehow justifies his mere existence.
"Useful."
As far as "responsible"--I take it then that whenever one of these individuals is found sleeping on the ground in public that you advocate providing a government-funded psych exam and mental competency hearing to determine if the individual in question is even capable of being "responsible"?
No? So...let's take the feeble-minded, the schizophrenics, the adults with Down's Syndrome, the elderly with Alzheimers, the people with traumatic brain injury and euthanize them like stray dogs, shall we? They aren't "useful" and "responsible" members of society.
Or are the feeble-minded truly like dogs, where if they're somebody's pet it's okay for them to live, but if we pick them up as strays and they're not adopted in ten days, we put them to sleep?
If a homeless vet has his dog tags around his neck, will we allow him to sleep in the park in a patch of sunlight like we'd allow a cat to--as long as it had a collar and tags so we knew it belonged to someone somewhere even if it had strayed off?
Or do we sweep him up and give him his ten days? Budgets are tight. We could economize by combining it into the duties of the dog catcher and hold the "useless" human strays in the pound--for their ten days.
It would certainly be a solution to the homeless problem.