• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

More Cities Are Making It Illegal To Hand Out Food To The Homeless

Anyone Feeding The Homeless Should Be A Crime


  • Total voters
    55
The term human food sounds so wrong. :lol:

Greetings, Henrin. :2wave:

:agree: The first thought that flitted through my mind was the movie "Soylent Green." I gotta stop watching movies! :mrgreen:
 
Then you can try, convict and lock up the trouble makers. Locking people in cages for showing compassion to their fellow man is disgustingly atrocious.

I agree with this...but that isn't what's happening here.

Wolfsgirl nailed what this story is about in her post. This is only for safety reasons (food handling) and for purposes of limiting the locations of the food sharing programs. Nobody is going to jail.
 
Then you can try, convict and lock up the trouble makers.

The police are going to arrest every homeless person they see? The police are going to automatically show up if there is a bum ****ting in the park, your driveway, in your neighborhood? The police going to automatically show up if there is a couple of guys dealing drugs, squatting in a home that is for sale, vandalizing property, engaging in prostitution, theft or some other crime? I wouldn't appreciate a soup kitchen near my home,where I worked, or where my nieces and nephew go to school anymore than you would appreciate a neighbor putting a bird feeding above your car and driveway.


Locking people in cages for showing compassion to their fellow man is disgustingly atrocious.

They can show that compassion in a sparsely populated part of the city away from residential business areas.
 
Welcome to the response to "Why doesn't the government do something?" Well, here is the response and it is not all that far removed from the idea of making a kid's lemonade stand illegal. Calls for regulation to control what happens and why, calls to police general safety, and dealing with our over itigious society are all the real blame here. This has nothing to do with a "war on the homeless" or a "war on poverty" and everything to do with turning to the government to fix all our problems only to not surprisingly be disappointed with the results. Pretty soon helping anyone for any reason in any regard will be illegal without it going through the government in one method or another.
 
In other news, the national parks have outlawed feeding bears, as it makes them dependent on human food and unable to fend for themselves.

I generally think of you as a clever enough person to realize how ridiculous making a statement like this is, especially in this sort of context. So I'll assume that it's just a really stupid and unfunny joke.
 
Can't be assed to spend public money to prevent the homeless from starvation.
I wonder if they will be assed to pay for the courts to prosecute them for stealing?
I wonder if they will assed to pay for the prisons?
I wonder if they will be assed to pay for the Potter's fields.

Yeah christian nation my ass.
 
The sociopathy of some people is just stunning.

"If we just starve them, that'll fix it!"

Right. What if we provided some kind of real help to these people, many of whom are traumatized vets or abandoned teens?

Oh, right, that would involve human empathy.
 
In a society that likes to sue everybody for everything, I can see how on some level, this is trying to protect some people from becoming victims by trying to help others.

Imagine feeding some homeless people, a few get sick because there's peanut oil or something like that in the food, and BLAMMO - major law suits and the helper becomes a victiim and potentially sued into homelessness themselves.
 
In a society that likes to sue everybody for everything, I can see how on some level, this is trying to protect some people from becoming victims by trying to help others.

Imagine feeding some homeless people, a few get sick because there's peanut oil or something like that in the food, and BLAMMO - major law suits and the helper becomes a victiim and potentially sued into homelessness themselves.

And how is a homeless person going to...

1. Even know who this random person out of thousands they see daily even was?

2. Find the money to pursue a frivilous lawsuit?

3. And three, who the hell wouldn't know they have a major allergy to such a common substance?

If that is the reason they're touting for this, that is utter bovine excrement. Your average homeless person doesn't even have the resources to get help when they're physically assaulted by someone they actually know, much less find some frivolous lawyer to push a stupid case.
 
Feeding the homeless makes us feel good, but what does it really do for the homeless? Give a man a fish.....

Totally true story, happened to me just yesterday. I was approached by a man in a parking lot asking me for $3.00. for food. I took out my wallet and gave him a $5.00. He then told me if he just had $2.00 more, he could pay for his hotel room. I gave him the $2.00 and got in my car. Now, I know what you're thinking. I'm an idiot, right, for "believing" him. I didn't believe him for a second. I know where it's going but based on biblical teachings I do try to give to these guys - my thought being that it's his money to do with what he wants once I've decided to give the money to him.

Anyway, as I started up my car, the dude approached my window and said he just needed two more dollars and I drove off. It's never enough is it?
 
Last edited:
The sociopathy of some people is just stunning.

"If we just starve them, that'll fix it!"

Right. What if we provided some kind of real help to these people, many of whom are traumatized vets or abandoned teens?

Oh, right, that would involve human empathy.

No, that would involve giving out free stuff. Human empathy can be involved without doing that.
 
No, that would involve giving out free stuff. Human empathy can be involved without doing that.

Oh, right, I forgot. No one's allowed to get "free stuff" except corporations.

Why don't people seem to understand that if you want a desirable outcome -- and in the case of our society that views people as nothing but dollar signs, that means making them fit to re-enter work -- they have to put something into it? Especially since a lot of these people wouldn't even be homeless if mental health care weren't almost impossible to get?
 
Oh, right, I forgot. No one's allowed to get "free stuff" except corporations.

Why don't people seem to understand that if you want a desirable outcome -- and in the case of our society that views people as nothing but dollar signs, that means making them fit to re-enter work -- they have to put something into it? Especially since a lot of these people wouldn't even be homeless if mental health care weren't almost impossible to get?

"These people" need to put some work into it themselves. Nobody can do it for them.
 
I agree with this...but that isn't what's happening here.

Wolfsgirl nailed what this story is about in her post. This is only for safety reasons (food handling) and for purposes of limiting the locations of the food sharing programs. Nobody is going to jail.
In part, very true. But this was part of the story as well, and it is the cruel part.
as cities have felt more pressure to prioritize economic development and tourism, they've decided that food sharing programs — especially those that happen in public spaces and draw dozens, if not hundreds of people — are problematic.
How about that?
 
Oh, right, I forgot. No one's allowed to get "free stuff" except corporations.

Don't be silly, where did I say that?

Why don't people seem to understand that if you want a desirable outcome -- and in the case of our society that views people as nothing but dollar signs, that means making them fit to re-enter work -- they have to put something into it? Especially since a lot of these people wouldn't even be homeless if mental health care weren't almost impossible to get?

A little thought would go a long way toward answering your idea of what is going on. Let's suppose you are right, the dollar signs are primary in importance. In that case, the cost of solving the problem your way is far greater than the cost of just shuffling a few homeless folks around the country.

If you are wrong, and people are important too, well that means there are other factors at work that aren't accounted for in your dismissive and simplified to the point of untruth assessment.
 
In a society that likes to sue everybody for everything, I can see how on some level, this is trying to protect some people from becoming victims by trying to help others.

Imagine feeding some homeless people, a few get sick because there's peanut oil or something like that in the food, and BLAMMO - major law suits and the helper becomes a victiim and potentially sued into homelessness themselves.

By the homeless they tried feeding as well as a few others who'll claim they were there when they weren't just to join the class action.
 
Don't be silly, where did I say that?

A little thought would go a long way toward answering your idea of what is going on. Let's suppose you are right, the dollar signs are primary in importance. In that case, the cost of solving the problem your way is far greater than the cost of just shuffling a few homeless folks around the country.

If you are wrong, and people are important too, well that means there are other factors at work that aren't accounted for in your dismissive and simplified to the point of untruth assessment.

It's not about the dollar signs. No one is suggesting just giving the homeless hordes of money will help them. I'm talking about programs to help them solve the problems many of them have, which by the way, are often caused by the fact that help was inaccessible to them BEFORE they were homeless. It could be free if everyone just agreed to do it. But in large societies, it always involve planning and thus money.

Right, it's cheaper to just try to starve them out, so that makes it inherently better.
 
"These people" need to put some work into it themselves. Nobody can do it for them.

Nope, but it would sure help if the programs they need weren't totally inaccessible to someone who's making less than upper middle class, even with insurance.

You can't just un-psychotic yourself, or un-addict yourself. People need help for things like that.

They can have all the willingness in the world, but if they are simply turned away, it's not going to help them. I've known many people who wound up falling apart after being refused help because they weren't rich or well-insured, because our system is horrifically expensive beyond anything anywhere else in the developed world.
 
Back
Top Bottom