While we might compare a Don supporter to a slug, I believe pigeons have less in common with the homeless than you think. Self-esteem, pride, humility, etc. are not well known traits in pigeons. Linking the homeless with pigeons seems right in line with conservatives who believe under funding welfare is the best incentive to make those loafers get a job. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
And I never venture past 10th Street...
I wasn't lowering the plight of the homeless to pidgeonry, just using the raw fact that helping homeless at intersections will bring more homeless to intersections.
A mere statistical fact, devoid of the other dynamics of homelessness.
If you are asserting that my thinking on this is equal to conservatives mentality that ending welfare will get loafers off the sofa and two work, you are putting words in my mouth.
In fact, you've made some associations I didn't mention, nor mean to imply.
If you can cast aside these associations, which, I do understand the tendency of the mind to do that, and stick to the raw fact, devoid of any other dynamic, you just might realize I'm correct in that helping the homeless at intersections will bring more homeless to intersections, and is that a good thing?
Maybe in your neighborhood, but I sincerely believe that most people people in most neighborhoods would not prefer it.
I see a lot of homeless sitting in front of convenience stores, such as a 7-11.
How would you like if it you owned a convenience store and you knew that customers will giving money to the homeless? when they do that, it will bring more homeless to your store?
Is that something you would want for your store?
Would it be any different for your neighborhood?
Wouldn't it be better for the homeless to be in a place where they might get some attention to their needs, better than what they might receive at an intersection?
In San Diego, not long ago, there was a hepatitis A problem with the homeless, there is a health issue here.
I"m just asking questions.
Some people, in my view, are beyond rehabilitation and should become wards of the state, institutionalized. This idea that people who wander the streets because they are totally incapable, due to mental illness, etc ( mostly mental illness ) in my view, should not be allowed to be homeless, they should be institutionalized, but that creates a rights issue.
Well, Reagan changed all that, didn't he? I never understood why he did that, and he caused homeless people whose needs were being attended to in institutions, kicked them out of the institutions and now they are walking the streets, and are now spreading disease in our neighborhoods, what, for "rights?" What about citizens rights not to have to stumble over mentally sick people and catch a disease?
I know that sounds callous, but there's a problem and I'm just tossing some ideas on how to deal with it, or how we did deal with it, once upon a time, noting that once upon a time, there were much less homeless than there are now. We had "hoboes" back in the day, and they weren't really sick, it was a lifestyle for many like that, riding trains to cities, hitchiking. I knew a guy whose "job" was hitchiking. That is how he made his living, off the generosity of drivers. He wasn't going anywhere, in particular, but he didn't tell the driver that, he just relied on their generosity to get a meal, and maybe a few bucks for a haircut and a shower, somewhere. But, today's homeless, most I've observed, are out of it. Lost souls, it's sad,, really.
I'm just asking questions. I feel sorry for people who lose a job, and could use some help, but people who are just fricking out of their minds, ga ga bat**** crazy, they need to be cared for in hospitals by professionals, and I just don't see how letting them wander about, aimlessly, is a good thing for them and for society, as a whole.