top | item 19695853

(no title)

jakevn | 6 years ago

The former is preferable because you are providing a disservice to the community that will not allow you dignity, even though they can most obviously afford it.

discuss

order

toomanyrichies|6 years ago

Counterpoint- "the community that will not allow you dignity" is not a homogenous entity. The city of San Francisco contains multitudes, many of whom are compassionate individuals who take active measures to help those on the streets. By pooping on the sidewalk / in front of City Hall / etc., one indiscriminately targets both those who are compassionate and those who aren't.

Furthermore, one isn't likely to create a community that does allow dignity for all, without first winning the hearts and minds of the less-than-compassionate members of the public. And one isn't likely to win those people over by pooping on their doorstep.

manfredo|6 years ago

Again, the issue is not affordability but the fact that public restrooms are abused and used for dangerous and often illicit activity

The former is not preferable because it spreads disease, and instills disdain for the homeless among the community thus decreasing willingness to dedicate resources towards services helping the homeless (thus hurting those homeless that do try to maintain good hygiene).

Not to mention, you have a very negative and prejudiced view of the homeless if you think that they desire to cause harm to the city. The overwhelming majority of homeless are not the spiteful, antisocial people you seem to believe them to be. They may often resort to harmful activity to survive (e.g. theft) but rarely have I seen them cause harm for no reason but to make other people suffer. Maybe things like leaving trash strewn about after scavenging through it, but that's more negligent than spiteful.

jakevn|6 years ago

Do you honestly believe that someone that is living on the streets, shitting in the open, is thinking about the spread of disease or homelessness PR?