Vegas has illegalized feeding the homeless. Good law or ridiculous?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

>Don't feed them and they will die, in the parks.

Would save some money on fertilizer. We could then give everyone a tax break. Call it a "death tax cut."

Yea, maybe, "Soilent Green" was a factual prognostication. The ones that die before that process can be fertilizer

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

No it's not just your country.... there aren't many countries out there that advertise their homeless... most people pay homage to a Not-in-my-backyard attitude and move them on etc.... F'shame on all of us.


.

Hey hey hey. No need to distract him from "its-only-the-US" notions. stop being silly.

It's mostly the US. Especially when you factor in that we are supposedly the richest nation in the world - makes it more shameless.

[GTAVercetti 0]

At least you are posting on DZ.com and really getting out there and doing something about it.

I am not sure how many countries you have been to, but EVERY one I have been to has had homeless people who are not cared for. Though I suppose the US should take care of ALL of them as well.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

The ACLU will be fucking all over this one and will likely win even while in a Fascist state..... there still are limits.

Fascist state might be a bit of a stretch.

Quote

I can see the need for trying to minimise harrassing behavior from panhandlers.

But how can you blame the giver and not the so-called harrasser? The reason is that vegrancy laws are done, so they have to go after the giver. So now they can control what you do wiith your food and whom you decide to give it to?

I think the idea is to get people to stop encouraging the behaviour of panhandling.

Quote

We have had problems here in Toronto with aggressive panhandlers who will badger people and in some cases threaten or attack people.

I don't think that's representative of 99% of beggers.

Depends where you live. In Canada there is more of a sense of entitlement amongst our citicens (unfortunately) and that is also reflected in our panhandlers. Interestingly enough, tourists from around the world including the US have commented on the relative aggressiveness of the panhandlers here. Some of the ones here tend to act like wild bears that have grown accustomed to being fed by humans and it is causing problems.

Quote

I am all for charity but I can see a need for controlling panhandling.

How about more social services? If I were homeless and I could get free services from a shelter Iwould go there rather than begging.***

We don't need more organizations. We need to cut down on the number of charities and increase the breadth of distribution from the ones left over. Each charity requires a certain amount of overhead and administrative costs and the utter lack of economies of scale we see in the large number of charities results in a larger proportion of donations being put towards running each charity. With fewer charities we could cut down on the amount of directors, treasurers...etc and see more positive returns.

Furthermore since much of the coldness people have towards panhandlers is derived from the negative experiences most have had with these guys, a law that cuts back on panhandling may allow people a little bit of breathing room which could result in them becoming a little more charitable. I know that moving to a large city where I had been harrased and even threatened by panhandlers caused me to develop a "Fuck-em" attitude (which I admit is wrong). I never felt that way when it was not being shoved in my face.

Richards

***Fascist state might be a bit of a stretch.

If you look up the definition of Fascist, you will see that one of the major components of it are that the corporations make the laws rather than the people, hence corporatism. This law is to remove the unsighlty vegrants from the parks.

Quote

I think the idea is to get people to stop encouraging the behaviour of panhandling.

They're going to panhandle until they're dead. So by illegalizing it in the parks will only move them from the parks, beg and eat, then back to the parks they go as a best case scenario. You're not going to stop begging.

Quote

Depends where you live. In Canada there is more of a sense of entitlement amongst our citicens (unfortunately) and that is also reflected in our panhandlers. Interestingly enough, tourists from around the world including the US have commented on the relative aggressiveness of the panhandlers here. Some of the ones here tend to act like wild bears that have grown accustomed to being fed by humans and it is causing problems.

I can't speak for Canada, but I can't believe they are criminal and the authorities don't arrest them. I hear the entitlement claim and feel it's a brokne record response. Kinda hard for you to assert the claim that they feel entitled when there is no evidence to support that.

Quote

We don't need more organizations. We need to cut down on the number of charities and increase the breadth of distribution from the ones left over.

OK, my point is that there aren't enough services regardless of how we slice it. 100 gov services handing out X or 50 handing out 2X. There aren't enough.

Quote

Furthermore since much of the coldness people have towards panhandlers is derived from the negative experiences most have had with these guys, a law that cuts back on panhandling may allow people a little bit of breathing room which could result in them becoming a little more charitable.

Please. Starve the poor so it teaches them manners. UH, I've never had a bad experience with a begger. I've plenty of bad experiences with rich and snotty people thinking they have entitlements to parking spaces, seats in restaurants, etc...

Quote

I know that moving to a large city where I had been harrased and even threatened by panhandlers caused me to develop a "Fuck-em" attitude (which I admit is wrong). I never felt that way when it was not being shoved in my face.

Once I had a black guy screw me over, hence all black people are bad. Tell me, do you hire people to cut the crust off of your bread?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

At least you are posting on DZ.com and really getting out there and doing something about it.

I am not sure how many countries you have been to, but EVERY one I have been to has had homeless people who are not cared for. Though I suppose the US should take care of ALL of them as well.

So if I don't spend every second then I have no right to talk about it? I imagine you agree with the war, so if that's true then if you're not over there you have no right to support it, right? It's reasonable to have an opinion and not be proactive.

Quote

I am not sure how many countries you have been to, but EVERY one I have been to has had homeless people who are not cared for. Though I suppose the US should take care of ALL of them as well.

I've been to several. Uh, not as many as in the US, but I haven't been to Africa and Ethiopia and the sort.

No, the US should quit being Imperialists, hence don't care for other countries nearly as much as we do. I say we focus on our borders and our people - if there's anything left over, help others.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

I imagine you agree with the war, so if that's true then if you're not over there you have no right to support it, right?

Imagine that. You assumed wrong.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[genoyamamoto 0]

Quote

Quote

Feed them, and they will come.

Don't feed them and they will die, in the parks.

Like this, VERY graphic but illustrates the consequences of inhumanity:

Pics

More here

And here

There are more, I just got sick of looking up this stupid, pointless suffering and death.
I wonder what those families will say when they find dead homeless people on their nice Las Vegas lawns.

Gotta go... plaything needs to spank me
Feel the hate...
Photos here

[Andy9o8 2]

I agree with GTA that the neglect of the homeless occurs in every country, not just the US

I agree with Lucky... (what's with the dots?) that having so many uncared-for homeless in the US, given its wealth, is particularly shameful. Ordinances like these make it all the more so.

I wish GTA & Lucky would stop spatting. I wonder if they have a....special....relationship?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

There's that Libertarian in you

So if private charities and church groups, etc decide they are broke or resources are limited, who does it?

Look, I read a Ross Perot pamphlet once that explained it well:

The old people die and we dehydrate them and use the chemicals for our personal use. Perhaps in plastics or pharmaceuticals.

The homeless die and eat each other. Thus the ones that live are better off and the total number of homeless is reduced greatly. Further, they have incentive to get jobs. The old are too chewy to eat.

everybody wins

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,120]

>The homeless die and eat each other.

Oh, great. Now we have cannibal zombies to deal with in our parks, too. Nice going Mr. Unexpected Side Effect.

[lawrocket 3]

Illegal to feed them? What if they buy the meal?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>Oh, great. Now we have cannibal zombies to deal with in our parks, too. Nice going Mr. Unexpected Side Effect.

But, zombies aren't so bad if you just 'open your mind' to their lifestyle and stop judging them with your antiquated morals. Peace and Love, dude, peace and love - with that, you can 'celebrate' their existence.

edit: frankly, I didn't think anyone would continue past the "I read a Ross Perot pamphlet" part.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

>The homeless die and eat each other.

Oh, great. Now we have cannibal zombies to deal with in our parks, too. Nice going Mr. Unexpected Side Effect.

I totally expected it and now I get to try out my brand new "2x4 with a rusty nail" weapon. Sweet.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I totally expected it and now I get to try out my brand new "2x4 with a rusty nail" weapon. Sweet.

OUTLAW Boards with Nails In them.


they cause crime

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[nanook 1]

Quote

So supporting/enforcing the law is part of fixing the homeless problem? How so? Please explain in some detail how that will work - illegalizing feeding people in parks will fix the homeless problem (fewer homeless people) exactly how

The same way as battling pan-handling; don't give them money, they will go somewhere else.

Quote

The demand will maintain unless there other sources of help, or if the homeless die off. Is that part of the, "fix?" The supply will follow the demand, pending there are charitable people to help. If the government actually had adaqute outlets to help, the demand would be centralized away from the parks, the streets and businesses.

the purpose is to restrict supply from one source.

As far as the other source (Soup kitchens ect . . .), there's only so much money the gov't has to spend on certain programs. The loudest, most important priority-sounding program will get the money. If people want more money for the Homeless problem, they have to be louder. Or maybe raise taxes for more revenue.

Maybe the people fighting this law should use that huge amount of energy to lobby some funds away from some other program so the homeless has more. Or would that require them to care for the homeless more than themselves and their liberties. I feel that fighting the law is as self-serving as the people who passed it in the first place.

Quote

Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Now, whether Las Vegas is trying to fight homelessness for aesthetic puropses or for humanitarian purposes, .....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I guess I'm lost on this remark, how is it that they have claimed or it will become a humanitarian result by outlawing the giving of food to homeless people by citizens while in the parks. This a park beautification measure.

The news sources that I have read made the assumption that it was a beautification measure. I didn't see any gov't officials being quoted as saying that. I slapped in "humanitarian" as a possible opposing reason. it was more of a filler. If you have a source that states that the officials said that, show me. I'll read it.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

The old are too chewy to eat.

Not if they're well-marinated in dijon vinaigrette.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

The old are too chewy to eat.

Not if they're well-marinated in dijon vinaigrette.

Many of the old AND homeless are supposed to be "Pre-marinated"

I think a red wine would match nicely. Drunk from paper bag for ambience

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Well, that on is easy. Those homeless are just too fucking lazy to work for a living. By banning giving them food, they will ahve a great incentive to go and work for a living...

Can't speak to the rest of the country, but SF in particular and the Bay Area in general has a significant portion of the 'homeless' that are lazy fucks that need to be given incentive to work for a living. 20year olds have found they csan do better than minimum wage (a lot better on some corners) panhandling on Market Street.

When the mayor (aka, mr gay mariage) converted GA checks into mostly vouchers for food and housing, the number of people on the books plunged.

Sad thing is that these freeloaders are taking from people with real need.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Furthermore, I don't have the language of the law,

Let's not bother with the actual details....

I've seen it in the news for days now. I would have to live in a vacuum not to have heard about it. I will do a 5 second internet search since you don't believe me.

It's just that you've asked us to vote on the properness of it, without telling us what it is. So you're compounding your ignorance with our's. All the polling will reveal is the left/right bias of the participants.

[billvon 3,120]

>I totally expected it and now I get to try out my brand new "2x4 with a rusty nail" weapon.

Like a zombie cares about a nail in his head. Don't you watch TV? They have to get blown to bits or dissolved in a vat of acid or something. Or eaten by a more-cooperative cannibal zombie. We've taken to calling these more-useful undead types "freedom eaters."

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

>I totally expected it and now I get to try out my brand new "2x4 with a rusty nail" weapon.

Like a zombie cares about a nail in his head. Don't you watch TV? They have to get blown to bits or dissolved in a vat of acid or something.

This is real life bill. Everyon knows that you can pound that nail into their skulls and then rip their head right off due to the rapid acceleration of flesh decay. Then you can just take the 2x4 and pound the skull into bits.

Sheesh, man.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

I imagine you agree with the war, so if that's true then if you're not over there you have no right to support it, right?

Imagine that. You assumed wrong.

It was purely an example, but the point is, whatever your value system, you must proactively pursue all avenues to better your platform or you have no right having your opinions...... at least based upon your inferring I have no right pulling for the homeless unless I proactively do all I can to help them.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

There's that Libertarian in you

So if private charities and church groups, etc decide they are broke or resources are limited, who does it?

Look, I read a Ross Perot pamphlet once that explained it well:

The old people die and we dehydrate them and use the chemicals for our personal use. Perhaps in plastics or pharmaceuticals.

The homeless die and eat each other. Thus the ones that live are better off and the total number of homeless is reduced greatly. Further, they have incentive to get jobs. The old are too chewy to eat.

everybody wins

Funny, but aside from the fun of the topic in that context, there are peole hurting there and we have plenty of resource to fix it. I feel it's the atmosphere of the pecking order here, people poorer bring you down; people richer make it possible for you to exist. We are taught to have contempt for people of lesser economic classes than us, up and down the scale.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Illegal to feed them? What if they buy the meal?

Seriously, and that was covered in the law too, it states something about if they buy the meal as well. I would like to see the actual ordinance. They could circumvent this by meeting a block away as the truck drives by.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

I totally expected it and now I get to try out my brand new "2x4 with a rusty nail" weapon. Sweet.

OUTLAW Boards with Nails In them.


they cause crime

When people don't have an actual argument, they defer to hillarity. Although I appreciate making fun of things, you must admit that this is pretty depraved. You also must admit that the Libertarian approach is just as depraved and this is why they will never be taken seriously until they modify their approach on homelessness.