correcthorsedickbatterystaple

A not insignificant portion of the homeless are drug addicts, severely mentally ill, or both. These people can be dangerous. Not having them congregate in very public areas is a public safety issue. Full stop.

A not insignificant portion of the most vulnerable among the public are drug addicts, severely mentally ill, or both. These people can be dangerous due to not receiving treatment according to their and the public’s health needs. Not having them ( “a not insignificant…untreated…portion of the homeless”) congregate in very public areas is a human rights issue.

P.S. Both sides have valid points. The charity has a right to distribute food, but the most vulnerable among the public don’t have the same right to safely use public facilities as the rest of the public.

biblically accurate samsung galaxy s24

the only truth to the headline is the increasingly part - and it’s because of articles like this.

if anyone’s interested in some further reading / contextual information on this article / conflict specifically (or conflict generally):

distinction & proportionality

“a fart is a turd honking for the right of way”

…not if everyone is afraid to use sick days / lose wages / repercussions from management / yadda yadda yadda

so take my hand and walk this land with me

living as a service

who are you, Winston Smith, that’s so important…

Congress shall make no law

i think a lot of people misunderstand positive vs negative rights. the US Constitution doesn’t grant rights. the Declaration of Independence declared all are endowed with rights by a creator. that is the origin of our rights - inalienable. the Constitution doesn’t grant anything. it establishes the structure of a federal government, and the amendments to that guarantee what already exists in the Declaration. it limits power of an authority over a person.

a very divisive example is arms. the Constitution doesn’t grant americans the right to keep and bear arms. it limits the government from prohibiting such.

of course…this is the intent not necessarily the reality

edit:
also the lack of critical thinking of this argument is so astounding i didn’t even notice it at first…no freedom from religion…which…one? which version of that one…? the constitution - which compels nothing but the government - can…compel americans to all be…uh - jehovah’s witnesses? mormons? sunni? bahai?

linking this, but inviting challenges to it knowing there are numerous counterexamples of instability but still 219 years is a long time

there’s no evidence you’re not typing that comment because a gnome jumped up your butthole

you’re absolutely right. perfect should be the enemy of good.

you honestly believe the global south will be no worse if the world’s only hegemon turns fascist?

deleted by creator

this…is news?

no idea why some take issue with your statement…the 9th paragraph of the article:

“The problem is that where destructive earthquakes are rare, buildings are simply not constructed robustly enough to cope with strong ground shaking, so many collapse, resulting in high casualties,” said Bill McGuire, professor emeritus of geophysical and climate hazards at University College London. “I would expect the final death toll to climb into the thousands once more is known. As with any big quake, aftershocks are likely, which will lead to further casualties and hinder search and rescue.”

emphasis mine

the rich won’t stop until it’s literally Living As A Service.

am i living in a parallel universe ?

…sounds like it

i’m sorry but i have to be pedantic here. it’s not how you get your revenue it’s the good or service you provide.

magazines are not ad companies. TV channels are not ad companies. the source of your revenue does not make you a company in a sector of that source.