Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Metropolitan DC Local Politics
Reply to "Encampment by the Metropolitan Branch Trail "
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The encampments are a public health disaster waiting to happen. [/quote] How so? [/quote] Seriously? Go visit a country like India with people living and defecating in the streets. Open, raw sewage. Do you not see how that leads to health problems? TB is just one issue. Cities in India are actually trying to clean up these settlements and you want them to flourish here in the US?[/quote] No one wants them to flourish here. Obviously. The point is that these are human beings who will continue to need to defecate wherever you send them. Clearing out an encampment like this is not going to stop them from shitting on a daily basis. Come up with a civilized alternative for them. [/quote] Is caring for someone who demonstrably can't care for themselves unconstitutional? Is foster care unconstitutional? Then those people need to be removed from the societal context and locked up. Forcibly and indefinitely. Federal work camps[/quote] I’m the person who said it was a public health disaster waiting to happen. Government-run “work camps“ are also notorious for epidemics. This is what my undergrad degree focused on.[/quote] The government needs to build CCC-like camps for chronically homeless adults. They should be compulsory. The campers can rebuild national park infrastructure and trails or retrofit affordable homes with solar panel. Government should provide medical care, including mental health care as necessary, plus three squares a day and training. Once government meets those obligations, no one should have the right to beg, sleep and defecate on the street.[/quote] Chronically homeless adults have severe mental health or substance abuse problems. They are not able to do the type of work you mention. They will still defecate in the wrong places because they are very ill. Do you really want to give pickaxes to the same people you are afraid to ride the Metro with?[/quote][/quote] Then those people need to be removed from the societal context and locked up. Forcibly and indefinitely. [/quote] well that's unconstitutional. do you have any actual ideas?[/quote][/quote] Is caring for someone who demonstrably can't care for themselves unconstitutional? Is foster care unconstitutional? [/quote] Yes, it actually is. You can't hold someone against their will even if they are mentally ill. You would need to prove they are a danger to self or others and the burden is fairly high. Minors are incompetent in the eyes of the law simply due to their age, different issue.[/quote] Isnt being unable to care for yourself being a danger to yourself? If you are asking for free food and land, wrapped in multiple blankets in summer, tick or flea ridden and filth encrusted and delusional, what's the difference between being in an institution where you can get actual care?[/quote] There is a very high bar for danger to self and it typically involves immediate threats to harm yourself. Neglect usually doesn't count.[/quote] This is the current definition, but open to change in the law and further interpretation.[/quote] Only if you want your rights totally compromised too. [/quote] Yeah, but once people simply take free public land, use public facilities in ways they are not intended (bathing, defecating) there is a right trade off. [/quote] 'Not intended' by who exactly? You? God? the founding fathers? A presence on public land is not the same as 'taking' it. By definition it is public and available for use by the public. The constitution is pretty clear in protections of freedom which has led to Homeless pyschopaths camping in public places in major cities and lunatics having complete gun access to shoot up classrooms each week. The privileges of living in a free country. [/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics