@shavixmir saidThat's because you don't know what a 'right' is Pseud Boy.
No. That is not how it works. You don’t have a right to live in indecency. That’s not noted in any treaties or international declarations.
You moronic fukking incel.
For some people decent is; aircon, a swimming pool, a maid and a gym, for others it might be no power, no internet and no running water out in the boonies. That is their right to decide that for themselves, you don't get to set it and if you could quote a 'treaties or international declarations' that says so, then let's see it. For some 'decent' is a certain minimum level of cleanliness and tidiness, for others they don't change their sheets or vacuum for months at a time. You don't get to determine that, because that is their right.
Prediction: Shag doody for brains will not be able to quote any 'treaties or international declarations' defining 'decency' he will then resort, as he always does, to swearing, unable to compose his thoughts or construct a counter point.
Edit: Shag doody, please for your own sake, go back to responding with a single emoji post.
@wajoma saidYou mean you don’t know.
That's because you don't know what a 'right' is Pseud Boy.
For some people decent is; aircon, a swimming pool, a maid and a gym, for others it might be no power, no internet and no running water out in the boonies. That is their right to decide that for themselves, you don't get to set it and if you could quote a 'treaties or international declarations' that says so, the ...[text shortened]... int.
Edit: Shag doody, please for your own sake, go back to responding with a single emoji post.
Just listen to yourself contradicting national and international law, regulations and declarations.
You’re a fukkwad of pathetic stupidity. I’m done with you. As I guess most other people are here.
Go rape koalas or whatever you do when you’re not watching your momma take it up her arse.
24 May 23
@athousandyoung saidThis is a big worthwhile subject. Real shame the conversation has digressed.
Leftists blame government for the homeless problem, but so do conservatives! Notice that the California and San Francisco governments are constantly being blamed for the homeless epidemic in San Francisco and the rest of CA. This implies the government should be intervening but right wingers are also constantly trying to "drown the government in the bathtub" as Grover ...[text shortened]... sibility does the government have for homelessness? How much government intervention is appropriate?
I don't know about the states. In the UK homelessness was eased over Covid, the government paid for any street homeless to stay in B&Bs it cost a lot and as soon as possible the people were back on the streets.
Each council has a duty to some of the homeless in their area (or people who are threatened with homelessness).
The homeless person needs to know to apply, satisfy the council that they:
Are eligible for assistance,
Are in priority need
And are not intentionally homeless
And then they are placed in temporary accommodation. The lucky ones who satisfied the above are placed in accommodation which has poor standards and is very expensive (the council have to pay usually because of the kind of people who got through the above).
The only result, as I can see it, for the affected person or family, is they are off the street. Whether they are safe and warm is not for sure. I don't know of anyone in temporary accommodation who said they were comfortable or could feel 'at home'.
Of cause, also the rich get richer the budget for the local council has been tens of thousands a month.
Someone can be in temporary accommodations (they might get moved with hours notice) for years. It's not a workable solution.
If you are interested in the UK rules:
https://england.shelter.org.uk/professional_resources/legal/homelessness_applications/local_authority_homelessness_duties/local_authority_main_housing_duty
24 May 23
@shavixmir saidRead what? Please tell us what to read.
Everyone does have a right to housing.
Can’t you read?
@yo-its-me saidOh, no....not another one who decries the rich getting richer. Jesus.
This is a big worthwhile subject. Real shame the conversation has digressed.
I don't know about the states. In the UK homelessness was eased over Covid, the government paid for any street homeless to stay in B&Bs it cost a lot and as soon as possible the people were back on the streets.
Each council has a duty to some of the homeless in their area (or people who are th ...[text shortened]... egal/homelessness_applications/local_authority_homelessness_duties/local_authority_main_housing_duty
News Flash. That is what the rich do. Being profane is what the Shavs of the world do. And they don't ride first class, i predict Shav will never fly up front.
24 May 23
@averagejoe1 saidAre you making a point here?
Oh, no....not another one who decries the rich getting richer. Jesus.
News Flash. That is what the rich do. Being profane is what the Shavs of the world do. And they don't ride first class, i predict Shav will never fly up front.
What should the government do about homelessness?
Well, hopefully not make it worse. It's worse when the rich are richer imo, having people with money to afford houses means house prices go up and means the divide between rich and poor increases. This means more homlessness.
@averagejoe1 saidI already told you.
Read what? Please tell us what to read.
You ain’t worth the ticking of my fingers.
24 May 23
@shavixmir saidEveryone has a right to eat themselves to death with ice cream. Doesn't mean others must provide the ice cream.
I already told you.
You ain’t worth the ticking of my fingers.
@shavixmir saidHaha, shag doody for brains thinks there's a law against eating too much ice cream. That people don't have a right to eat as much ice cream as they like.
No they don’t. Moron.
How much is that? What is the ice cream legal limit? And which law was it? Is this a UN thing, haha.
It's the same place that the law about decent living, in shag doodys imagination.
You see the bind you get yourself in pseud boy, when you talk about rights but you don't know what they are. ;^P
24 May 23
@yo-its-me saidIf I follow your thinking, logically, tell us how it would’ve happened back in, say, 1899, if we applied your logic? I think you are saying that there should have been some restrictions, so that housing does not get out of hand, which sounds very socialist to me. Are you a socialist?
Are you making a point here?
What should the government do about homelessness?
Well, hopefully not make it worse. It's worse when the rich are richer imo, having people with money to afford houses means house prices go up and means the divide between rich and poor increases. This means more homlessness.
‘Having people with money to afford houses,,’, your statement gives me the creeps. Can you go a little into depth on that statement? Maybe you would like to start a thread that says what should the government do about rich people?
Geez, everyone, we got another live one here. You take him, Mott, why Wajoma and I have our hands full.
24 May 23
@shavixmir saidYeah, everybody knows about this article that you keep trying to quote, which you are quoting incorrectly as it applies to housing. Maybe nobody knows what it means, but it sure does not mean that I can tell my yard man that you know a place where he can live for free. Now you will come back and say “oh no he would have to pay rent”. Which means you have given us a lot of wasted debate time.
I already told you.
You ain’t worth the ticking of my fingers.
@athousandyoung saidShort answer. Give them homes and invest in human capital.
Leftists blame government for the homeless problem, but so do conservatives! Notice that the California and San Francisco governments are constantly being blamed for the homeless epidemic in San Francisco and the rest of CA. This implies the government should be intervening but right wingers are also constantly trying to "drown the government in the bathtub" as Grover ...[text shortened]... sibility does the government have for homelessness? How much government intervention is appropriate?