Comment by kevingadd | Hacker News Reader

Comment by kevingadd | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

While objectively correct, the policy you describe is incredibly cruel. People often end up homeless through no fault of their own, and more importantly, temporarily homeless. Should someone lose all their pets just because they end up homeless for a couple days or a week? Do we want to fill the animal shelters up even further and send more animals off to be euthanized?

Imagine being a young child, already traumatized by ending up homeless, and now the pet you've been growing up with gets dragged off by the authorities to be executed.

It's absolutely the case that difficult problems can require the state to exert force to solve them, but I'm also just not convinced that forcing people into shelters is going to fix everything. Especially in this case where we know the area does not have enough beds for everyone, and the constraints enforced to get a bed are onerous (throw out your belongings, get rid of your pets, etc)

Some of the people who reject housing also cannot realistically be in a shelter because they will just cause trouble for everyone else if you force them to go. My brother used to work in law enforcement and this was an issue with the most troublesome homeless people in the area - as a law enforcement officer he really didn't have any workable tools. If you take them to a shelter they'll get kicked out because they're troubled, and if you take them to jail their condition will not improve (only deteriorate) and then they end up back on the street again once they're discharged.

I think what’s incredibly cruel is blocking people from building additional housing on their own private land that could help affordably house people at ZERO cost to the state.

> Imagine being a young child, already traumatized by ending up homeless, and now the pet you've been growing up with gets dragged off by the authorities to be executed.

Im sorry but pets die, it’s a part of life. It can be traumatic no matter what the circumstances. But so is living unhoused on the street, I’d imagine.

And this is exactly the attitude I mean. You, a well intentioned liberal, like to think that we can regulate society and enforce laws without causing any trauma to anyone involved.

Sometimes you have to take away a pet from a family in the name of the greater good for society as a whole, for instance if that pet is a danger to others.

And I did not say that forcing people into shelters will fix everything. There are a lot of other problems including drug addiction and mental illness. It’s incredibly sad how far we’ve allowed the situation to degrade, and the climb out of here will be difficult.

Always amusing to me when people like you say things like that. Treat the trauma like it’s nothing. I’d love to see you get forced into a traumatic situation by the government and keep that same attitude.

Just an utter lack of empathy. People like you should have no say in how a society is run.

You're making a lot of assumptions about what traumatic situations I may or may not have been in. Maybe it is because I have been through some shit that I realize sometimes we have to do "mean" things to people, sometimes for their own good but often for the good of those around them.

Killing their dog and giving them a temporary bed is stupid and cruel solution.

And stupid cruel people with power make others suffer and some of them will end up homeless.

The homeless needs a lot of nurturing to get back on their feet.

I am anti-cruelty and suffering, but it is not always cruel to force someone to do something they don't want to do, and it is not always kind to give them what they want.

If the choice is between them getting back on their feet but having to put the dog up for adoption (which is what I meant, not executing the dog on the spot), vs being stuck indefinitely homeless, I know which one I'm picking.

And again, I don't think "dogs" are the main impediment to homeless rehabilitation, the whole discussion is a sideshow. It was an illustrative example about well meaning intentions gone awry.

The criticisms of your dog policy were illustrative also. The cases for forcing homeless people out of jobs and possessions are even weaker.

I am skeptical the choice you presented was illustrative. Temporary shelter is not enough often.

The supply of dogs exceeds demand. Have the honesty and courage to acknowledge the consequences of your proposals.

I understand your argument. It is a tough situation to get out from, between a cycle of mental illness, isolation, a tough climb out.

Life can be very cruel. And when everyone and everything failed that man, and nothing left for him but that dog, he is then faced with a choice of between leaving the dog to try to fit again in a world that hurt him. No wonder many are stuck in this situation.

Trying to justify arguing for doing harm to others with allusions to your own trauma does not make arguing for doing harm to others any better.

? I was just responding to the immediate reply that I wouldn't feel the same if the government had done something traumatic to me, when actually they have and I do. My past trauma is not justifying anything, but it does inform my thinking.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com