"their belongings"
Having had my car prowled by homeless several times, and any yard decoration pillaged over the years, the objects in homeless camps are 90% stolen and 9% donated, and 1% actual belongings of a person
Having had my car prowled by homeless several times, and any yard decoration pillaged over the years, the objects in homeless camps are 90% stolen and 9% donated, and 1% actual belongings of a person
I think it is callous to comment about how homeless people happen to be in possession of their belongings without at least reading the article. It is a fair comment, however, to ask if examples are cherrypicked to tug at the readers' heart strings, with an agenda in mind.
I do think this article uses numerous tricks to promote this agenda.
- Referring to residents as "housed residents", as if homeless people should be considered "residents" in neighborhoods they have no business being in, in the first place.
- Saying that people are _usually_ forced to move without any connections to housing or support, but then following up with the qualification "sometimes" in the next sentence.
- Citing an example of a lady whose daughter's picture was taken away, as well as her tent, during a cold winter, while not presenting the viewpoint of people who are affected by homelessness in their midst (people such as you). What about _their_ humanity?
Well, why not? Are they residents of anywhere? If not, do you see how easily that slides into not needing to provide services for them? Not considering them deserving of anything, in fact?
> while not presenting the viewpoint of people who are affected by homelessness in their midst
We mostly get this, in most articles and conversations on this subject. Read nearly any article about it and count quotes by homeless people vs anyone else. Try it in this comment section.
>And anyway what about their humanity?
When I see a homeless person I think god what has been done to them. Not look what they are doing to me.
They are not residents, period. They are vagrants, or transients. I do not agree that vagrants and transients lose property rights summarily, but the idea of calling them some type of "resident" is ridiculous.
Homeless people are not for the most part rootless drifters. They have family, churches, regular AA groups, doctors, in some cases jobs even. They are part of your community and as such how you relate to and treat them and yes even describe them reflects on you.
The homeless ruining my city and many other major and mid size cities are literally drug addicts from all over the country and even world who sort of just shuffle around from one city to the next between jail visits
I've been through the experience of being homeless. I have some opinions about the degree to which the police cared about my problems too.
I once stole a tarp out of a yard in the face of an incoming blizzard I was hoping to survive. My sympathies are never going to be with the yard guardians here.
Framing the problem as such is a self-deluding and dishonest application of exceptional circumstances to the whole.
Also, there’s probably at least a little room for reflection about how you wound up in the situation where your very survival depended upon stealing from others, why you chose not to knock on the door and ask, and the choices you made to get out of such life circumstances.
Can you explain how to visually determine the ownership of a given item? What visual distinction is there between something that is rightfully theirs, something that was stolen, and something that was picked out of the trash?