how are you going to be like "my anecdote is actually important" with an N of magnitude 100. long-term and wide-scale research and monitoring has tracked millions of birds and have used models to extrapolate to the billions. your comment means little more than nothing. have you considered you haven't seen the extent of what the roaming cat has killed? it won't always bring it back to you. and why is it that the non-bird animals aren't important? biodiversity reduction, not just birds. and you think that even if they are sick or injured catches that your cat isn't impacting the other animals? you realize other animals gotta eat? if they can't b/c your cat takes it, or worst infects it with a parasite by chomping on it, your local predators are gonna suffer.
wow, what a spiteful, judgemental message. people always beat their children to discipline, so should we keep that relic from the past even though we know better? a cat indoors is not miserable; rather you lack creativity to get it the stimulus it needs in a way that doesn't thrust the problems of an outdoor cat onto your local community. outdoor cats are for people who like the idea of having a pet, but don't want all the responsibility to take care of it and instead relies on the local environment to provide it with all of its needs. you force non-cat owners to subsidize outdoor cat ownership. y'all are a draw on our society holding onto this idea cats need to be outdoors b/c you have a naive view of what is "natural". you think your cat is being in nature, but it's more akin to a state-sponsored killer. you think wild animals get the benefit of having a guaranteed source of food, shelter, and disease prevention?
> These problem cases can cost communities hundreds of thousands
so let's continue to spend more on incarcerating them as a bandage rather than fixing the issues :)
> incidents of... pooping...
i'm sure they just do this outside for preference rather than utter lack of access to public facilities. why couldn't they be like me during my trip to SF where i could just patronize a business to use their bathroom when i needed to go?
> menace to public health and safety
love to see the intentional split between "public" and whatever group you'd put houseless people in (those "menaces"!)
that "[point] of the justice system" only works if you consider everyone in a vacuum and have the false notion everyone has equal access to resources. parent already outlined why people living on the street don't have the means to throw away trash in the right place, but you're focused on it "enabl[ing] bad behavior" and (i assume) in support of giving people that have no money fines (which also unfairly impact poorer people, but i'm sure that's lost on you as well). we have immense resources to provide public utilities like roads, why can't there be more public garbage cans (which benefit everyone; last time i visited SF it was a pain carrying trash everywhere)
No false notions required -- all living people have a risk of loss of freedoms, which is why prison works.
> why can't there be more public garbage cans
I suppose this mostly makes sense until we start to have local businesses using them for free trash disposal. Why would I be more in favor of public trash cans you ask? (so you dont have to continue presuming...) Because it's enabling and encouraging an ideal behavior -- people dispose of their trash in an orderly manner.
> all living people have a risk of loss of freedoms
you realize that the justice system doesn't equally impact everyone, right? people with more wealth, more access are demonstrably treated better and have better outcomes with regard to the justice system, so no, all living people do not have the same risk of losing freedoms.
> ... which is why prison works
ah, there it is
i'm glad you agree with more access to public trash cans; however, i think it should be called out
> local businesses using them for free trash disposal
is already done in homeless encampments. i can find some, but there are many reports of businesses dumping in encampments because there's little risk of getting caught and no one bats an eye at trash-ridden encampments.
> everyone, right? people with more wealth, more access are demonstrably treated
I agree with you that this is an injustice and should be fixed, that doesnt mean we shouldnt work towards using the tool (it's not a either/or scenario, we can do both) .
> is already done in homeless encampments. ...
Only furthers my point as to why we should not be enabling bad behaviors
> I agree with you that this is an injustice and should be fixed, that doesnt mean we shouldnt work towards using the tool (it's not a either/or scenario, we can do both) .
idk. the amount the police harasses the unhoused, I think we all would be living in a police state if the same brutality was employed equally across citizens.
> I suppose this mostly makes sense until we start to have local businesses using them for free trash disposal.
If you really cared about this, then you would simply impose a simple tax on local businesses and give them garbage service in return. Or you’d enforce proper garbage disposal on the businesses not the unhoused. It is a lot easier to monitor and enforce the garbage disposal of businesses then that of the unhoused.
probably due to the horizontal distance it would have to traverse to get back to land (and uncontrollable factors that would limit that, e.g. wind magnitude and direction during launch). your sources don't give an overview of how far those parachutes can glide, but it feels like they are deployed relatively close to their intended touchdown point.
b/c there could be no other reasons for this to be the case, and the only solution is to arrest, jail, or fine people potentially exacerbating their poverty?
this sounds like pearl clutching and not wanting to think more about an issue with tons of variables.
what was the "ethnicity" of the people stolen from their land and brought to the US for free labor for hundreds of years? and then oppressed through new and improving ways of covert racism?
love the idea of people in the US admonishing ground of peoples for current and comparably minor transgressions and labeling them overall as violent. hn is in desperate need to break away from technobabble and read some books from different perspectives from their own from people that don't look like them and thus live in a much different world.
and to catch it before, yes violence is inexcusable. focusing on individualism and personal responsibly is myopic (and in this particular case, racist).
