• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

People who do this need to go to the nuthouse.

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
But are they cleaner/more sanitary than the Germanics more south of Sweden? I've seen pictures of Swedish homes and they look immaculate enough to eat off the floor. I can't imagine Swedes smell like BO in public like the Germans do if the appearance of their houses bear any relevance. I've been on the German U-Bahn so my nose knows firsthand.

For Germanics, the Swedes, Dutch and Amish are quite peaceniks otherwise Germanics are quite war-like.The Amish men are all bearded and don't strike me as a people of good hygiene. I don't think they shower and use deodorant because they are so old-fashioned. I think they must bathe in a wooden tub if at all.
:rolleyes:
 

Earthtank

Active Member
Man caught pooping in aisle of San Francisco Safeway

What would happen in Texas or some other Red state if somebody were to do this in a supermarket?

I know there is squalor in some Walmarts, but goodness!


"Last month, San Francisco Supervisor Matt Haney called the city’s poop problem a national embarrassment."


When humanity stoops this low, I would say the world is on its last two legs.

San fran in its entirety is a national embarrassment.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
This thread rather reminds me of a subplot on my favorite TV show, Bluebloods.
It's a drama about New York police. Of course, the show is fiction, but one episode included an all too real problem.

The new mayor had promised to clean up the homeless people in the upscale touristy parts of the city. He required the police to pick them up when the temperature went below 49F(for their own safety) and deliver them to shelters. The shelters were in "less influential" neighborhoods.
The problem was that the shelters were already packed with voluntary clients.
And the mayor had also promised to cut the city budget, so the shelters were already on the brink and had no hope of help from the city to deal with this new influx.

Dumping hundreds of homeless people who didn't want to be there kinda trashed the shelter's ability to operate at all. So hundreds of homeless people invaded those poorer neighborhoods the shelters were located in. Taking their mental health issues with them, and all the problems those cause.

Because, as a Christian might put it, "there was no room at the inn".
Tom
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
Except that rich people have an inordinate amount of influence over public policy. Therefore, the policies that work to make the rich richer and the poor poorer are the responsibility of the rich. They're stacking the deck in their own favor.

Let's just look at the problem outlined in the OP. Let me try to connect the dots for you, since you seem willfully contrary on this.

1. Homeless person poops in Safeway.
2. Why is this person homeless? Because he can't afford to buy/rent housing.
3. Why can't he afford to buy/rent housing? Because it's too expensive or he doesn't make enough money (or a combination of the two).
4a. Why is housing too expensive? Because a rich person decided (all on their own) to set the price too high and is clearly demanding more money than he/she actually deserves.
4b. Why does the individual not make enough money? Because a rich person decided that they should be paid less and not get enough to live a decent life.

So, it seems quite obvious, self-evident, and logical to me. The situation is as it is because of the questionable choices made by rich people, ostensibly due to blind greed and nothing else. The only remedy is intervention from above, either in the form of higher taxes on the rich, wage/price/rent controls, or similar measures to equalize society and level the playing field.

When Reagan took office, his theory was that, by lowering taxes on the rich and deregulating the marketplace, it would encourage the rich to spend more, invest more - with the idea that the benefit would "trickle down" to the rest of society. That didn't happen. The expectation was that, in an unfettered, deregulated market with low taxes, the wealthy would have greater freedom of choice, with the assumption that they would make the right choice which would bring about the greatest benefit to America as a whole. At least, that's what they promised, and that's why a lot of people voted for him.

Now, nearly 40 years later, we see that just the opposite has happened. Even though Reagan believed the wealthy would make the right choices if he gave them freedom to do so, it's clear that they did not. They pushed for more outsourcing and created the Rust Belt. They strongly opposed labor unions (which is hypocritical from those who claim to support a free, deregulated, laissez-faire society). They cut social programs which left a lot of people out in the cold. Meanwhile, they continued to support interventionist warmongering, fiscally irresponsible borrow-and-spend policies, and an insurmountable trade deficit. The infrastructure is collapsing, our once-booming industry is dead, America's credit rating is sinking, and our influence and prestige around the world has also decreased to a measurable degree.

Who do you think is responsible for this? The poor? The working class? They don't set policy or influence society.
Thank you.
You could have saves yourself a lot of credibility had you replied with this in the first place...
 

Shad

Veteran Member
There are some who might say, "Execute each and every last one of those homeless bums." Gladly I'm not numbered among such savage monsters with that way of thinking. I say tax the rich enough and stop spending money on frivolous crap as $600 navy toilet seats to truly help those people.

I rather see involuntary institutionalization return instead of turning out people to the streets and throwing money at them. Execution is just stupid.

One homeless man I interact with has a mind so shattered he is not capable of asking for help even if he wanted to. He is not really "there" (mind aspect) anymore. His clothing is rotting, he has not used any facility for hygiene for years by the smell of him. He can not focus long enough to have any sort of discussion. Mind you there are a number of facilities in my city that provide free clothing, shelter and access to facilities without issues regarding those that need the support. So it is not like he has no where to turn. He just can't do it himself. Government doesn't care as long as he doesn't commit a crime.
 
Last edited:

ginaGH

New Member
All this is very terrible. But homeless people themselves brought themselves to such a state. Or am I wrong?
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
All this is very terrible. But homeless people themselves brought themselves to such a state. Or am I wrong?

Sounds like a just world fallacy. I don't think anyone brings themselves to any state. It's more a matter of upbringing, socioeconomic background, education, availability of mental health care, etc.
 
Top