Originally posted by Bosse de NageI think it's irresponsible.
Once housed, they're no longer homeless.
That quibble aside -- how do you feel about "homeless people breeding"?
I also think you're mistaken. There are quite a lot of people who were once housed but are now homeless. This is guaranteed with the exponential growth of a population that cannot support itself without charity.
As an experiment I recommend feeding all - I mean all - the feral cats in the neighborhood and see what happens. Of course, because we're making an analogy with humans, you can't castrate them first.
Originally posted by josephus54Yes, I do. For example, human population is currently growing exponentially. Organisms generally do grow exponentially until they run out of resources.
Do you know what exponential growth means? By the comments you have posted in your profile you apear to be rather naive.
Then comes the great, tragic culling. Whether it's war, disease, or "Jesus coming down to cleanse the Earth in holy flame" via a Christian Zealot in control of The Big Red Nuclear Button.
As we have seen, the human population growth curve is currently following an exponential curve or a "J-shape" (fig. 1).
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/human_pop/human_pop.html
I've made one comment in my profile, and it's a direct quote from a United States international legal statement. What exactly am I naive about?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNot only do I think it's irresponsible, I think it's tragic and one of many causes of crime and poverty.
I think it's irresponsible.
I also think you're mistaken. There are quite a lot of people who were once housed but are now homeless. This is guaranteed with the exponential growth of a population that cannot support itself without charity.
As an experiment I recommend feeding all - I mean all - the feral cats in the neighborhood and see ...[text shortened]... ens. Of course, because we're making an analogy with humans, you can't castrate them first.
However, with respect to this topic, I meant to imply "...when you have to pay for it?"
Spreading the cost on to the entire population of the nation does not solve the underlying problem: populations keep growing exponentially as long as they have enough resources (like food and housing) to do so. When the resources run out, they breed anyway, but some simply suffer and die. It's unfortunate but nothing we can stop without birth control of some kind for everyone, and that's not likely to happen...look at China.
EDIT - And I don't have the answer, but taking money from individuals against their will to stave off the inevitable when it won't solve the problem does not sit well with me. I'm no rich man, so I'm not like trying to protect my wealth or anything.
Originally posted by jlillyJust a question out of curiousity.
The mortgage crisis has caused a "glut" of vacant homes in the U.S. But as Petrino DiLeo explains, under the free-market system, those homes are more likely to be destroyed than provided to the homeless.
IT'S NO secret that one of the key problems in the U.S. housing market is that there are more houses for sale than buyers for them. Because of the mortgag ...[text shortened]...
http://socialistworker.org/2008/07/22/no-profit-housing-homeless
Once you put the homeless in these homes... who is going to pay for the electricity , the water, the other services required of owning a home? Or shall we say in these peoples case squatting in a home which is someone else's property.
Apparently your 'bleeding heart' has failed to take these factors into consideration. Typical socialist mentality .... I assume you think the government should do that as well ... the government in this case equals American taxpayers with jobs who pay enough taxes already.
Time to escape from your socialist 'utopia' mentality and return to the real world...
Originally posted by whodeyWell, I make a couple assumptions about jlilly.
Why when he can just vote for Obama?
One is that its not a guy..her rofile says her name is Heather
Second, she says to be busy with school... I assume college of some type, since she sounds like she is 'parroting' the opinions of her college professors, many who tend to lean to the left.
and true, Obama in power seems scary but the truth is like I tell my wife when she gets all worried about that, don't forget the old adage ... the President proposes and Congress disposes. Meaning even if BHO gets elected, he has to get his 'socialist' programs through Congress.
And frankly he is going to have enough trouble getting himself elected to have any 'coattails', so he won't have sizeable majorities in either house to get what he wants
Originally posted by AThousandYoungDo homeless people, in your excuse, breed much? There are many homeless people in my neighbourhood and I've yet to see one with a child.
I think it's irresponsible.
I also think you're mistaken. There are quite a lot of people who were once housed but are now homeless. This is guaranteed with the exponential growth of a population that cannot support itself without charity.
As an experiment I recommend feeding all - I mean all - the feral cats in the neighborhood and see ...[text shortened]... ens. Of course, because we're making an analogy with humans, you can't castrate them first.
Mistaken about what? That giving a homeless person a home makes them formerly homeless? You must be disagreeing with something that you're reading into my statement.
You're seriously comparing homeless people with feral cats? You do know that cats reproduce far more frequently and copiously than human beings, don't you? Human babies would die under the conditions that feral cats live under. You might as well compare the homeless to bacteria.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYou're mistaken that people who once were housed are no longer homeless.
Do homeless people, in your excuse, breed much? There are many homeless people in my neighbourhood and I've yet to see one with a child.
Mistaken about what? That giving a homeless person a home makes them formerly homeless? You must be disagreeing with something that you're reading into my statement.
You're seriously comparing homeless people w e conditions that feral cats live under. You might as well compare the homeless to bacteria.
My comment was a play on words intended to bring to mind the current housing crisis in my country and how there are many people who were once housed but now live with their children in tent cities in Nevada. And yes, I see homeless children. Guess what? They run away from their "home area" and become prostitutes in California cities. Some sit around as "gutter punks" in the gutter with signs saying "need money for beer" outside of UC Berkeley. Covenant House is an example of a charity for homeless children selling themselves on the streets of my home city.
Social Workers take homeless peoples' kids away because, I believe (though I'm not sure), it's against the law to have a child and be homeless - which negates your argument about the softness of humans compared to cats. Sometimes these kids get kidnapped or killed. Sometimes the gangs and pimps take them in. Sometimes they're murdered or die of neglect.
The only difference between humans and feral cats is the time it takes for their population to explode. It will still happen. If the charity only lasts a little while you may only see a small "homeless baby boom" instead of an explosion, or maybe none at all depending on how long these people were supported.
If you say that people living on full charity are not homeless, and it requires a home to have healthy fertility, and therefore people who were once homeless but now are charity recipients don't count as "breeding homeless"...
Well, that's quite a logical analysis of my words that completely ignores my point. So, I'll change the term used.
Instead of "homeless" let's go with "housed and fed by primarily via charity which in this context includes government programs funded by taxes in which the recipient is not hired based on competence but enrolled based on need".
Our prisons are full. Gangs and other criminals are all over the damn place. Beggars are everywhere. I know a little about beggars. My uncle was one and I used to talk to the gutter punks. Beggars are often proud of how they make more than minimum wage and don't have to pay taxes. My uncle said he made eight bucks an hour. He lived in a building my father owned (inheritance...my beggar uncle was not trusted enough to get a house), and my Dad would never put him out in the cold. He died of a cocaine overdose and I believe he had AIDS. I can remember my father talking about how he believed my uncle's partner really loved my uncle, how they found him crying with my uncle in his arms.
Eventually my father was unable to support all the adult dependents in his life and the banks took all our properties. I remember him making my mother shower with a hose in a basement that had no walls or doors on three of it's six sides, in the cold, where the whole neighborhood could see (he did jury rig a shower curtain). Then she said "enough is enough" and got a job and took care of the family, including him.
California, the wealthiest state in the wealthiest country in the world, where homeless flee to in droves (South Park did an episode on this, and Randy Newman's I Love LA refers to it too...look at that bum over there! He's down on his knees! implying gratitude about the sunshine, which the video makes clear) is almost bankrupt. Is it a coincidence that San Francisco has some sort of of open statement that they are on the homeless' side - I can't remember the details though, wish I could look it up, but I remember seeing it when I lived in Berkeley and used to visit my brother in SF.
“More than half of the children served at these [Contra Costa] shelters are under the age of five, including children born to homeless pregnant mothers. "
http://www.shelterincofccc.org/Press-R/COUNTY%20BUDGET%20LEAVES%20HOMELESS%20FAMILIES%2006-29-05.htm
Looks like SA has the same sort of dynamic. Africa's known for baby-raping as a cure for AIDS, something the British taught them...probably via South Africa.
http://www.gvnet.com/streetchildren/SouthAfrica.htm
It only takes so much shelter and food before people get pregnant, but it takes 18 years of funding to keep those new babies off the streets...6 of which include potential breeding years. In any case the adults have demonstrated a lack of ability to support themselves, so this is a population which was indirectly chosen for this characteristic. This suggests that these babies might have some trouble with this issue too.
Mandatory birth control solves many of these problems, but brings it's own set of problems with it.
Homeless live longer than cats too. They have more breeding years and have to be fed and housed for much, much longer. Each human needs more food and has other expenses as well the cat will never be able to match.
Elephants are overpopulated in some places due to government protection and "conservation" - which involves the government artificially keeping the elephants housed in their preferred environment by providing security guards in the form of police or agents of some sort.
They are first fertile at about 13 years of age. They're loving, intelligent, gentle, and big, not small like cats. I doubt they have more babies in their lifetimes than humans do though I can't find numbers easily.
Despite its popularity in zoos, and cuddly portrayal as gentle giants in fiction, elephants are among the world's most potentially dangerous animals. They can crush and kill any other land animal, even the rhinoceros. They can experience unexpected bouts of rage, and can be vindictive.[60] In Africa, groups of young teenage elephants attack human villages in what is thought to be revenge for the destruction of their society by massive cullings done in the 1970s and 80s.[61] In India, male elephants attack villages at night, destroying homes and killing people on a regular basis. In the Indian state of Jharkhand, 300 people were killed by elephants between 2000 and 2004, and in Assam, 239 people have been killed by elephants since 2001.[60] In India elephants kills up to 200 humans every year, and in Sri Lanka around 50 per year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant
There are people in government in South Africa concerned about this.
http://www.dailytidings.com/2007/0228/stories/0228_nation_elephants.php
Ah. here we go.
The elephant, more than any other animal closely follows the life cycle of human beings. A pregnant elephant's gestation period is between 18 and 22 months. Towards the end of pregnancy the mother will choose another female from the herd as an 'auntie' to help with the birth and the rearing of her offspring. Twins occur very rarely.
The young are suckled up to the age of four years old although they will start developing an interest in solids from as young as six months. As the infant grows the whole family group is involved in its protection, education and discipline.
In the early teens they become sexually mature and from the age of 16 a female can reproduce. A cow rarely has more than four children through her lifetime.
Between the ages of 25 and 40 elephants are in their prime of life and the peak of their physical powers. After 40 they begin to slow down but have the advantage of experience. At about 55 old age starts to set in, if they are lucky they will reach 70 but greater ages have been accurately recorded. There are many romantic myths of 100 year old elephants but these do not sadly stand up to rigorous examination.
http://www.eleaid.com/index.php?page=elephantfacts
Would this be an accurate summary of your stance, ATY:
It is unwise to give homeless people homes because they would immediately begin breeding rapidly.
I quite agree that merely handing over property solves no problems. Too many cases of people selling their homes for liquor a few months after moving in ... On the other hand, doing nothing is a total cop-out. So, put on your Arnie cap and tell me what you as California governor would do.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWhy is "doing nothing" a total cop-out? Why should the government be in the housing business? Do you think everyone should have a home?
Would this be an accurate summary of your stance, ATY:
It is unwise to give homeless people homes because they would immediately begin breeding rapidly.
I quite agree that merely handing over property solves no problems. Too many cases of people selling their homes for liquor a few months after moving in ... On the other hand, doing nothing is a total cop-out. So, put on your Arnie cap and tell me what you as California governor would do.
