Why do liberals think it's perfectly okay to require a permit to setup a picnic and share food with other Americans?
m.reddit.com
Do those comments not disgust you? Do they not make you want to murder?
How do I stop forcing myself to go to liberal websites and raging at them? I'm even sharing it to you guys knowing you're smart enough to not trigger your own hatred for libs.
But anyways
Other urls found in this thread:
clickondetroit.com
cbsnews.com
chrome.google.com
archive.is
pastemagazine.com
thefreethoughtproject.com
reddit.com
twitter.com
>How do I stop forcing myself to go to liberal websites and raging at them? I'm even sharing it to you guys knowing you're smart enough to not trigger your own hatred for libs.
Bro.. I feel ya.
>I understand the idea of having to regulate what food gets distributed, I totally do, but a local government should be trying to work with an organization like this to help the community ... not simply saying, "Well that's the law. Take 'em away boys."
>The government is more concerned with collecting money for a special permit than actually doing good for the community. It happens all the time in local government.
Justification.
>In order to feed members of the public you have to have certain permits/insurance. The point of that is to protect the people that are being fed, and to deal with the liability in case someone gets something like serious food poisoning. It doesn't matter whether these members of the public are homeless or not; the same standards apply.
Here's a picture. I'm doing you a favor by quoting these, since you even said that no one is going to bother to click on that link. I'm just making your thread more relevant.
BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD TAKE A CUT OUT OF YOUR PICNIC?
Someone needs to fucking get a noose
Personally I'm just annoyed that we've gotten to the point in society where giving another human being food requires a fucking permit and paperwork and insurance
This.
Right? If this is more and more casually accepted, "well of course you need a permit, I mean its for your safety" will be a common argument in the future.
>This misses the point entirely. Ethics aside, managing homelessness is a local problem that each city is must manage.
The city must manage it. But they're not, so the people are doing it. But the city requires them to have paperwork to simply share food with others. But the city doesn't do the work.
>You need a permit to do this, and rightly so. This isn't about being arrested for handing a homeless guy a bagel, they were operating a kitchen in the park without a permit.
Setting up food on a table requires a permit.
I'm actually raging right now so this is probably the extent of the shit I'm going to copy to you. I'm logged into my shitposting account and I was gonna respond to them, but honestly there are actually a bunch of redditors who are against this bullshit too. That might make you feel a little better.
But it'll really help to just stay out of that site, even if you do it just to look at the opposition.
Because once people feel entitled to set up camp and serve the homeless food wherever they feed, they attract undesirables into neighborhoods they're not welcomed in.
There are places where you can donate food.
>operating a kitchen without a permit
Fuck it. I'm done. Will drinking this bottle of pee kill me?
City's problem. Not my problem if feeding some people managed to cause someone to travel to your state for handouts from me, somehow, after hearing about the "multitude" of people giving to the homeless. It gets in the simple act of sharing food from one citizen to another.
Pee isn't dark enough and there's not enough of it. You'll hydrate a little bit but also feel pretty gnarly, but you won't die. Sorry. Also, Clinton is thinking of being mayor of New York.
Also, a man was ticketed for warming up his car for 5 minutes while unattended, because of thugs. The possibility of thugs stealing something overrides your rights. He insulted the officer on social media and the grown adult that is chief said he should "drop dead".
How much rage do I have to cause for you to kill yourself? I kinda want to see it.
>City's problem.
Exactly. So they took it upon their hands to arrest said people.
Problem solved.
Also, fuck off, Libertarian.
Nobody's fault but yours if you get arrested for non-compliance to a law that's in place for a reason.
The city's problem is people looking for handouts, so they go after those sharing food with others. That's not a solution.
>non-compliance to a law that's in place
Does that exempt it from criticism? Is that not what this thread is for? What are you saying, that "the law is the law and so it is just"?
Oh, just saw "Libertarian". You're just a ruse, or some retard playing identity politics. Which one is it?
Didn't know an American who wants to share food with others without a permit, and set up food on a table without a permit, would be considered a "libertarian" now. It's one stepping stone to freedom of speech being considered a libertarian idea. Kill yourself, immediately, or find someone willing to help you do it. I think everyone ought to have a chance to kill themselves, and I can tell that you really really really don't want to be here.
Nab the homeless, not those keeping them alive retard
>feed homeless man
>homeless people line up for food from me
>they all die because they didn't learn to feed for themselves
Wait I'm talking about pidgeons here.... my bad.
>The city's problem is people looking for handouts
People will ALWAYS look for handouts.
The libertarian method is "fuck the government", let people do what people want, which, inevitably leads to a 'hovering homeless' situation which WILL bring in homeless camps, more homeless, and decrease and debeautify said area.
It's all "nice" and "noble" to do such kind acts, but it does the rest of the population no favors.
Then again, the Libertarian wet dream involves piles of shanty towns towered by wealthy skyscrapers, and there's no doubt that you're of a Libertarian or like mind. Either way, you have the heart of a pansy.
*decrease property value and debeautify said area.
>man feeds man
>legal
>other man is homeless
>illegal
It happens all the time, but on the volunteers own property. You know, at churches and soup kitchens.
>fuck the government
>let people do what people want
People want to feed other people. It's pretty understandable why that's an instance to irk the government.
>which WILL bring in homeless camps, more homeless
That's the city's problem. The city doesn't want to handle the homeless, so they go after those that prevent them from digging in your dumpster for food and claim that one group feeding the homeless will lead to hundreds.
The idea that feeding people when the government doesn't want them to is "libertarian" and rebelious and illegal is unAmerican.
This. When my family was down on its luck, we got food donations via the local church.
There are many legal avenues and methods of donating food that is much better for the local community.
>People want to feed other people.
Donate to a soup kitchen, homeless shelter, church, etc. etc.
>That's the city's problem.
And that's why they enforce the law and arrest people who encourage the spread of said problem.
Everything is the city's problem, but when the city takes care of the problem it's "unfair" huh?
That's not really a picnic.
While standards differ from locality to locality, I have been on the enforcement end of low-level civil regulations for a municipality. In my opinion, the permit is a necessary evil that, ideally, local governments should be able to process quickly and easily.
In the case of feeding the homeless, earlier posters have readily outlined the policy issues. The resolution is fairly obvious to me. Permits should be required at a nominal fee for providing food (for free or otherwise) to the general public (as distinguished from inviting specific individuals, per OP's failed conflation with picnics). The nature of the activity is such that I'd be inclined (as a policy matter) to suspend many of the regulations that are simply inapposite (those dealing with the conditions of food preparation, for instance), but require that insurance be provided.
This allows home-cooked meals to be aggregated and provided by a charitable organization, which would secure the permit and insure the event from collected funds. Ideally, if they're feeding the homeless, they'd have business cards with insurance information for expediting any food poisoning issues. Insurance companies can readily assess the marginal risk of insuring events where home-cooked meals are provided vs. those that permit only prepackaged meals (store-bought) and price accordingly. The charitable organizations can then choose how they wish to proceed, with that pricing in mind.
What if the person is feeding the homeless an infected cooked beef? Or poisoned milk? Heartless Pranks?
>Feed people only through government-approved means
Why would you post an image of a man who represents freedom when you say something as traitorous as that?
>that's why they enforce the law
I repeat: the city's problem. The city's problem is the homeless, not people who go around feeding the starving people on the streets. Homeless will come and go, regardless. This isn't a solution.
>the minute you are feeding homeless people, you are a kitchen that needs permits and inspections
This is what you're saying, right? Why doesn't this apply to other people?
Maybe I want to go to the park with my family and it's not been turned into hobo central by some fags that won't coordinate their efforts with a local church on private property or rent out some other venue.
Or...you know...file for a permit like everybody else that wants to host an event on public property where city leaders that represent the people of the city have a say in what does or doesn't go down in public places.
They would have that issue if they grabbed food out of their nightly dumpster. Note that nothing is stopping you from going to Tampa and throwing a breadroll with feces in it at a homeless man and watching him eat it. It's not a law that's easy to enforce.
At the expense of the freedom of one man giving food to another.
I really hope people beat the ever living shit out of the anti-Americans here.
>file for a permit to eat at a picnic
Haha. But it's even more than that, filing a permit to feed homeless people in general. Or, oy vey, go to the soup kitchens and help out. The government doesn't want you helping the homeless in your way. One step away from banning a priest from taking in a homeless man.
cbsnews.com
Close enough.
>Feed people only through government-approved means
I'm sorry, if you don't want to abide by the rule of law, you're free to go to a more anarchic or poorly-regulated country whenever you damn-well please. These laws aren't as senseless as you so easily dismiss them to be.
>Why would you post an image of a man who represents freedom
LMFAO. Trump represents LAW and ORDER well above anything else.
>I repeat: the city's problem.
I repeat: that's why they were arrested. That IS the solution to the city's problem. Cry about it.
This is what happens when you take a common sense issue and apply liberal logic to it.
That's not what I'm saying. Kitchen inspections and the like are requirements created with fundamentally different activities in mind. The purposes of a permit in this situation are (1) managing the use of public space (if they are not using a private venue, they exclude others - by crowding out - from using a public space whose use by the general public is generally intended to be transitory and non-exclusive) and (2) limiting negative externalities from conduct - specifically, food poisoning and similar issues (which impose costs on the public through unpaid medical bills, emergency services, and other costs)
Requiring (de facto, if not de jure) that these things be run by charitable organizations allows the management of public space and the mitigation of potential health hazards by allocating them to the source of the risk through insurance premiums.
It doesn't if you do it on your own property.
When you decide that you are going to repurpose a park to make it into your soup kitchen, then the local government is going to be involved to make sure that you are not preventing the park from serving its intended function.
>abide by the rule of the law
Like I paraphrased earlier, "law is the law and the law is just". That's not an argument to people criticizing the law.
Trump represents liberty. Do you think he will go after people feeding their fellow men?
>I repeat: that's why they were arrested
Oh, by "they" do you mean the homeless people that are the problem? No of course you don't. You still don't see the problem here.
As in this case: Arresting two pastors for feeding homeless people does not change the homeless problem.
This is what happens when you take a common sense issue and apply authoritarian logic to it:
Somehow this is something both liberals and retards alike can both rejoice. Or maybe the user I've been responding to is a liberal. But he's claiming Trump would somehow find this perfectly acceptable. I'm not sure what to believe anymore.
whats most ironic is that its always big government liberals who make these insane laws and radical leftwing liberals who end up getting arrested for them
>City's problem. Not my problem
That's why the city demands permits. This makes it back into your problem. Which it should be.
How the fuck does requiring a permit stop that from happening?
One other thing I thought about was if you don't know who's feeding mass amounts of homeless its inevitably going to lead to some mass poisoning. If you know who is doing the feeding, in this event you have a suspect immediately.
>"picnic"
>what is intent
>(2) limiting negative externalities from conduct - specifically, food poisoning and similar issues (which impose costs on the public through unpaid medical bills, emergency services, and other costs)
And this line is drawn when the person being fed is homeless? I haven't had this issue sharing food with friends and acquaintances, and some of them would certainly sue if I had fed them something that would affect them like this.
>That's why the city demands permits. This makes it back into your problem. Which it should be.
The city's response to homeless people is to demand permits for those who want to feed them. How is that a reasonable solution? The problem is the homeless people. Arrest them, as most states already do.
It really doesn't. It's not something that's easy to enforce unless you are doing it publicly as in this case.
Remember, if you feed a man in Tampa Florida, homeless people will flock to that same location to look for handouts from you. It's your fault that the homeless are causing the problems. You fed them! How dare you!
I cannot pretend familiarity with that specific case, but my experience suggests that this kind of thing only happens after YEARS of local government trying to get the people in question to operate within the regulations. I handled civil litigation, but NOBODY wants to be in the position of explaining to a judge why they should allow you to use the force of the state to beat up on old churchmen, so they generally DON'T unless they've exhausted other avenues and can provide the judge with an extensive list of how the government has bent over backwards trying to work with them (within the bounds of the law).
>feed birds and wild animals
this is illegal because the animals will become dependent and they will be a blight on human civilization
>feeding homeless is legal
because giving money and food to beggars will definitely cause them to stop begging, and not incentivize more people to beg right?
Murry Rothbard on bums:
>Take Back the Streets. Get Rid of the Bums. Again: unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares? Hopefully, they will disappear, that is, move from the ranks of the petted and cosseted bum class to the ranks of the productive members of society.
>That's not an argument to people criticizing the law.
And I've already, along with many others, given valid retorts to your poorly-stringed and entirely pathos-based argument.
>Do you think he will go after people feeding their fellow men?
Yes. He's about law and order.
Do you think TRUMP would want a homeless commune in HIS backyard?
Clearly emotion doesn't appeal to him in the way it does to you-- from profiling stop and frisk advocacy to the wall, everything including his language indicates this.
>do you mean the homeless people that are the problem?
What is the point in arresting the homeless? It won't change their lifestyle, and they're not breaking the law in the receiving the food. The donaters are breaking the law by setting up shop where the please and giving out significant quantities of food without going through the proper avenues.
No, it's not about the "homeless" - I'm not sure how the organizations would even go about verifying that in the first place. It's about the distinction between dealing with private invitees and the general public. There is a world of difference between, for instance, the regulation of private clubs and restaurants or other places of public accommodation.
>How is that a reasonable solution?
what's unreasonable about it?
Can't say I'm entirely consistent in that regard, but I use chrome.google.com
>intent to feed
Really have no idea what point you're trying to get across.
>A man feeding another man should be treated differently depending on class
Feeding the men keeps them alive for another day. Where they go really is the business of the government. Going after those feeding them and not the constant flood of homeless people is an incredibly lazy solution, and there's probably a lot more to it than "muh safety regulations".
>given valid retorts
Not valid, and I've responded to them.
Trump would not want a homeless commune. He wouldn't go after a man who fed those people the previous day, either, he would go straight to the source. That's just the kind of man he is: reasonable.
>What is the point in arresting the homeless? It won't change their lifestyle, and they're not breaking the law in the receiving the food. The donaters are breaking the law by setting up shop where the please and giving out significant quantities of food without going through the proper avenues.
Oh, you don't believe that the homeless will flood the streets when someone hands them food? I thought you did! That's the problem, isn't it? The problem you guys are talking about. Arrest them if they are loitering on the street, sleeping on our sidewalks, or littering. There is nothing to gain from going after someone who fed them.
Also Operating in a park without a permit is really another issue, and even then this law is not limited to parks. You will be arrested if you fed homeless men under a bridge.
>What is unreasonable about arresting people who feed the homeless
>As opposed to the homeless people causing issues
Holy shit this fucking autism.
I'm almost convinced you were dropped on your head, because your logic just circles.
Which argument is going around in circles, besides me trying to get it through your head that the problem is the homeless people and not the people feeding them? How about the people clothing them? Draw a line somewhere.
>fucking autism
Not. an. argument.
This 90 year old man is part of the problem. Arrest him. He still believes in the simple act of sharing food without government intervention!
Neither the homeless people nor feeding them are the problem. The problem is that the people doing the feeding refuse to use their own space (i.e. their churches or their homes) to do the feeding and instead abuse a place that the public has set aside for certain uses. The airport is public property too and it's a good thing that you don't have faggot pastors handing out cheeseburgers on the runway where airplanes are trying to land. It's also important that the park be used as intended for children and families to play without having to worry about a whole bunch of fucked up bums taking a big shit on the playground after a large meal.
>live in HTX
>go out drinking in mid town/down town (all the young girls, good places, etc.) during the 90s and early 2000s
>fuckin homeless everywhere
>this is, I shit you not, the energy capital of the WORLD, and there's fucking homeless harshing everyone's vibe
>city starts demanding permits for food handouts and arresting people
>you can finally walk through downtown and mid town, morning or night, and the level of homeless is vastly reduced
anyone who thinks its ok to set up in public areas, and feed people are jobless millennials with a social studies degree.
homeless are homeless are homeless.
there will always be the poor, in any form of society.
stop fucking making nice parts of town shitty.
Is Homelessness the most difficult problem for modern society to solve?
>pastors handing out food on runways while planes are trying to land
You're really fucking ridiculous aren't you? And the problem isn't necessarily the place, simply getting out of your car and handing out food is going to get you arrested. I mean, government land, you really have nowhere to go. But it's perfectly okay for the homeless themselves to be occupying that same land.
>anyone who thinks its ok to set up in public areas, and feed people are jobless millennials with a social studies degree.
Or elderly pastors, or really just anyone. Even retarded people such as yourself.
I'm not the reason a homeless man took a shit on your lawn. Maybe I'm the one who fed him the food he shat out. He could've easily gotten that food from a dumpster (much less safe than receiving it from some samaritan). What he does after eating is not my business.
Should I face any charges for clothing a man because he decided to kill someone a week later?
They're arresting people for feeding the homeless (which isn't limited to parks like some people say, you really could be arrested feeding a homeless man anywhere but your home or a government-approved feeding institution, goyim). They really could be arresting the homeless people instead, but they don't.
Worse than quick money-grabbing schemes like this are the people who defend them.
>Why do liberals think it's perfectly okay to require a permit to setup a picnic and share food with other Americans?
Huh?
I'm reading the top comments and most of them think it's silly.
>Personally I'm just annoyed that we've gotten to the point in society where giving another human being food requires a fucking permit and paperwork and insurance
Why do you hate capitalism, user?
If they arrest the homeless, then they have to feed them
But is it good capitalism or bad capitalism, friend?
>Government doesn't want to feed homeless
>People are willing to do it
>They are arrested for it
>Homeless people cause more issues
>"I don't want to arrest them because then we'll have to feed them"
I know this is Florida we're talking about but this probably isn't what's going on.
>Should I face any charges for clothing a man because he decided to kill someone a week later?
two notes:
1) if you gave some random homeless guy food because yo ufelt sorry for him, no one cares
if you set up an ad hoc food kitchen in a public area not designated for said use, you're in violation.
2) these laws are not about some amorphous moral line in the sand you're trying to draw.
these laws are about keeping areas we want free of homeless to be free of homeless.
what is your point anyway? Like, in one or two sentences
Good. Feeding the homeless is retarded. Soup kitchens and shit need to go. They are a plague on society and they need to either get a job and start contributing or fuck off and die.
Because a family picnic is not the same as hosting a massive bum food festival. You know it's different and are being obtuse.
>Like, in one or two sentences
Do I need to restate that I'm not for the arresting of people who feed homeless people?
Also you and pastemagazine.com
Police have confiscated blankets from the homeless before. It's not always about the setting it's in.
>dying homeless on the streets
>not even more of an eyesore
No one cares what you think.
>They really could be arresting the homeless people instead, but they don't.
>Worse than quick money-grabbing schemes like this are the people who defend them.
this
>homeless people would rather die than get a job
I refuse to believe this.
It creates jobs dumbfuck. Homeless corpse cleanup. Plus it creates food for stray dogs and other scavengers so its environmentally friendly. Its far better for the American people.
>Do I need to restate that I'm not for the arresting of people who feed homeless people?
But that's how you dissuade people from setting up ad hoc food kitchens in inappropriate areas.
besides its probably not a serious offence, Class C or MAYBE B misdemeanor tops.
>I'm reading the top comments and most of them think it's silly.
I've noticed this too. It's a bit surprising.
Me neither. But you will still see some lying on the streets if that's the world you want, and that's even more of an eyesore. The government really doesn't seem to want to tackle this issue.
>It creates jobs dumbfuck. Homeless corpse cleanup. Plus it creates food for stray dogs and other scavengers so its environmentally friendly. Its far better for the American people.
Because walking by projects and black people isn't enough, your kids should have to walk by dead bodies in the street like it's fucking India too.
Yes they should. To toughen them up. But with a properly patrolled 24/7 corpse removal force the chances of that happening are essentially 0%. Tbh if you havent found a dead body by now you're pathetic.
>But that's how you dissuade people from setting up ad hoc food kitchens in inappropriate areas.
It affects those walking out with bags of foods and blankets and handing them to homeless people under a bridge. There's always laws in place for doing this crap in parks without a permit anyways.
Denver police confiscated enough blankets enough to get the mayor telling them to fuck off:
thefreethoughtproject.com
reddit.com
A town passed an ordinance preventing homeless people from warming up with blankets.
Pretty much none of these laws solve the actual problem, which is the homeless people themselves. If one shits on my lawn I'm not going to go after the guy who kept him alive up to the point where he could do it.
Did you ever notice how those faggots make every comment about themselves somehow? They can't go a response without "yeah that happened to me" or "my mom was that" or whatever. You don't see that nearly as much here. I wonder what the (((psychology))) behind that is.
It's like a giant Facebook where people talk about personal shit.
I kinda don't mind that. It's just normies seeing a post about people being arrested and saying, "Well this one time I fed a homeless man and diddly diddly doo". I don't blame them, they're not really abstract thinkers. You raise people up like that and that's what you get.
>psychology
hasn't someone done studies on reddit before? I've seen some on a few specific subreddits, but I wanna see one on reddit as a whole
Same with Sup Forums. I'd love to see some deep psycho analysis going on here. It'll really entertain the shit out of me to read it
Its narcissism plain and simple
I call this womenaztion of thought. Women always make every thing about them. Listen closely every time you debate or talk to a women. It always comes around to something about her. If its something abstract like how the 5th dimension would look like, she would turn it around on them
A very good example of is women podcasts.
Thought it was a normie thing.
The average person is absolutely incapable of forming a coherent argument about anything they believe in, and their beliefs themselves are half-assed. That's actually part of the problem with this country, considering most people here are politically uninformed, passive, and all have the belief that they are powerless. It's the greatest cucking mentality of all, and it ruins the rest of us.
homeless are not human beings
>homeless people are not people
>they are an eyesore
>let them die on the streets
>I dont want my kids watching them shit
>let's have bodies floating in the river like India
>Let the homeless get so bad that our right to feed our fellow man is stripped away
Why do you like being part of the problem?