Weird, because I feel like you’re jumping past the point because it isn’t technically spelled out in the USC that someone will arrest you if you don’t make enough money.
I think its very weird you’re willing to jump past the fact its not illegal to call it illegal when the OP post is putting in context with two other things which are unequivocally illegal. Putting all three together is creating a false equivalency.
If someone sues you civilly, you receive no notice of it, and then they arrest you and put you in prison, I get that there are intervening steps, but it’s literally the same result.
IF you have a debt and…
IF the creditor chooses to sue and…
IF you do not get notified and…
IF you don’t appear…
THEN MAYBE the judge will have an arrest warrant issued against you and …
If you commit an ADDITIONAL crime, which puts you in contact with law enforcement, the warrant from the no-show would cause you to be jailed.
Thats A LOT of “if” to make your statement true, but you’re passing it off as its always the case. Complete different with drugs and homelessness. You can be arrested (and jailed) in the very first act.
Being in debt doesn’t put you in jail which is what your statement should mean happens. We have literally tens of millions of people in debt and millions of them are poor that are walking the streets without warrants against them.
I also don’t think the OP is trying to change anyone’s mind. I’m not either. The point of these types of posts isn’t to change minds.
Hmm, okay you’re not interested in changing minds of others. Nothing wrong with that I suppose, but does that mean this just food for an echo chamber then?
It’s to overcome the apathy of the majority of people who already know it’s wrong to do this and use that majority to forcibly remove power from those people whose minds you want to change.
So you want to change the mind of someone that is neutral on the subject to being supporting of different policy? How is that not changing someone’s mind? Are we now arguing what the definition of “changing a mind” means now?
I think its very weird you’re willing to jump past the fact its not illegal to call it illegal when the OP post is putting in context with two other things which are unequivocally illegal. Putting all three together is creating a false equivalency.
Is this some new definition of unequivocal I was previously unaware of?
The OP mentioned being homeless, being a drug addict, and being poor. It’s not illegal to be a drug addict, either. Oddly enough you’ll find a lot of people put in prison for it, if they buy drugs illegally and if they’re caught and if it’s worth enough to the prosecutor and if they’re convicted or if they accept a plea bargain. You’re okay with those ‘ifs’ in your definition, but not the chain below…why?
Thats A LOT of “if” to make your statement true, but you’re passing it off as it’s always the case.
I mean, yeah, that’s kinda how it works. Not all bank robbers go to prison either, you know? The point is that this only happens to poor people and it only happens because they’re poor and it’s wrong that it happens. The point is not every poor person goes to prison.
Being in debt doesn’t put you in jail which is what your statement should mean happens. We have literally tens of millions of people in debt and millions of them are poor that are walking the streets without warrants against them.
Maybe this is where you’re confused. No one is saying that everyone with debt is being put in prison. Or maybe someone is, but they aren’t in this conversation. I’m saying that this set of circumstances should not be criminal, and it only happens to poor people. Apparently, according to the ACLU, it happens to tens of thousands of them. I’m pretty sure the OP is saying that, too.
Hmm, okay you’re not interested in changing minds of others. Nothing wrong with that I suppose, but does that mean this just food for an echo chamber then?
I’d classify it more as a call to action for likeminded people. I generally read things like this and think I should do something about it, so I do what I can think of. If that’s an echo chamber for you, knock yourself out, I guess.
So you want to change the mind of someone that is neutral on the subject to being supporting of different policy? How is that not changing someone’s mind? Are we now arguing what the definition of “changing a mind” means now?
I mean, no; you’re arguing against something no one said (again), but I guess I can address that now, too.
I don’t care about changing the minds of someone neutral on the subject, either. If someone manages to read something like this, find out what’s happening, and somehow not think that’s wrong, I don’t think any words are going to change their mind.
It’s doesn’t matter, though, because the majority already know it’s wrong. They either know it’s wrong and didn’t realize it was a thing, or they know it’s a thing but they think they’re powerless to change it.
I (and, I assume, the OP) want those who aren’t currently doing something to realize they aren’t alone in thinking what they’re thinking, so they’ll be more inclined to do things about it. They already want to do those things; their minds don’t need to be changed.
Is this some new definition of unequivocal I was previously unaware of?
“Federal Drug Possession Penalties (21 USC §844) www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/21usc/844.htm
Persons convicted of illegally possessing any controlled substance face penalties of up to 1 year in prison
and a minimum fine of $1,000, or both.”
“It shall be unlawful for any person to be found loitering, concealed or sleeping at night, or other inappropriate time, in, or about any public building or private premises not such person’s own, under suspicious circumstances, and not being able to give a satisfactory account thereof.” = an example of texas law
Is there any ambiguity in your mind these are laws on the books? In what way is it not unequivocal that these are illegal? Do you have a different definition of the word?
The OP mentioned being homeless, being a drug addict, and being poor. It’s not illegal to be a drug addict, either. Oddly enough you’ll find a lot of people put in prison for it, if they buy drugs illegally and if they’re caught and if it’s worth enough to the prosecutor and if they’re convicted or if they accept a plea bargain. You’re okay with those ‘ifs’ in your definition, but not the chain below…why?
You’re right that if I was an absolute stickler I could even challenge this part of the post. Technically a drug addict could exit the country, do drugs, and reenter the country and because they neither bought nor possessed drugs in the USA, they could indeed be a drug addict, and it wouldn’t be illegal. The reason I’m not taking that stance is because I do allow for some logical leaps that realistically a drug addict isn’t going to do that. There are limits to that allowance of thought. Your view seems to all many many more logical leaps yet still feel its not too far a departure. We clearly differ in this.
Thats A LOT of “if” to make your statement true, but you’re passing it off as it’s always the case.
I mean, yeah, that’s kinda how it works. Not all bank robbers go to prison either, you know?
All bank robbers are breaking the law. Thats the difference. Being poor isn’t breaking a law.
The point is that this only happens to poor people and it only happens because they’re poor and it’s wrong that it happens. The point is not every poor person goes to prison.
Using your logic from above, all poor people would be breaking some law by being poor, yet just lucky enough to escape capture or detection. Thats why that line of thinking falls apart.
I mean, no; you’re arguing against something no one said (again), but I guess I can address that now, too.
I raised the question of why the OP (and by proxy you) were voicing the message. It was my assumption that you wanted to change minds from one point to another.
I don’t care about changing the minds of someone neutral on the subject, either. If someone manages to read something like this, find out what’s happening, and somehow not think that’s wrong, I don’t think any words are going to change their mind.
Let me clarify. I used the word “neutral” before. My mistake from your interpretation of it. Let me change that to “no opinion”. Am I correct from your responses that you would like to take someone that currently has no position on this (because of lack of exposure/ignorance to it) to someone that does have an opinion supporting change?
Is there any ambiguity in your mind these are laws on the books? In what way is it not unequivocal that these are illegal? Do you have a different definition of the word?
I suppose in the way that neither of the things you listed are the definition of being a drug addict or homeless. I’m glad you made this point though, because it furthers mine…being poor isn’t specifically in the law, just like being a drug addict and being homeless aren’t.
It’s circumstances that result from being a drug addict, being homeless, and being poor that they criminalize, because for some reason that seems to fool some people into thinking it’s okay to do it.
Maybe I haven’t articulated this well enough for you to see it yet. Maybe someone else can do it better:
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.
Sure, he was French, but he was right.
You’re right that if I was an absolute stickler I could even challenge this part of the post. Technically a drug addict could exit the country, do drugs, and reenter the country and because they neither bought nor possessed drugs in the USA, they could indeed be a drug addict, and it wouldn’t be illegal. The reason I’m not taking that stance is because I do allow for some logical leaps that realistically a drug addict isn’t going to do that. There are limits to that allowance of thought. Your view seems to all many many more logical leaps yet still feel its not too far a departure. We clearly differ in this.
We definitely differ; I don’t see why it’s hard for you to see that the circumstances that arise from being a drug addict or homeless or poor shouldn’t be a reason for imprisoning someone. It’s really hard for me to understand why you can’t see the obvious similarity just because there’s a few more steps.
All bank robbers are breaking the law. Thats the difference. Being poor isn’t breaking a law.
Ah that’s fair, I’m overstepping into hyperbole.
Using your logic from above, all poor people would be breaking some law by being poor, yet just lucky enough to escape capture or detection. Thats why that line of thinking falls apart.
Yeah this is on me for the hyperbole with bank robbers, but I’m definitely not trying to say that all poor people have this happen to. Again, the point is that it only happens to poor people and it shouldn’t.
I raised the question of why the OP (and by proxy you) were voicing the message. It was my assumption that you wanted to change minds from one point to another.
No worries, we all make mistakes (see me above with the hyperbole).
Let me clarify. I used the word “neutral” before. My mistake from your interpretation of it. Let me change that to “no opinion”. Am I correct from your responses that you would like to take someone that currently has no position on this (because of lack of exposure/ignorance to it) to someone that does have an opinion supporting change?
Here I think the OP and I differ, actually. The OP probably does want that. I’m more of the mind that if you haven’t figured this out and aren’t on board yet, I’m not the right person to help you get there. The OP might be, though.
Is there any ambiguity in your mind these are laws on the books? In what way is it not unequivocal that these are illegal? Do you have a different definition of the word?
I suppose in the way that neither of the things you listed are the definition of being a drug addict or homeless. I’m glad you made this point though, because it furthers mine…being poor isn’t specifically in the law, just like being a drug addict and being homeless aren’t.
It’s circumstances that result from being a drug addict, being homeless, and being poor that they criminalize, because for some reason that seems to fool some people into thinking it’s okay to do it.
I addressed that in my post immediately prior to this one. One or maybe two logical leaps I find mostly acceptable (as each leap lowers likelihood or confidence). Blindly accepting infinite logical leaps drives us right into “slippery slope fallacy” territory. As I said on this before, I’m not accusing you of “slippery slope” here yet, but you’re well on your way and not too far off.
Maybe I haven’t articulated this well enough for you to see it yet. Maybe someone else can do it better:
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
Sure, he was French, but he was right.
We’re in agreement on homelessness, but again, you’re making logical leaps to try and tie, in this case theft, to simply the state of being poor illegal. Are you moving your claim that we have an epidemic of people in jail for stealing basic foodstuffs?
We definitely differ; I don’t see why it’s hard for you to see that the circumstances that arise from being a drug addict or homeless or poor shouldn’t be a reason for imprisoning someone. It’s really hard for me to understand why you can’t see the obvious similarity just because there’s a few more steps.
You’re moving the goalposts here. This has always been a discussion of “illegal vs legal”. You’re now moving the argument to “the circumstances that arise” from these conditions. You’re welcome to take that stance, but thats a different discussion. However, the OP post didn’t say that. I understand why it didn’t. It doesn’t hit as hard rhetorically, and the poster was trying for eloquence. They were largely successful if partially inaccurate.
Let me clarify. I used the word “neutral” before. My mistake from your interpretation of it. Let me change that to “no opinion”. Am I correct from your responses that you would like to take someone that currently has no position on this (because of lack of exposure/ignorance to it) to someone that does have an opinion supporting change?
Here I think the OP and I differ, actually. The OP probably does want that. I’m more of the mind that if you haven’t figured this out and aren’t on board yet, I’m not the right person to help you get there. The OP might be, though.
I appreciate your candor and respect your position. Its also helpful to understand you and the OP post are going in different directions with your goals. With this understanding I don’t think I have any more argument with you in defense of the OP Post. You are taking a decidedly different position from the OP post. You’re perfectly free to do so, and do so with whatever language and goal you have in mind.
I appreciate you taking the time to share you position. I think your goal is a good one even if I disagree with the slight nuance of the message or the means.
I think its very weird you’re willing to jump past the fact its not illegal to call it illegal when the OP post is putting in context with two other things which are unequivocally illegal. Putting all three together is creating a false equivalency.
Thats A LOT of “if” to make your statement true, but you’re passing it off as its always the case. Complete different with drugs and homelessness. You can be arrested (and jailed) in the very first act.
Being in debt doesn’t put you in jail which is what your statement should mean happens. We have literally tens of millions of people in debt and millions of them are poor that are walking the streets without warrants against them.
Hmm, okay you’re not interested in changing minds of others. Nothing wrong with that I suppose, but does that mean this just food for an echo chamber then?
So you want to change the mind of someone that is neutral on the subject to being supporting of different policy? How is that not changing someone’s mind? Are we now arguing what the definition of “changing a mind” means now?
This is so much fun, thank you again.
Is this some new definition of unequivocal I was previously unaware of?
The OP mentioned being homeless, being a drug addict, and being poor. It’s not illegal to be a drug addict, either. Oddly enough you’ll find a lot of people put in prison for it, if they buy drugs illegally and if they’re caught and if it’s worth enough to the prosecutor and if they’re convicted or if they accept a plea bargain. You’re okay with those ‘ifs’ in your definition, but not the chain below…why?
I mean, yeah, that’s kinda how it works. Not all bank robbers go to prison either, you know? The point is that this only happens to poor people and it only happens because they’re poor and it’s wrong that it happens. The point is not every poor person goes to prison.
Maybe this is where you’re confused. No one is saying that everyone with debt is being put in prison. Or maybe someone is, but they aren’t in this conversation. I’m saying that this set of circumstances should not be criminal, and it only happens to poor people. Apparently, according to the ACLU, it happens to tens of thousands of them. I’m pretty sure the OP is saying that, too.
I’d classify it more as a call to action for likeminded people. I generally read things like this and think I should do something about it, so I do what I can think of. If that’s an echo chamber for you, knock yourself out, I guess.
I mean, no; you’re arguing against something no one said (again), but I guess I can address that now, too.
I don’t care about changing the minds of someone neutral on the subject, either. If someone manages to read something like this, find out what’s happening, and somehow not think that’s wrong, I don’t think any words are going to change their mind.
It’s doesn’t matter, though, because the majority already know it’s wrong. They either know it’s wrong and didn’t realize it was a thing, or they know it’s a thing but they think they’re powerless to change it.
I (and, I assume, the OP) want those who aren’t currently doing something to realize they aren’t alone in thinking what they’re thinking, so they’ll be more inclined to do things about it. They already want to do those things; their minds don’t need to be changed.
“Federal Drug Possession Penalties (21 USC §844) www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/21usc/844.htm Persons convicted of illegally possessing any controlled substance face penalties of up to 1 year in prison and a minimum fine of $1,000, or both.”
“It shall be unlawful for any person to be found loitering, concealed or sleeping at night, or other inappropriate time, in, or about any public building or private premises not such person’s own, under suspicious circumstances, and not being able to give a satisfactory account thereof.” = an example of texas law
Is there any ambiguity in your mind these are laws on the books? In what way is it not unequivocal that these are illegal? Do you have a different definition of the word?
You’re right that if I was an absolute stickler I could even challenge this part of the post. Technically a drug addict could exit the country, do drugs, and reenter the country and because they neither bought nor possessed drugs in the USA, they could indeed be a drug addict, and it wouldn’t be illegal. The reason I’m not taking that stance is because I do allow for some logical leaps that realistically a drug addict isn’t going to do that. There are limits to that allowance of thought. Your view seems to all many many more logical leaps yet still feel its not too far a departure. We clearly differ in this.
All bank robbers are breaking the law. Thats the difference. Being poor isn’t breaking a law.
Using your logic from above, all poor people would be breaking some law by being poor, yet just lucky enough to escape capture or detection. Thats why that line of thinking falls apart.
I raised the question of why the OP (and by proxy you) were voicing the message. It was my assumption that you wanted to change minds from one point to another.
Let me clarify. I used the word “neutral” before. My mistake from your interpretation of it. Let me change that to “no opinion”. Am I correct from your responses that you would like to take someone that currently has no position on this (because of lack of exposure/ignorance to it) to someone that does have an opinion supporting change?
I suppose in the way that neither of the things you listed are the definition of being a drug addict or homeless. I’m glad you made this point though, because it furthers mine…being poor isn’t specifically in the law, just like being a drug addict and being homeless aren’t.
It’s circumstances that result from being a drug addict, being homeless, and being poor that they criminalize, because for some reason that seems to fool some people into thinking it’s okay to do it.
Maybe I haven’t articulated this well enough for you to see it yet. Maybe someone else can do it better:
Sure, he was French, but he was right.
We definitely differ; I don’t see why it’s hard for you to see that the circumstances that arise from being a drug addict or homeless or poor shouldn’t be a reason for imprisoning someone. It’s really hard for me to understand why you can’t see the obvious similarity just because there’s a few more steps.
Ah that’s fair, I’m overstepping into hyperbole.
Yeah this is on me for the hyperbole with bank robbers, but I’m definitely not trying to say that all poor people have this happen to. Again, the point is that it only happens to poor people and it shouldn’t.
No worries, we all make mistakes (see me above with the hyperbole).
Here I think the OP and I differ, actually. The OP probably does want that. I’m more of the mind that if you haven’t figured this out and aren’t on board yet, I’m not the right person to help you get there. The OP might be, though.
I addressed that in my post immediately prior to this one. One or maybe two logical leaps I find mostly acceptable (as each leap lowers likelihood or confidence). Blindly accepting infinite logical leaps drives us right into “slippery slope fallacy” territory. As I said on this before, I’m not accusing you of “slippery slope” here yet, but you’re well on your way and not too far off.
We’re in agreement on homelessness, but again, you’re making logical leaps to try and tie, in this case theft, to simply the state of being poor illegal. Are you moving your claim that we have an epidemic of people in jail for stealing basic foodstuffs?
You’re moving the goalposts here. This has always been a discussion of “illegal vs legal”. You’re now moving the argument to “the circumstances that arise” from these conditions. You’re welcome to take that stance, but thats a different discussion. However, the OP post didn’t say that. I understand why it didn’t. It doesn’t hit as hard rhetorically, and the poster was trying for eloquence. They were largely successful if partially inaccurate.
I appreciate your candor and respect your position. Its also helpful to understand you and the OP post are going in different directions with your goals. With this understanding I don’t think I have any more argument with you in defense of the OP Post. You are taking a decidedly different position from the OP post. You’re perfectly free to do so, and do so with whatever language and goal you have in mind.
I appreciate you taking the time to share you position. I think your goal is a good one even if I disagree with the slight nuance of the message or the means.