Moms 4 houses about to be evicted

[The New California Republic]

According to what definition?

If you are an academic, you are clearly a productive member of society, unlike most who are heavily addicted to hard psychoactive substances, who can't do anything useful in the economy because they can't properly function in that dessicated physiological state.

Having a serious drug problem to the stage it is ruining their everyday life and being an intellectual are not mutually exclusive, they just aren't. Sure, the former may affect the latter, but it does not automatically cancel it out.

[Purgatio]

The Lochner era jurisprudence was based on an understanding that the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause contains both procedural and substantive aspects, your claim that any eviction proceeding counts as due process only makes sense if you think the Due Process Clause only protects procedural rights, which is a position taken by some like Justice Scalia but has never been the law of the United States and certainly isn't the law of the United States now, not since Griswold v. Connecticut relied on Meyer v. Nebraska and Pierce v. Society of the Sisters to find that the Due Process Clause had a substantive component to it.

Except that an eviction hearing isn't protecting your substantive rights to squat, they're protecting your procedural rights to prove your case without facing undue prejudice. You're entirely right about constitutional protections and substantive due process...except the eviction hearing protections are rooted in procedural due process.

Lochner era case law was based on an interpretation of Substantive Due Process to include economic liberty rights, inclusive of freedom of contract and protections over one's property, and an eviction proceeding that could result in a landowner effectively unilaterally losing control over his own property because someone else trespassed onto his property without his consent is a substantive deprivation of property.

And, again, the process of testing competing rights is a procedural question. And even if it was substantive, the Lochner court repeatedly recognized that limits on economic liberty were permissible for greater goods to society. Champion v. Ames, Hoke v. United States, Clark Distilling Co. v. Western Maryland Railway...

You can make a decent argument that Substantive Due Process doesn't exist (although in the present state of US case law this is most certainly not the case), but if you accept the Due Process Clause has a substantive component as well as a procedural one, then its a fair argument to be made that eviction proceedings that don't adequately safeguard the autonomous rights of property owners to the protection and security of their property rights, as against third party trespassers, amounts to such a substantive deprivation.

A position entirely disconnected with modern policies and attitudes towards property. The idea that your right to property includes the right to prevent other parties from putting forward a potentially cognizable defense by prejudicing them with a speedy hearing, for which 1. the landlord is losing nothing but money, 2. the risk of loss for the squatter is homelessness, and thus an inability to effectively relocate, and 3. the the difficulty of maintaining a legal defense with a small budget (such tenants are almost always pro se) is compounded by trying to find alternative housing, is entirely inconsistent with the underlying conceptions of justice inherent in such procedure.

Furthermore, your hyper-fedsoc position regarding the free use of equity to enforce these precepts ignores the underlying philosophy of equity, which is to look to the essential fairness and balance the competing interests at stake. While it isn't hard to see that a squatter will eventually lose, speeding up the procedure to expose them to the risk of violating an order and facing contempt when they are the prejudiced party is itself unfair, especially considering the tenant will almost always win the balance of equities based on the disparity of power between a landlord and a tenant and on the essential risk of homelessness.

This makes for an appalling but well-considered Con Law exam answer, but misses the part of practice where the rubber hits the road when it comes to working with judges and evictions.

The very problem with a flexible 'balance of equities' approach to property rights is that it undermines any stability or predictability in the outcomes of any attempt to vindicate the exigibility of those property rights - precisely the opposite of what property rights is intended to achieve, stable and predictable private ordering with certain outcomes, allowing one to structure one's life and future. 'Balance of equities' tends to be vacuous, particularly when it comes to issues like eviction where squatters and ex-tenants always have some annoying sob story to try and tug at people's heartstrings of how they can't afford rent to house their family, which shouldn't undermine a landowner's basic autonomy and self-determination over his own property, inclusive of a right of peaceful enjoyment of his own possessions.

[Purgatio]

If you are an academic, you are clearly a productive member of society, unlike most who are heavily addicted to hard psychoactive substances, who can't do anything useful in the economy because they can't properly function in that dessicated physiological state.

Having a serious drug problem to the stage it is ruining their everyday life and being an intellectual are not mutually exclusive, they just aren't. Sure, the former may affect the latter, but it does not automatically cancel it out.

And if they are able to endure that serious drug problem to conduct valuable academic research or write well-considered academic articles that further intellectual progress in that field, then they are productive members of society. The unemployed junkie getting high every day and night in the back of his trailer in a random trailer park until he ODs at an early age, however, is not.

[Purgatio]

I don't see why people should be financially penalised for having the resources to make sound financial and capital investments for their family's future, or making private arrangements for their household's housing situation, including buying spare homes to be left vacant in the event of holidays or short fleeting summers that may be spent in one locale or another. These are perfectly legitimate choices for a family to make, if they have the resources to make them, and should not result in any vindictive taxation borne largely out of the public's class-based envy if nothing else.

If you stay for the summer, you wouldn't pay the tax. If you want to spend the summer somewhere different every year, just fucking rent a place instead of buy it.

Renting might require you to look around for available rental apartments around the time you or a family member has made the decision to spend the summer in that particular country. Its oftentimes just more convenient to have a vacant and empty property in that country and city so a family member who is in the locality either for a holiday, conference, or some other event or function can just crash at that location without having to worry about making meticulous plans in advance to fine a rental apartment and negotiate a short-term lease and what not.

[Liriena]

Not quite. They own far more housing than they could ever objectively need and they do so for the expressed purpose of inflating housing prices for everyone else and turning a profit from it. And turning a profit is not and should never be the primary purpose of home ownership. This becomes even more morally unjustifiable when there is a homelessness problem, and entire generations who work but can't afford to buy a home in their own community, while much of the hoarded housing remains unused.

As another poster said, if you had mass starvation, and someone was hoarding food, not even to eat it themselves or their family, but to increase food's overall price, I would not hesitate to make that someone's behaviour illegal and to seize their hoarded food to redistribute it to those who actually need it to survive.


I'm sure slave owners poured and pour a lot of money and capital into the purchase of people as "assets", but that wouldn't make them deserving of compensation when their immoral business is no longer legal.

Housing is a human right. Everyone deserves a decent home. Nobody deserves to own entire apartment buildings just so they can price everyone else out of the neighbourhood.


Personal property can and should always be kept safe. And if you want to build a home for your progeny, that's your right. But unless you are Gengis Khan, I doubt you'll ever have any real need for tens of pieces of housing property for posterity. If you want you and your kids to be rich, actually produce something for a change. Don't try to become a less classy feudal lord.

Two things.

1.) Housing is not a human right. The very idea is ridiculous.

From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Thank you for playing. Class is dismissed. Drive safe. Eat your veggies. Use protection.

And that's the tea.

[The New California Republic]

Having a serious drug problem to the stage it is ruining their everyday life and being an intellectual are not mutually exclusive, they just aren't. Sure, the former may affect the latter, but it does not automatically cancel it out.

And if they are able to endure that serious drug problem to conduct valuable academic research or write well-considered academic articles that further intellectual progress in that field, then they are productive members of society. The unemployed junkie getting high every day and night in the back of his trailer in a random trailer park until he ODs at an early age, however, is not.

So my point still stands, as this isn't really a rebuttal.

[Liriena]

Housing is not a human right. The very idea is ridiculous.

Strange, because the Universal Declaration of Human Rights completely contradicts you:

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_housing

inb4 we get the special snowflake Americanism of "if it's not in the US constitution it's not real".

[Gormwood]

Strange, because the Universal Declaration of Human Rights completely contradicts you:

inb4 we get the special snowflake Americanism of "if it's not in the US constitution it's not real".

Maybe if guns were seized, melted down and made into housing he'd suddenly think they were human rights. Or someone invents a gun that shoots houses instead of bullets.

[Purgatio]

And if they are able to endure that serious drug problem to conduct valuable academic research or write well-considered academic articles that further intellectual progress in that field, then they are productive members of society. The unemployed junkie getting high every day and night in the back of his trailer in a random trailer park until he ODs at an early age, however, is not.

So my point still stands, as this isn't really a rebuttal.

Not so much a rebuttal, more like clarifying my position. You said having a serious drug problem and being an intellectual isn't mutually exclusive, and I don't disagree with that.

[Purgatio]

Two things.

1.) Housing is not a human right. The very idea is ridiculous.

From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Thank you for playing. Class is dismissed. Drive safe. Eat your veggies. Use protection.

And that's the tea.

Well, a right to housing isn't in the American Convention of Human Rights, the European Convention of Human Rights, the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights, I could go on. Each of those instruments, however, do recognise a right to private property, phrased in some form or another.

[Estanglia]

A majority of people who are hooked on opioids were prescribed legal pain medications under the false pretense that the drugs were not addictive. It's NOT a bunch of junkies shooting heroine in their basement - it's ordinary people who got addicted without realizing it. If the latter were the case, Purdue Pharma, McKesson, and other drug companies wouldn't be getting slammed.
https://www.hhs.gov/opioids/about-the-e ... index.html
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/01 ... ester.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pu ... s-n1046526

Any sensible person with even half a brain knows that opioids are obviously addictive and will use such strong opioid painkillers in moderation, they only have themselves to blame for being reckless with their bodies and refusing to think about their long-term futures when they made a series of terrible choices.

Ah yes, only the people who took the drugs are at fault. The people in positions of authority who lied to them to get them to take those drugs are totally innocent guys.

[The New California Republic]

From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Thank you for playing. Class is dismissed. Drive safe. Eat your veggies. Use protection.

And that's the tea.

Well, a right to housing isn't in the American Convention of Human Rights, the European Convention of Human Rights, the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights, I could go on. Each of those instruments, however, do recognise a right to private property, phrased in some form or another.

"Um....ahhh...well...it isn't covered in these, so it's not important"

Pathetic.

[Purgatio]

Well, a right to housing isn't in the American Convention of Human Rights, the European Convention of Human Rights, the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights, I could go on. Each of those instruments, however, do recognise a right to private property, phrased in some form or another.

"Um....ahhh...well...it isn't covered in these, so it's not important"

Pathetic.

As pathetic as citing one treaty and suggesting that that somehow means that it promulgates some kind of universally-accepted principle? The fact that you can't handle a simple attempt to put the UNDHR into context by pointing out many other human rights treaties and instruments don't replicate all the rights within it is pretty intellectually disingenuous, its as if you just don't like being given facts and information that contradicts your opinion, which is intellectual laziness and close-minded parochialism at its worst, really.

[Purgatio]

Any sensible person with even half a brain knows that opioids are obviously addictive and will use such strong opioid painkillers in moderation, they only have themselves to blame for being reckless with their bodies and refusing to think about their long-term futures when they made a series of terrible choices.

Ah yes, only the people who took the drugs are at fault. The people in positions of authority who lied to them to get them to take those drugs are totally innocent guys.

Nothing wrong with marketing and selling painkillers through licensed medical professionals, but when people don't take responsibility over their own bodies to ensure they aren't recklessly getting themselves addicted to psychoactive substances, then yes, its their fault, not the pharmaceutical companies. Just as people who get addicted to smoking and alcohol and ruin their own bodies are to blame for that outcome, not the companies who sold them a product they voluntarily wanted and then recklessly abused rather than exercise some basic self-control and utilise them in moderation.

[The New California Republic]

"Um....ahhh...well...it isn't covered in these, so it's not important"

Pathetic.

As pathetic as citing one treaty and suggesting that that somehow means that it promulgates some kind of universally-accepted principle? The fact that you can't handle a simple attempt to put the UNDHR into context by pointing out many other human rights treaties and instruments don't replicate all the rights within it is pretty intellectually disingenuous, its as if you just don't like being given facts and information that contradicts your opinion, which is intellectual laziness and close-minded parochialism at its worst, really.

It was highlighting that it has been a recognised right, contrary to Emerald Legions' assertions. I was questioning your motivation for needing to water it down by mentioning other human rights treaties while adding that a right to private property is included, the motivation which itself is intellectually disingenuous.

[Estanglia]

Ah yes, only the people who took the drugs are at fault. The people in positions of authority who lied to them to get them to take those drugs are totally innocent guys.

Nothing wrong with marketing and selling painkillers through licensed medical professionals, but when people don't take responsibility over their own bodies to ensure they aren't recklessly getting themselves addicted to psychoactive substances, then yes, its their fault, not the pharmaceutical companies. Just as people who get addicted to smoking and alcohol and ruin their own bodies are to blame for that outcome, not the companies who sold them a product they voluntarily wanted and then recklessly abused rather than exercise some basic self-control and utilise them in moderation.

Did you miss the:

A majority of people who are hooked on opioids were prescribed legal pain medications under the false pretense that the drugs were not addictive.

Bit?

So these people were being lied to by these licensed medical professionals and/or pharmaceutical companies. These people in positions of authority, these people who should be the ones who know the most about whether or not this drug is addictive, lied. And it's the person who put their trust in the person who's job is to make them better not get them hooked on opiods who's at fault. Somehow.

Yeah, no. If someone in a position of authority over you who you trust to make you better gives you something that they lied about which makes everything worse for you (breaking your trust in the process), they are the ones to blame.

[Purgatio]

As pathetic as citing one treaty and suggesting that that somehow means that it promulgates some kind of universally-accepted principle? The fact that you can't handle a simple attempt to put the UNDHR into context by pointing out many other human rights treaties and instruments don't replicate all the rights within it is pretty intellectually disingenuous, its as if you just don't like being given facts and information that contradicts your opinion, which is intellectual laziness and close-minded parochialism at its worst, really.

It was highlighting that it has been a recognised right, contrary to Emerald Legions' assertions. I was questioning your motivation for needing to water it down by mentioning other human rights treaties while adding that a right to private property is included, the motivation which itself is intellectually disingenuous.

Because it is crucial context. It bears mentioning the UDHR isn't a treaty, its a declaration proclaimed by the UNGA, which isn't strictly binding on States, whereas the three documents I cited are all treaties and its terms are legally-binding in treaty law on all State Parties that have ratified those treaties, and unlike the UDHR the ACHR, ECHR and Charter all have judicial bodies with binding jurisdiction to interpret and apply those treaties on the State Parties involved, suggesting that States take the rights in those treaties far more seriously and regard them as holding far greater importance than the rights in a non-binding document like the UDHR, and it baffles me that you get annoyed when someone points out that the limited relevance of the document you cite when placed within a wider international legal context.

And its even more ironic that you call it "pathetic" for me to cite three binding treaties, which don't have a right to housing, to situate and contextualise the right to housing in international law, but somehow it isn't intellectually pathetic to cite one single document, which isn't even a binding treaty to begin with, and pretend that if a right is in there that that ends the discussion because it reflects some kind of international consensus that a right to housing undoubtedly exists. Again, to an untrained eye like me, it just looks like you don't like people pointing out information and facts in objective reality that don't cohere with your argument or your worldview.

[Purgatio]

Nothing wrong with marketing and selling painkillers through licensed medical professionals, but when people don't take responsibility over their own bodies to ensure they aren't recklessly getting themselves addicted to psychoactive substances, then yes, its their fault, not the pharmaceutical companies. Just as people who get addicted to smoking and alcohol and ruin their own bodies are to blame for that outcome, not the companies who sold them a product they voluntarily wanted and then recklessly abused rather than exercise some basic self-control and utilise them in moderation.

Did you miss the:

A majority of people who are hooked on opioids were prescribed legal pain medications under the false pretense that the drugs were not addictive.

Bit?

So these people were being lied to by these licensed medical professionals and/or pharmaceutical companies. These people in positions of authority, these people who should be the ones who know the most about whether or not this drug is addictive, lied. And it's the person who put their trust in the person who's job is to make them better not get them hooked on opiods who's at fault. Somehow.

Yeah, no. If someone in a position of authority over you who you trust to make you better gives you something that they lied about which makes everything worse for you (breaking your trust in the process), they are the ones to blame.

Literally everyone knows opioids are addictive, everyone, its basic common sense, I mean seriously who the hell thinks that heroin, for example, isn't an addictive substance? Why would other opioids which are chemically indistinguishable from heroin be any less addictive? When a fact is this obvious, its fair and legitimate to expect people to know it and act accordingly. Just as any sensible person knows that fast food is unhealthy for you, and if a fast food company said otherwise it wouldn't obviate the personal responsibility of people to gorge themselves on fast food and suffer health problems later in life.

[The New California Republic]

It was highlighting that it has been a recognised right, contrary to Emerald Legions' assertions. I was questioning your motivation for needing to water it down by mentioning other human rights treaties while adding that a right to private property is included, the motivation which itself is intellectually disingenuous.

Because it is crucial context. It bears mentioning the UDHR isn't a treaty, its a declaration proclaimed by the UNGA, which isn't strictly binding on States, whereas the three documents I cited are all treaties and its terms are legally-binding in treaty law on all State Parties that have ratified those treaties, and unlike the UDHR the ACHR, ECHR and Charter all have judicial bodies with binding jurisdiction to interpret and apply those treaties on the State Parties involved, suggesting that States take the rights in those treaties far more seriously and regard them as holding far greater importance than the rights in a non-binding document like the UDHR, and it baffles me that you get annoyed when someone points out that the limited relevance of the document you cite when placed within a wider international legal context.

And again the point was that a right to housing has been stated to be a right, regardless of whether it has been carried across to other treaties or not. It was directed at Emerald Legion's assertion. You really are reading far too much into this.

And its even more ironic that you call it "pathetic" for me to cite three binding treaties, which don't have a right to housing, to situate and contextualise the right to housing in international law, but somehow it isn't intellectually pathetic to cite one single document, which isn't even a binding treaty to begin with, and pretend that if a right is in there that that ends the discussion because it reflects some kind of international consensus that a right to housing undoubtedly exists.

That's really not why I called it that. Again, you are reading too much into this.

Again, to an untrained eye like me, it just looks like you don't like people pointing out information and facts in objective reality that don't cohere with your argument or your worldview.

I've been here debating for a long time. If that was the case, I certainly wouldn't have stuck around.

[Purgatio]

Because it is crucial context. It bears mentioning the UDHR isn't a treaty, its a declaration proclaimed by the UNGA, which isn't strictly binding on States, whereas the three documents I cited are all treaties and its terms are legally-binding in treaty law on all State Parties that have ratified those treaties, and unlike the UDHR the ACHR, ECHR and Charter all have judicial bodies with binding jurisdiction to interpret and apply those treaties on the State Parties involved, suggesting that States take the rights in those treaties far more seriously and regard them as holding far greater importance than the rights in a non-binding document like the UDHR, and it baffles me that you get annoyed when someone points out that the limited relevance of the document you cite when placed within a wider international legal context.

And again the point was that a right to housing has been stated to be a right, regardless of whether it has been carried across to other treaties or not. It was directed at Emerald Legion's assertion. You really are reading far too much into this.

In one singular and isolated non-binding document passed by the UNGA early in the UN's history when it had only a fraction of the membership it has today, with a right that States generally have been unwilling to codify into any instrument with legally-binding force or any teeth whatsoever. I find it particularly telling that the ICCPR, drafted by the UN which, unlike the UDHR, actually is a binding treaty and actually is enforceable before a treaty-enforcing body (the Human Rights Committee, for States who ratify the Optional Protocol), also omits any reference to a right to housing. Enough said. States are willing to vote for a purely-symbolic, non-binding piece of paper that briefly mentions a right to housing, but when it comes to negotiating a multilateral treaty that actually imposes binding legal obligations on States, coupled with a treaty-enforcing body with jurisdiction to impose binding interpretations of the treaty on parties to the ICCPR Optional Protocol, suddenly States aren't willing to incorporate a right to housing at all. In that context, continuing to rely on this non-binding isolated document to contradict Emerald Legion's assertion that there is no right to housing begins to look silly if not delusional.

[The New California Republic]

And again the point was that a right to housing has been stated to be a right, regardless of whether it has been carried across to other treaties or not. It was directed at Emerald Legion's assertion. You really are reading far too much into this.

In one singular and isolated non-binding document passed by the UNGA early in the UN's history when it had only a fraction of the membership it has today, with a right that States generally have been unwilling to codify into any instrument with legally-binding force or any teeth whatsoever. I find it particularly telling that the ICCPR, drafted by the UN which, unlike the UDHR, actually is a binding treaty and actually is enforceable before a treaty-enforcing body (the Human Rights Committee, for States who ratify the Optional Protocol), also omits any reference to a right to housing. Enough said. States are willing to vote for a purely-symbolic, non-binding piece of paper that briefly mentions a right to housing, but when it comes to negotiating a multilateral treaty that actually imposes binding legal obligations on States, coupled with a treaty-enforcing body with jurisdiction to impose binding interpretations of the treaty on parties to the ICCPR Optional Protocol, suddenly States aren't willing to incorporate a right to housing at all. In that context, continuing to rely on this non-binding isolated document to contradict Emerald Legion's assertion that there is no right to housing begins to look silly if not delusional.

What did we say about "less is more" in the other thread?

And again you are really reading far too much into this.

[Purgatio]

In one singular and isolated non-binding document passed by the UNGA early in the UN's history when it had only a fraction of the membership it has today, with a right that States generally have been unwilling to codify into any instrument with legally-binding force or any teeth whatsoever. I find it particularly telling that the ICCPR, drafted by the UN which, unlike the UDHR, actually is a binding treaty and actually is enforceable before a treaty-enforcing body (the Human Rights Committee, for States who ratify the Optional Protocol), also omits any reference to a right to housing. Enough said. States are willing to vote for a purely-symbolic, non-binding piece of paper that briefly mentions a right to housing, but when it comes to negotiating a multilateral treaty that actually imposes binding legal obligations on States, coupled with a treaty-enforcing body with jurisdiction to impose binding interpretations of the treaty on parties to the ICCPR Optional Protocol, suddenly States aren't willing to incorporate a right to housing at all. In that context, continuing to rely on this non-binding isolated document to contradict Emerald Legion's assertion that there is no right to housing begins to look silly if not delusional.

What did we say about "less is more" in the other thread?

And again you are really reading far too much into this.

You want me to summarise my argument in a single sentence? How about this - you have utterly failed, whatsoever, to provide a single good and persuasive argument to refute Emerald Legion's claim that there is no right to housing, fixating on a non-binding symbolic document that in no way refutes that assertion, whilst ignoring any attempt to contextualise that document within the wider international legal order.

[The Emerald Legion]

Two things.

1.) Housing is not a human right. The very idea is ridiculous.

From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Thank you for playing. Class is dismissed. Drive safe. Eat your veggies. Use protection.

And that's the tea.

The universal Declaration of human rights. Which is both legally non-binding and a 'Guideline' for the UN to follow. The same UN that has serious issues with it's agents raping people en masse, has no real teeth that aren't borrowed from real powers using it to disguise realpolitik as humanitarianism, and has fucking Somalia on their Human Rights Council...

Next time you want to use a pretend an institutions standards mean something send me something that actually means something somewhere. like maybe a law from South Ossetia.

[The New California Republic]

What did we say about "less is more" in the other thread?

And again you are really reading far too much into this.

You want me to summarise my argument in a single sentence? How about this - you have utterly failed, whatsoever, to provide a single good and persuasive argument to refute Emerald Legion's claim that there is no right to housing, fixating on a non-binding symbolic document that in no way refutes that assertion, whilst ignoring any attempt to contextualise that document within the wider international legal order.

The mere existence of the document is refutation enough to show that it has been highlighted as a recognised right, which was the point all along. Just because you have tried to bend and twist my point into something other than it was intended does not in any way invalidate it, hence why I keep telling you that you are reading far too much into this.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

I'm sorry, but I can't sympathize with squatters. There are better ways to solve homelessness than giving them what they want.

Now if only our government wasn't so corrupt and morally bankrupt then maybe we could fucking get those solutions put into action.