That a public eye-sore is more of a matter to you than peoples’ lives is all I need to know. Thanks for playing.

Yes. There should be legal ramifications for the camp to be cleared without an alternative home for them already prepared.

You don’t know the actions of those individuals and their actions are not relevant.

Here comes right-wing brain #6 - “you don’t really want society to do something about this problem if you won’t solve it all by yourself”.

I can’t by the way, but I’d be glad for them to sleep in my yard.

Nope. You quoted me. Thus you continued the context of my reply.

It did not change. I said what I said, which you quoted, and it had nothing to do with people being in my yard. If you missed that context, it’s on you.

If you wanted to change the topic, you should not have quoted me from the existing topic.

I don’t own a house.

1. That homeless shelters have that rule, among several, is not evidence that these individuals were not in the shelters because of that rule.

2. Medically, no. It is not.

3. Bad rule but as we have seen, irrelevant unless you can prove that’s the issue.

But also, where then should they go?

It could change but it had not.

Irrelevant.

“Willing to become sober”.

1. Prove this.
2. That’s not just a matter of a simple decision.
3. So what if they were not?

The questions you asked me were within the established context. I never said that homeless people should not sleep in my yard.

Quite the opposite.

My response, which you quoted, was in the context of them living in my house. That was clear from the exchange.

I don’t have a backyard and that two of the 4 accounts bothering me with this dumb right-wing brain response are “king” and two are “jelly” has not been missed.

I don’t have one.

I would be fine with my landlord letting them sleep in the yard.

Would you?

If not, where?

And how many accounts do you have?

My house is not my backyard.

I keep hearing hideous people who think homeless people don’t have a right to a space to live.

That is someone else’s. What property would you propose that is not someone else’s?

You people are really awful.

You replied to me about my reply to your other account. The whole context was them living in my house.

That was what you challenged me on with your question about my security vs Walmarts.

https://www.reddit.com/r/massachusetts/comments/108h6qb/worcester_walmart_violated_ma_law_after_homeless/j3stp30/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3

Because you referred to the person who made the assertion as ‘I’.

In my residence, no. Yes. I think they should be able to live on unused property or public property.

But you are unwilling to name any place where they can live.

Fourth time I’ll ask you. If not “on someone else’s property” then where?

You seem to be admitting you are this person who literally suggested they live in my house.

https://www.reddit.com/r/massachusetts/comments/108h6qb/worcester_walmart_violated_ma_law_after_homeless/j3stp30/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3

And yes, I have a screenshot. Don’t edit it now.

I’m fully aware you understand that my security is at risk if random people live in my house but Walmart’s security is not at risk if they live next to the parking lot.

Why would you have security and liability issues from allowing this, but Walmart would not?

If you can’t see the difference between me and my daughter sharing our 800 sq feet of domicile with strangers and people sleeping on unused land between a parking lot and a river, I can’t help you.

It’s illegal in Worcester to sleep on public land.

I have a problem with the voters of Worcester, with MassDOT, with Walmart, with the Worcester government, with the MA state government, with the US federal government, and with several commenters here, including you.

They blocked.

> Oh no a random nobody on reddit who can't accomplish anything more than impotently bitch on social media has a problem with me whatever shall I do.

> I don't know if you have any responsible adults to tell you this but downvoting people on the internet doesn't make you right nor does it make you any less unmoored from reality.

I’m enough moored to reality that I can think outside the frame I was trained to look through, unlike you.

And I guess you were upset enough to block.

> I’m fully aware you understand that my security is at risk if random people live in my house but Walmart’s security is not at risk if they live next to the parking lot.

> Why would you have security and liability issues from allowing this, but Walmart would not?

If you can’t see the difference between me and my daughter sharing our 800 sq feet of domicile with strangers and people sleeping on unused land between a parking lot and a river, I can’t help you.

It’s illegal in Worcester to sleep on public land.