>Homelessness in America is our biggest problem.
LOL. Not the military industrial complex? Not pollution? Not corrupt politicians? Not murder, assault, rape, fraud? Not wall-street? Even autism is arguably much more important. You could even wrap it up in poor American education.
>every county should have a piece of land reserved for homeless individuals.
So crime-ridden slums that would attract only violent alcoholics and thieves. These people can't be 'saved' and are homeless because of their vices and inability or distaste for adapting to society.
>As to the fear of crime and drug use in these designated areas--if there's a problem police can always be called. I'm sure they can be dragged away from revenue collection?
Thinking the police have nothing better to do is one of the lamest excuses for wanting to create crime I've ever seen.
What do you mean, what about autism? It's a problem more important than homelessness. Having a home is not a physiological necessity, having a shelter is and only in adverse conditions (note that clothing can often do the job).
Also, 'Most homeless have mental problems' confirms the sentence you quoted. You're either intentionally misunderstanding it because you think I'm a mean person or, as it also seems, you have a poor understanding of English. Having mental problems that result in homelessness have also resulted in an inability or distaste for adapting to society as you, the government and everyone else demand people have residences. (Edited to remove a stray period and add a newline if it lets me. I'm having a formatting problem.)
Edit again: It's unacceptable to go around accusing people who make statements you disagree with trolls. In these instances, you're often wrong and you look like a fool to outside observers(who don't also do it habitually).
>whichever campground is closest to the city
>and are equipped with water, power (for trailers), and showers.
This is not camping. It's dishonest and offensive to call sitting around with every amenity programming camping. I can't understand where you get off having the audacity to say people need nature when you're flying around and driving hours to spend time in tacky family camp grounds and playing on your computer. I'm so disgusted that you think not taking a smartphone with you is an act of daring revolution. So, what, you own two phones? And the smart one can't be made to stop vibrating over every reply to your dumb tweets? Regarding everything else you wrote, there's a book about how to buck gullibility that might suit your little maverick wilderness adventures.
So are you implying he should not do these things? Or simply he is not doing it the right way? Or is your harsh tone due to perceiving this small change as inadequate for an outdoors guru like yourself? Please enlighten us as to why his small change (which makes him happy) is not appropriate to you.
As I read this comment I thought it was a shill piece and you proved me right with the link at the end. I was about to say that if you want to exploit the gullible here, do it less transparently but you more or less got it right.
As I read this comment I thought of a mind which habitually creates a reality of powerless victimhood so pervasive that it perceives bad intentions on the part of everyone and feels compelled to lash out at perceived threats that don't even exist. This is the product of an unskillful pattern of thinking. You can either go deeper into hell until you pop yourself or correct it.
Sex has been one of the major driving forces behind every decision I've made since I turned 13 or so. How I dress, how I talk, why I buy the things I buy and 50% of why I wake up at 5 am to go to the gym, why I go out to obnoxious bars and clubs... how is that not a 'need'? In the hunter-gatherer sense I guess it's not since I won't die if I don't have it but the want to have it as much as possible controls a huge percent of my daily actions. So maybe an 'addiction' then? Fine but now we're splitting hairs.
I would ague that marriage is not a need. It's an artificial construct that we impose on ourselves in a time when we don't need to do it. Women don't need you to survive, they can be their own providers now.
And why do you need to be betrothed to one woman for all eternity? Nature would love for you to spread your seed amongst many more women - larger bio-diversity.
But nobody is stopping you if traditional marriage is what you want to do, of course, more power to you.
While this is technically true, it's stated a little too glibly considering that we're talking about life-or-death (over the long term) evolutionary drives here.
