> why did you made all those assumptions?

Back at you.

Here are your assumptions:

> I can tell your mad

> No doubt you wouldn't sit right next to a homeless person

It's you that are attacking me for holding a realistic opinion that is simply different than yours.

You seem to think that people sleeping on public benches are somehow more deserving of the public space than anyone else. You go so far as to assume that adding a handle to the middle of the bench is somehow against the hobos. It's not. The central handle helps elderly people stand up from a seated position.

> What if it's just at night?

So you would have these people sleep in the elements. How progressive of you.

> What if they got up if someone asked?

What if they don't?

>Why don't they make more benches or single seat armchairs instead of these things?

Apparently, your imaginary scenario has some imaginary logistics and imaginary budgets for public benches. I'm just glad that they are -they exist as they are.

If you are a public bench manufacturer, then I'm sure that you can offer Boston a deal on their bid. But I'm also sure that you are just some armchair quarterback, pretending that you know better than the contractors and the other experts who deal with this on a daily basis.

>No doubt you wouldn't sit right next to a homeless person anyways so why do you care so much about this?

Same back to you. Why do you care? The fact is that you are just ostentatiously pretending to care so much about the homeless. The same homeless that you think belong on the streets, in all sorts of weather and otherwise making a mess of a shared public space.

edit: grammar.

Because it's a public resource meant for 2 people and not just you.

I'm sure my fans would agree with you.

So called "unhoused people" are human beings. Many of which are what you would call "voluntary homeless." In fact there is a subreddit (that I'll let you find) where redditors talk about how to just be bums, "hang signs," live on the streets and otherwise just be parasitic on society.

The real homeless are people who are down on their luck, don't want to live on the street or are disabled. Society should find a place for them where they don't have to rest on public sidewalks.

What sort of "ppl" lie down on public benches? How long do they lie down for? Is it appropriate for someone to take over a public bench made for 2 people?

If only there were some sort of professional that could uphold the societal norms that protect the safety of others.

Construct metal benches without the use of oil or gas? Is that made by a blacksmith in a coal furnace?

I imagine that they'll look at the VIN and try to contact the owners prior to any crushing/auction.

Unlike you, I don't blame a collective for an individual's actions.

They have rights, but fewer rights than what they often take. This means, that they don't get to camp out on a bench meant for everyone. Public property doesn't mean that it's owned by any particular hobo.

Lol, have you ever tried asking a homeless person camping on public property to move?

Ask boston.gov.

Benches need to be temperature-resistant. People should be able to enjoy them regardless of temperature!

https://www.boston.gov/departments/age-strong-commission/age-friendly-boston/age-friendly-benches

There's also a great interactive map where you can find one near you, so you can go sit on it.

You're not 1/3 of the homeless, which apparently this bench wasn't made for.

https://hms.harvard.edu/news/one-third-us-homeless-are-obese

Well let's just get rid of oil and gas companies then. What are the consequences of that?

The implication is that the "people" are going to have a revolution and overthrow the system, replacing it with a communist dictatorship. In this world, people that use the phrase "late stage capitalism" all fancy themselves to be the leaders.

After all, if you're homeless you have more rights to public property than old people that just need to sit down.

Everyone who disagrees with you and doesn't believe any made up narrative is dumber than you. That is my experience too. Welcome to the internet.

> He never woke up

Narcolepsy is a reason to not hire someone in the first place, but the Union has a policy against firing someone for having a medical diagnosis of narcolepsy. It's the same with any union job. That's why he had a desk job and wasn't driving around.

I see you more of a Golden Youth and less of a Wez.

> You're a pinecone, get out of the way.

Also, you are most likely a criminal. The reason that you don't like the police is because you want to hurt others and get away with it.

You belong in prison.

Wonder what his bail was set to.

Doesn't matter. https://www.massbailfund.org/

> fail to recognize that 'defund' was used to get exactly their attention,

No, it literally means abolish the police.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abolish-defund-police.html

Edit:

Title "Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police"

quote from the article:

I’ve been advocating the abolition of the police for years. Regardless of your view on police power — whether you want to get rid of the police or simply to make them less violent — here’s an immediate demand we can all make: Cut the number of police in half and cut their budget in half. Fewer police officers equals fewer opportunities for them to brutalize and kill people. The idea is gaining traction in Minneapolis, Dallas, Los Angeles and other cities.

People would have you believe differently, but this is what the advocates are proposing. They'll lie about the message because that's all the activists have: is lies.

Remember that many on r/Boston want to defund the police and also let criminals out of prisons. What could go wrong?

The people in /r/Boston often want leniency towards violent criminals. I'm simply reminding those vile people, that there are consequences to these policies.

According to statistics, his age, race and gender -put him in the likely candidacy for being a victim of a violent crime.

Kramer