287
Montreal shopping mall plays “Baby Shark” on repeat to prevent unhoused people from loittering
(montreal.ctvnews.ca)
this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2024
287 points (99.3% liked)
Not The Onion
12403 readers
2563 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
And what's the definition of unhoused according to law? You aren't wrong in what you just said but its missing the point, unhoused literally means the same thing. The goverment only uses the term homeless if I'm not mistaken.
That's a quote from the link you just gave.
Amazingly enough, most words aren't defined in law!
Do you think Cornell defining homeless but not unhoused might be a hint that they are synonyms?
Not to mention you brought up the legal definition of homeless without offering anything to compare it to and help your point. That is the sole reason I brought it up.
You gave me a definition of homelessness, which doesn't counter what I said in the least and then gave me a article that sides with me (and then ignored it completely when I pointed it out) so I'm a bit puzzled.
But I guess sarcasm is easier then admitting you are wrong.
That is quoted US statute, made available in an easy to access format through Cornell, not Cornell defining anything.
I gave you an article that discusses the terminology and how it is used for context that differing terminology is no inherently all different names for the same thing. It doesn't define anything, it just makes it clear that there can be differing terminology that means different things and that the whole thing is a complicated topic. That is why I linked the article, not to prove definitions that don't exist because the terminology varies in usage and consideration of importance.
Any statement of how words are used will be wrong somewhere, except for things like the quoted law that is true in the context of written law in that country/region/whatever. There is always local or regional differences in usage.
So I am right about how we use it in our context to explain the concept of homelessness in the legal context even if some other people think it is a synonym, but thing other terminology has an important distinction. That is what I said, and if you can't understand there isn't a black and white defined terminology for all the variation then you aren't getting my point.
Backtrack all you want but you made a blanket statement saying they weren't synonyms for the entirety of the country when it only seems to apply to your personal context.
You then gave me a link to a meaningless definition and an article that clearly stated I was right, and then topped it off with rude sarcasm when I pointed it out.
The terminology seemed very black and white when you thought you were right, bro.
I was trying to be clear I wasn't talking about Canada, which the article was about, and that my example was from the US,. Not saying it was literally true throughtout the the entire US.
Apparently I needed a full essay to avoid you reading meaning into things. Congrats, you win the internet.
So it was a simple misunderstanding but you just decided to defend it to the death and be a dick about it instead of explaining what you meant. I don't think I could roll my eyes harder if I tried.
Your comments didn't leave room for interpretation. You willy nilly gave out your own definitions and then literally googled "unhoused vs homeless" and threw the first article at me without even reading it. I'm surprised you can even see me from such a high horse. Please.
I did explain. You treated explaining it as moving goalposts because you wanted to be right.
You were so close to being self aware.
I can literally re read the conversation, you only started explaining with an attitude in the last comment.
The time to explain was before you gave made up definitions, not to mention your explanation is a cop out. An explanation doesn't come with salty sarcasm.
The time was before the misunderstanding...
Go touch grass.
The time was after I said it wasn't a synonym. You could have explained that you meant only for you in your own little world, instead you debated, gave me useless definitions and an even worse article to try to prove your point.
Maybe if the explanation came before the sarcasm, I wouldn't still be here explaining the situation.
Tell you what, this is my time to stop responding, that way, you can lie to yourself without me bothering you.