> You're doing the same thing as others here - not providing any kind of a useful or coherent solution.

For what exactly? I’m not proposing a solution for all societal problems or even all of his, of course.

> Everyone gets that he shouldn't spray her with a hose.

It doesn’t seem like you get that, given your next sentence:

> What is a better thing that he is practically able to do that has any reasonable chance of resolving this issue?

Literally not spray her with a hose is a better thing to do than spraying her with a hose. That’s exactly what I’m saying.

> For what exactly? I’m not providing a solution for all societal problems, of course.

For the specific situation we're talking about - come on now, I think that's pretty apparent.

> Literally not spray her with a hose is a better thing to do than spraying her with a hose. That’s exactly what I’m saying.

You're ignoring the second half of the question, which I'll repeat here: "that has any reasonable chance of resolving this issue?"

If the goal is to stop her from doing the things that she is doing, then you're incorrect. Not spraying her with a hose has absolutely no chance of resolving the issue. Spraying her with a hose does have a chance of resolving the issue. It's not a happy or positive solution, and you can debate the ethics of it all you want, but as a way to get her to leave him and his business alone, it is clearly better than doing nothing.

I really just don't understand this mode of discourse. I do not have a proposal for solving any major societal problems, nor should I be obligated to provide one in order to propose that not spraying someone with water is better than spraying someone with water.