News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:More Cities Are Making It Illegal to Hand Out Food to the... by kauffj on Thursday October 23, 2014 @12:59PM (#8499232)
Wouldn't banning panhandling/begging be an immoral restriction of speech? What is the fundamental difference between a beggar telling a sob story and the woman who stops you to talk about the ACLU/Planned Parenthood/<charity of the week>? Or are you for banning all public requests for money for any reason?
Re:More Cities Are Making It Illegal to Hand Out Food to the... by bokonist on Thursday October 23, 2014 @01:10PM (#8499310)
"What is the fundamental difference between a beggar telling a sob story and the woman who stops you to talk about the ACLU/Planned Parenthood/<charity of the week>? Or are you for banning all public requests for money for any reason?"

Well, given my druthers I'd ban those too.

Cities are very dense and, in the scheme of human existence, unnatural places. It takes effort and rules to make tens of thousands of humans occupy the same space and stay sane. That is why cities have the ability to pass ordinances to restrict all sorts of activity in public spaces. There is a right to freedom of assembly, but that does not mean you can assemble a crowd in the streets or sidewalks at any time, you need a permit. There is freedom of speech, but there are ordinances against playing blaring music or disturbing the peace. There are laws against unsolicited phone calls and spamming. There are ordinances banning neon signs on some streets, to prevent a race to the bottom where stores compete for the most obnoxious store frontage. Etc. etc. I view any form of asking of money to strangers on city streets to be a form of spamming. It is perfectly within the rights of a city to ban it.

Re:More Cities Are Making It Illegal to Hand Out Food to the... by JadeNB on Thursday October 23, 2014 @01:15PM (#8499347)
> Cities are very dense and, in the scheme of human existence, unnatural places.

I think that this kind of statement must be qualified very carefully. I believe (though I don't know) that cities are unnatural in the sense that they don't arise in nature among other animals than humans; but I'd be reluctant to call them unnatural for humans, in the sense that it seems to me that a large part of what makes us human is the ability to live together and function (well or poorly!) in large groups.

Re:More Cities Are Making It Illegal to Hand Out Food to the... by bokonist on Thursday October 23, 2014 @01:20PM (#8499397)
For most of the duration of the evolution of the human race, humans were living in groups of < 50 people. Cities of tens of thousands of people are a very recent phenomena. That said, evolution did not halt 5,000 years ago, and there probably are even more recent genetic selective pressure that has made it easier for people to live together in cities. But still, my broader point stands, a lot of rules and conditioning are needed for people to live together without driving each other crazy. Some of this conditioning we are not even conscious of, because the conditioning occurred when we are so young. But when you watch the parents of young children, you see how much effort it takes to do well.
Re:More Cities Are Making It Illegal to Hand Out Food to the... by Someone on Thursday October 23, 2014 @02:12PM (#8499734)
"I believe (though I don't know) that cities are unnatural in the sense that they don't arise in nature among other animals than humans"

Depends on what you consider a city. Ants, bees, termites, naked mole rats all live in densely populated 'buildings', with specialized division of labor between their inhabitants. Also, bat, bird or seal colonies can get incredibly dense.

Re:More Cities Are Making It Illegal to Hand Out Food to the... by JadeNB on Thursday October 23, 2014 @03:29PM (#8500211)
> Depends on what you consider a city. Ants, bees, termites, naked mole rats all live in densely populated 'buildings', with specialized division of labor between their inhabitants. Also, bat, bird or seal colonies can get incredibly dense.

I think that there is no better way to learn interesting facts than to make confident assertions on the Internet. :-)

Re:More Cities Are Making It Illegal to Hand Out Food to the... by innguest on Thursday October 23, 2014 @04:52PM (#8500683)
Proselytizing causes learning because it creates doubt in others (that will then build arguments to refute the assertions) and in the self (through doxastic aporia).

But the current mainstream thinking of relativism, where values are inverted, also thinks learning is bad (which is why we don't do it in schools and universities anymore), and so earnest discussions are discouraged and deemed offensive (but 5 minute shout matches on the news are still fair game).

Re:More Cities Are Making It Illegal to Hand Out Food to the... by JadeNB on Friday October 24, 2014 @10:09PM (#8506937)
Umm … I feel like I'm being scolded for something, but I'm not sure what—or maybe I am just mis-reading. :-)
Re:More Cities Are Making It Illegal to Hand Out Food to the... by innguest on Monday October 27, 2014 @01:39PM (#8516913)
I was agreeing with you and saying I also do that (make confident assertions to spur a conversation while being fully open to the possibility I'm wrong, because it seems to be a more efficient route than everyone doing infinite research before saying anything).

Sorry if that seemed rude or anything.

EDIT: example of this at work: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8514048

Re:More Cities Are Making It Illegal to Hand Out Food to the... by pessimizer on Thursday October 23, 2014 @01:19PM (#8499383)
You'd ban all public advertising? If so, you've got my vote.

edit: https://www.adbusters.org/magazine/73/Sao_Paulo_A_City_Witho...

Re:More Cities Are Making It Illegal to Hand Out Food to the... by brightsize on Thursday October 23, 2014 @01:47PM (#8499581)
According to the Wikipedia article on billboards, four states ban them now, including my home state of Vermont. So that's a start.
Re:More Cities Are Making It Illegal to Hand Out Food to the... by kauffj on Thursday October 23, 2014 @01:22PM (#8499418)
A far more defensible position, since it is consistent :D

I would have no problems with, and likely endorse, a private city banning many forms of public solicitation. It gets a lot more complicated when we are talking about public land.