[dapole]

I wouldn’t jump the gun on that. OP was clearly trying to create a worse case scernaio so that a reader may see the story from the perspective of a land owner vs the first comment which while a beautiful sentiment doesn’t really take practicalities like liability into consideration.

[glangdale]

Finally, someone creating a scenario so we can see things from the much-neglected perspective of a land owner.

[dvtrn]

Okay. Fine.

Still doesn't explain how we, or ebbv at least-knows the gentleman has a mental condition. That seems-in the absence of anything confirming so in the article-to be an incredibly uncharitable assumption because the man has chosen a lifestyle us in the 21st century would be inclined to "other"-ize for no good and justifiable reason.

[wu-ikkyu]

Arbitrarily defining someone as mentally ill in order to take away their chosen way life is an age old strawman.

[ebbv]

That's not what the term "strawman" means. What you mean is it's an excuse used to oppress people, and that may be true but you'd have to give supporting cases. (Certainly it has been the case for LGBTQ people being oppressed in the past, even currently in some countries.)

Mental illness is also a real thing and a real problem, and people with serious problems who need medication often live outside the bounds of normal society. But that issue is not going to be solved here, and I think it's a distraction from the actual topic because the reality is he was on other people's property where he wasn't welcome.

[iamdave]

I think they're describing your applying a mental disorder to someone when there's no evidence of that anywhere in the article-to justify your position against the comment you responded to-as being a strawman.

Because it is.