[manfredo]

Because it's strictly better than the status quo? Given the choice between taking a crap in public and leaving a turd on the sidewalk vs. taking a crap in public and having it flushed how is the former preferable to the latter? The unfortunately reality is that creating a private space for relieving oneself is regularly abused as other commenters have pointed out. It's an instance of hostile design 1, but one that is evidently necessary.

Its also a form of restroom that is common in many other countries. Such a type of toilet is not new.

1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_architecture

[jakevn]

The former is preferable because you are providing a disservice to the community that will not allow you dignity, even though they can most obviously afford it.

[toomanyrichies]

Counterpoint- "the community that will not allow you dignity" is not a homogenous entity. The city of San Francisco contains multitudes, many of whom are compassionate individuals who take active measures to help those on the streets. By pooping on the sidewalk / in front of City Hall / etc., one indiscriminately targets both those who are compassionate and those who aren't.

Furthermore, one isn't likely to create a community that does allow dignity for all, without first winning the hearts and minds of the less-than-compassionate members of the public. And one isn't likely to win those people over by pooping on their doorstep.

[manfredo]

Again, the issue is not affordability but the fact that public restrooms are abused and used for dangerous and often illicit activity

The former is not preferable because it spreads disease, and instills disdain for the homeless among the community thus decreasing willingness to dedicate resources towards services helping the homeless (thus hurting those homeless that do try to maintain good hygiene).

Not to mention, you have a very negative and prejudiced view of the homeless if you think that they desire to cause harm to the city. The overwhelming majority of homeless are not the spiteful, antisocial people you seem to believe them to be. They may often resort to harmful activity to survive (e.g. theft) but rarely have I seen them cause harm for no reason but to make other people suffer. Maybe things like leaving trash strewn about after scavenging through it, but that's more negligent than spiteful.

[jakevn]

Do you honestly believe that someone that is living on the streets, shitting in the open, is thinking about the spread of disease or homelessness PR?

[manfredo]

Maybe, maybe not. I'd be hesitant to conclude that people on the streets don't understand the impact of their conduct. I've seen people that are on one hand doing obviously illegal things like processing stolen bikes, but on the other hand take steps to avoid unnecessarily inconveniencing the neighborhood so as to avoid attracting the ire of residents.

Regardless that's largely tangential to the ridiculous claim you made earlier that open defecation is somehow better for the community than using a squat toilet. Not only are you advocating a highly unsanitary activity that can easily lead to hepatitis outbreaks for example (which would disproportionately affect people living on the streets), you're portraying the homeless as some sort of spiteful group that wants to deliberately inflict suffering on the rest of society. I cannot fathom why you thought that comment was productive.

[toomanyrichies]

It seems like there are two possibilities- either they do understand the impact of their conduct and just don't care, or they don't understand the impact of their conduct (whether due to mental impairment or some other cause). Am I leaving any other possibilities out, or is that an exhaustive list?

The reason I ask is this:

If they do understand the impact, then they're intentionally endangering public health, harming quality of life for the city's other inhabitants, and possibly committing a crime for which they are of sound mind and body to be (hopefully) held accountable.

And if they don't understand the impact of this choice, odds are that the same applies their other various life choices as well. And if that's indeed the case, can we as a society please stop treating their choice to live on the streets as one that should be respected? We wouldn't let a child make that decision on their own, so why should we let someone whose mental faculties are arguably just as lacking, if not more so?

I'm not arguing that homelessness should be a crime for which people should be jailed. In fact I'm aware already that the courts in the US have barred cities from jailing homeless when no other alternatives are available.

I don't pretend to know what the solution to homelessness is, but I think we need to at least discuss whether a person who is homeless due to mental disfunction can simultaneously be mentally sound enough to decide for themselves to live on the street. I think "respect their decision to live on the streets" lets us avoid making tough decisions about how to help people who are impaired from helping themselves.

Note that I'm only referring to people who are homeless due to mental illness, not due to other factors (domestic abuse, job loss, etc.).