[aogaili]

Killing their dog and giving them a temporary bed is stupid and cruel solution.

And stupid cruel people with power make others suffer and some of them will end up homeless.

The homeless needs a lot of nurturing to get back on their feet.

[evancox100]

I am anti-cruelty and suffering, but it is not always cruel to force someone to do something they don't want to do, and it is not always kind to give them what they want.

If the choice is between them getting back on their feet but having to put the dog up for adoption (which is what I meant, not executing the dog on the spot), vs being stuck indefinitely homeless, I know which one I'm picking.

And again, I don't think "dogs" are the main impediment to homeless rehabilitation, the whole discussion is a sideshow. It was an illustrative example about well meaning intentions gone awry.

[pseudalopex]

The criticisms of your dog policy were illustrative also. The cases for forcing homeless people out of jobs and possessions are even weaker.

I am skeptical the choice you presented was illustrative. Temporary shelter is not enough often.

The supply of dogs exceeds demand. Have the honesty and courage to acknowledge the consequences of your proposals.

[aogaili]

I understand your argument. It is a tough situation to get out from, between a cycle of mental illness, isolation, a tough climb out.

Life can be very cruel. And when everyone and everything failed that man, and nothing left for him but that dog, he is then faced with a choice of between leaving the dog to try to fit again in a world that hurt him. No wonder many are stuck in this situation.