Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A stranger secretly lived in my home

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 199 posts

Re: A stranger secretly lived in my home

#171

Post by Jiro »

mbrodersen wrote: post #156
ModernMech wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

90% of victims of rape and sexual assault know their attacker. The prototypical rapist is not a disheveled homeless man attacking you in the middle of the night. Rather, he is your boss, your friend, your relative, your date. If you find yourself warning people of rape and assault when talking about the homeless, think hard about why that is. Because going by the numbers, it’s the housed who you should be afraid of w…

I am surprised you were downvoted. What you are saying is 100% correct. Most assaults/rapes/… are committed by people you know. Not strangers.

He should be downvoted. The fact that most rapists are people you know is related to the fact that most people you encounter are people you know. It does not mean that one individual person who you know is more likely to be a rapist than one individual person who you don't.

More people have died of the flu than obscure cancer X, but you could not logically conclude that catching the flu is more likely to kill you than getting obscure cancer X.

And this doesn't even consider that "person you know" is not the same as "person you know positively". A stalker is a person you know. Your Mafia boss or your drug dealer is a person you know. For that matter, if you let the homeless guy into your office more than once, he's a person you know.

Re: A stranger secretly lived in my home

#172

Post by ungamedplayer »

nkrisc wrote: post #149
morpheos137 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is great but not all homeless are benign. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Lynn_Sells >On May 13, 1992, a 19-year-old woman in Charleston, West Virginia, was driving when she saw Sells panhandling under an overpass with a sign that said, "I will work for food."[1] She felt sorry for him and took him to her home, asking him to wait outside. She went into her home to get some food for him, and by the time…

Most serial killers are not homeless. Beware of anyone who lives in a house, they may be a serial killer.

Most people who make very poor financial and social decisions are homeless.

Re: A stranger secretly lived in my home

#173

Post by fighterpilot »

ungamedplayer wrote: post #172
nkrisc wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most serial killers are not homeless. Beware of anyone who lives in a house, they may be a serial killer.

Most people who make very poor financial and social decisions are homeless.

I think you mean to say that most people who are homeless make very poor financial and social decisions. The other way around is almost certainly false simply given how scarce homeless people are.

Re: A stranger secretly lived in my home

#174

Post by CraigJPerry »

anm89 wrote: post #83
lisper wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people going through your trash is quite a nuisance. Sure, but who is ultimately responsible for this, the people going through the trash, or the people who have structured our society in such a way that there are people who think their best option in life is to scavenge other people's trash? Because I'm pretty sure that the people going through the trash would stop in an instant if they were offered a better alter…

there are no "people who structure society" in a meaningful sense. no one sat in a meeting and said " ok lets design it so some people have to eat out of the trashcan" yes some people have more pull than others, maybe a lot more, but even the president doesnt have that kind of ability to "structure" the day to day reality of average people ina generalized way

>> no one sat in a meeting and said " ok lets design it so some people have to eat out of the trashcan"

What are panhandling ordinances if not exactly that?

Re: A stranger secretly lived in my home

#175

Post by jokethrowaway »

morsch wrote: post #168
frosted-flakes wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm trying to get this straight. If he owns the house and lives there, then why do his tenant's rights supersede his own? The tenant might live there and thus has certain rights, but so does he .

I don't think it's absurd that the tenant gets extra protection to counterbalance the ownership issue that lets the owner-tenant have the last word in the long run. But I suspect the man would draw the short straw regardless of the ownership situation. Which I'm fine with, it still seems to be a reasonable heuristic given how imbalanced I believe domestic abuse is. But obviously it's unjust in some cases, and not use…

So you think if the woman owned the house and the man told the police he "felt unsafe" they would throw the woman out of her house?

Domestic abuse has been ignored for too long and I'm glad women are being listened to. Men are still rarely listened to. Look at Johnny Depp for one.

The police / legal system is biased against men, from "always believe her" to "she gets to live with the kids and his expenses" to "you were married so you have to keep paying to maintain her life quality after marriage".

The problem with bias is that it creates economic incentives for women to lie their way to the life they want. You married a rich guy and you're bored because he's always working and he's never home? A small lie and you'll get him out of the house, pronto!

I think we should revert to property ownership in this case. If she feels unsafe, she can leave. If she is a 50% owner I can understand removing the suspected abuser from the premise. Unless she can't prove abuse I think she should pays the lodging fees though, for example by losing a small portion of the shares in the house. If she owns the house 100% he should just leave.

Re: A stranger secretly lived in my home

#176

Post by jokethrowaway »

atatatat wrote: post #131
frosted-flakes wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm trying to get this straight. If he owns the house and lives there, then why do his tenant's rights supersede his own? The tenant might live there and thus has certain rights, but so does he .

Not if he's determined to be an aggressor in the eyes of law enforcement in the (at least, US) jurisdiction.

In this case noone is claiming abuse, there is no aggression. She merely stated she was feeling unsafe.

We don't live in minority report, so he's not an aggressor.

Re: A stranger secretly lived in my home

#177

Post by jokethrowaway »

baud147258 wrote: post #118
WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can be but usually isn't. The value of a local, penalty-backed law is in it's ability to guide bulk behavior. These laws imply a bargain we make with our governments, that enforcement will be limited to the stated objective. Reducing traffic speeds by citing a few speeders - this upholds that bargain. Citing every possible speeder while those fines fatten the police budget is a gross perversion.

Maybe my own opinion is coloured by the fact that I live in France, where speeding cameras are very common and seem effective in reducing speeding, but fining every speeder with automatic cameras seems a better solution than citing speeders at random

I hated speeding cameras with a passion in Italy. The concept is not bad but the ways limit are set is just plain ridiculous and an obvious plot to get people to pay the tolls for the highway (owned by Allianz as of now). The slower roads are perfectly fine and mostly deserted but you have stupidly low limits and the chance of getting a high bill which can be quite stressful.

I understand why people opt for the highways and paying a small amount now vs a bigger unexpected bill later on.

Another example of government policies and taxpayers money aiding private companies the government sold something to (they used to be public).

Re: A stranger secretly lived in my home

#178

Post by morsch »

jokethrowaway wrote: post #175
morsch wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's absurd that the tenant gets extra protection to counterbalance the ownership issue that lets the owner-tenant have the last word in the long run. But I suspect the man would draw the short straw regardless of the ownership situation. Which I'm fine with, it still seems to be a reasonable heuristic given how imbalanced I believe domestic abuse is. But obviously it's unjust in some cases, and not use…

So you think if the woman owned the house and the man told the police he "felt unsafe" they would throw the woman out of her house? Domestic abuse has been ignored for too long and I'm glad women are being listened to. Men are still rarely listened to. Look at Johnny Depp for one. The police / legal system is biased against men, from "always believe her" to "she gets to live with the kids and his expenses" to "you we…

So you think if the woman owned the house and the man told the police he "felt unsafe" they would throw the woman out of her house?

No, I don't. Which is why I said "I suspect the man would draw the short straw regardless of the ownership situation." But I think domestic violence initiated by men is a bigger societal issue than women lying their way to the life they want.

Re: A stranger secretly lived in my home

#179

Post by ModernMech »

Jiro wrote: post #171
mbrodersen wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am surprised you were downvoted. What you are saying is 100% correct. Most assaults/rapes/… are committed by people you know. Not strangers.

He should be downvoted. The fact that most rapists are people you know is related to the fact that most people you encounter are people you know. It does not mean that one individual person who you know is more likely to be a rapist than one individual person who you don't. More people have died of the flu than obscure cancer X, but you could not logically conclude that catching the flu is more likely to kill you tha…

Breaking down that 90%, 24% is from family, 23% is romantic partners, and 44% falls into the “other people I know category” which seems to be the one you are nitpicking could include stalkers and mafia bosses. Be that as it may, total strangers account for just 9% of cases, yet the “beware of strangers, they may rape you” seems more aptly applied to lovers and family (50% of cases).
Post reply on HN