I think that’s a reasonable take but I do disagree. Violence is necessary sometimes. You should always aim to avoid violence, but if the other party is not able to resolve conflicts without it, you have to be able and willing to use it as a fallback. If you examine how people operate in situations where nonviolence is not an option, you will notice they suddenly become okay with violence. What is pretty universally recognized as bad is using violence when it’s not necessary.

TL;DR: Speak softly and carry a big stick

I’ll disagree with your point on violence teaching violence. I was spanked as a child, and even hit with belts etc (balkan parents) and yet now in my adult life I avoid violence whenever possible and believe it is wrong in 95% of cases. However that means theres 5% where it is unavoidable, and even necessary.

Also I would counter this argument by saying that if we teach people that violence is never the answer, we raise them to be the kind of people who will let others step all over them (an extreme example is peaceful protestesters against corrupt/outright evil governments - unfortunately it doesnt work most of the time). Now does that mean we should teach that violence is the easy solution you should jump to from the get go? No. It should be stressed that it is only for situations where there is no alternative and the transgression is severe enough to warrant a severe reaction/consequences. So for example, no matter how many times a parent tells their child to do the laundry and they don’t, violence isnt the proportionate consequence. However if a parent catches their kid bullying or endangering others, then yes the “crime” is severe enough in my opinion to warrant a violent response if the child repeatedly engages in that behaviour.

Using violence as a deterrent teaches kids that it’s OK to use violence against others in the future.

Except as others have pointed out, there’s cases where a violent response (or the possibility of one) is necessary. There’s a couple of good adages on the subject:

It’s better to be a warrior in a garden than a gardener in a war

A man that is incapable of fighting isn’t peaceful, he’s helpless

And like one of the other responders, I was spanked as a child but that didn’t lead me to resolving problems with violence as an adult.

I never once threatened violence or used any sort of violence against my kids, and they never used violence as they grew up.

Tbh, that sounds more like they were fortunate enough to never be in a situation that required violence

It only took humanity 50 years to wipe an average of 70% off the panet’s biodiversity

https://ourworldindata.org/biodiversity#all-charts

Are there a lot of charities and free services that homeless people can use?

Depends on the type of homeless. Folks who were just evicted and need someplace safe so they can get back on their feet? Sure. People with severe mental health issues or drug addictions? not so much.

Going to a shelter involves giving up certain freedoms that living outside affords you. If you’re dealing with a heroin addiction, they won’t let you bring your drugs in. Got a pet dog companion? No dogs allowed. Going with a friend or partner? Expect to be split up. Also shelters often fill up and the next shelter with space may be an hour walk away.

It also doesn’t help that the shelters are all separate charities and don’t really coordinate.

So as miserable as it is, many people prefer living in tents and won’t even accept a shelter when they’re offered help as their tent encampment is being cleared by authorities.

As someone who works with homeless people in an area with a generous population, lots of charities, and free services, you are repeating one of the most dangerous types of misinformation. It’s the kind that draws our attention to 0.1% that is technically true, while diminishing the conversation about the actual problem.

The “tourists”, as we sometimes call them, are the 0.1%. They come and go and there is always one or two around, but they are not the ones with the serious problems. Some might think of them as outliers in the group, but I wouldn’t even group those 0.1% with the other 99.9%. We still make sure they are okay, but they are not the problem when people talk about “homelessness”.

I’m assuming you are good hearted. All intelligent good-natured people have mistakenly repeated points before understand the nuances. I just hope you and anyone else reading might consider a different way of thinking. Repeating this talking point makes it very hard for the people trying to fight homelessness. Funding drys up and people die because public discussion often focuses on the “tourists” and not on the actual problem.