What? If absolutely noone *ever* gave change absolutely no homeless would ask for it.
Stupid political crap your friends post on facebook. - Page 300
Really? So because two things are separate they have to be ordinally ranked? And of course, just so you can feel pious, you've decided not only must we ordinally rank them we're going to put the quantitative over the qualitative? This is why people don't take most liberals/socialists seriously.
I'm pretty sure you assume Bernie Sanders is right wing.
Best articles I could find with a quick google-fu.
Best articles I could find with a quick google-fu.
That's some of the stuff I've read but their conclusions do not follow. For instance, from the first link:
That's more than $42,000 in savings every year, more than offsetting the costs of housing.
How can they claim a 42k savings based on this statement? You have to add the cost of housing (20k) to the various other factors that contribute to that 62,5k number such as healthcare. Merely because society houses someone does not mean all their other burdens to society go away.
I think housing the homeless is probably on the right track but I don't think it's the huge money saver some are trying to make it out to be in attempts to appeal to fiscal conservatives. I think this is just an attempt to exaggerate any fiscal savings and attempt to paint those not in favour of free housing as bad and/or greedy people.
In terms of creating a society I want to live in I think this is great but I don't like how this is getting framed by SJW types.
Im tempted to say the free housing would come back to haunt us as the incentive to "be homeless" would be radically changed as would the number of (new) homeless. As opposed to it just being a mental health issue (and mental health infrastructure issue) youd get a whole bunch of people dumping their shitty studio apartments and signing up.
If you read the source material this is all about the "persistently" homeless so it would take more effort than a few nights in the park.
if you hadn't read this already, thought it interesting considering the US its epidemic of diabetes, and widespread use of antibiotics for basically everything..
Very interesting indeed! My quick hunch, which was not one of the two possible findings mentioned in that link, is that repeated abx use by adults is a proxy or indicator of something else and that something else is the true risk for Type II.
I thought they mentioned it, I read a full article in german about it. The times article mentions two possible conclusions, one thats yours (repeated abx use is an indicator of another problem that causes type2) and the other that repeated abx use can cause it.. The original publication also mentions that:
Ah-doi. My point was: You contradicted yourself. If that was just an error of type, then fair enough. People don't chose to send their children to do hard labour, if they can afford not to. And, I'm glad you at least agree in the humane and objective fact, that, as wages go up, child labour goes down.
Your first sentence makes no sense. Do you mean it's possible to do an analysis of an issue coming from either economics or morality independently? Of course, that's possible. Sometimes, you can do both. For example: It is over 70% cheaper to put homeless people in free housing (yes, you read that right), than it is to leave them out on the street. That is an example of an issue which can be solved morally and economically, but isn't enacted merely because of politics.
Actually, if no one gave money to panhandlers, panhandling would still continue (but, perhaps to a smaller extent), as that is just the fucking nature of being homeless. (Seriously hoping that you don't think giving money or food to homeless people is an unwise thing.)
Your last example is a much better example of economics in relation to humanism. I wouldn't be able to sleep, if I'd known I had put any amount of money before human life, but that's just me.
Tell me when to stop.
No, that is a stupid statement. That's like saying: If there was no food, people wouldn't need to eat. Homeless people beg for money, because they don't have any money. Every time they beg, there's a chance someone will give them something, and a chance they won't give them something. If no one gave to the homeless, they would still beg, because that is the nature of being homeless. Your thinking literally makes no sense.
Edited by JapanAlex01 - 9/1/15 at 1:28am
Really? So, because two things are separate they have to be ordinally ranked? And, of course, just so you can feel pious, you've decided not only must we ordinally rank them; we're going to put the quantitative over the qualitative? This is why people don't take most liberals/socialists seriously.
Wow, I can't believe you just said that. I guess you're just the Ayn Rand type of guy--putting your demographic before anyone else's. Yes, of course, they have to be ranked, you dimwit. You weigh up the pros and cons of both, and then pick the best solution. That is a way of ranking two things by its very nature. You can do both at the same time, in some cases, which would mean you wouldn't have to rank them at all. Morality is always better than capital gains. Always. If that means a small immorality must be committed for the overall moral good, then, as a humanist, I guess you'd have to pick the largest overall good (assuming there was literally no way of doing both, of which I am almost always dubious).
Quantitative over qualitative? What does this have anything to do with? You take both into account with any argument; I never said you don't. But, using numeric data is more often the most scientific way of analysing an argument. Why you link those two words, to why conservatives don't trust liberals, is bemusing. It's like saying you don't trust people, because they eat cheese. The real reason conservatives don't trust liberals is because conservatives don't like helping anyone outside their demographic, and liberals do. It really is that plain and simple.
You're wrong. And, stop being so lazy with your trolling; it's beneath you.
Edited by JapanAlex01 - 9/1/15 at 1:41am
I'm glad you at least agree, that housing the homeless is a good, moral obligation, and would improve society. But, to ignore study after study representing factual data is what a climate change denier does.
Even if it cost exactly the same amount, it would be better than leaving them on the streets, as homeless people in housing are far more likely, to go on to getting a job, etc. I mean, you just said that it's a step in the right direction for society, and then argue that the numbers are wrong, as if that's the main issue. Any intelligent person (regardless of compassion) would argue it's the best thing to do overall, end of. This is why liberals smell a rat with conservatives all the time, because they refuse to do the smallest good for people in other demographics even when it benefits them. It's like they'd rather lose out themselves, to keep other people suffering. When conservatives call liberals out for being too self-righteous, it makes me laugh. Well, stop being so monstrous and dumb, then, and we might talk. Conservatives would rather not do any good at all than be called self-righteous, Lord forbid. They're usually, also, the ones who quote that Jesus fella a lot. The irony.
Edited by JapanAlex01 - 9/1/15 at 1:26am
I'm tempted to say the free housing would come back to haunt us, as the incentive to be homeless would be radically changed, as would the number of (new) homeless. As opposed to it just being a mental health issue (and mental health infrastructure issue), you'd get a whole bunch of people dumping their shitty studio apartments and signing up.
When conservatives say things like this, it makes me ponder how the human race even got this far. It's why I love coming to this thread.
It feels odd, to thank you for saying this.
@nootje Interesting diabetes article, BTW. I watched a documentary where a group of type 2 diabetics completely stopped taking their medication, and a bunch of type 1 diabetics severely reduced their insulin doses, etc., through the act of changing their diet. It was a raw food diet, but I think it would still probably work with a diet including meat. I think many in the healthcare industry just patch over the symptoms, without really looking at the cause of the illness: poor diet.
I do apologise for all the posts, but I couldn't be fucked to go back and forth and fill just one.
Edited by JapanAlex01 - 9/1/15 at 1:33am