6 ms·

> I'm not claiming that at all. You absolutely did. In fact, you plainly used the phrase "nothing to do with". I'm sorry, but words mean things. >In this topi

> I'm not claiming that at all. You absolutely did. In fact, you plainly used the phrase "nothing to do with". I'm sorry, but words mean things. >In this topic I've stated that chronic long-term homelessness is largely the result of mental illness and drug abuse. Then I am here to tell you that you have it perfectly backwards. What I've learned from working with the persons who make up the growing tent settlements in my giant city is that the perfect reverse is true: overwhelmingly, lack of capital triggers evictions, which triggers homelessness, and homelessness triggers mental illness, criminality and drug abuse. Exceptions to this pattern exist, but nowhere nearly in sufficient numbers to derail the characterization. >You're arguing a straw man when you imply we live in some sort of Randian/Libertarian free market capitalist system. We don't. Social welfare policies are tools already used by modern governments. I repeat: Your position is that concentrations of wealth -- such wealth's tangible assets dominated by holdings of real estate -- do not overwhelmingly divert the attention, priorities, electoral outcomes and revenues of government to their own ends at the explicit costs of the safety net. You seem to believe government does not sell political results exclusively to persons who can pay for those results...with capital. Again: total nonsense. I've hung around with way too many homeless people who were working three to five years ago and were laid off as an effect of nothing but their employers' capital flight for me to fail to notice that capital allocation is the primary catalyst in this suffering. >lob at our current system accomplishes besides FUD. Don't worry about what I'm accomplishing; through your response, I've already demonstrated that the role of capitalism in human suffering is commonly and literally a taboo to discuss. Someone, maybe even you, although it need not be, will notice this when they hadn't before. That is a good thing.

macspoofing 7y ago
>You absolutely did. In fact, you plainly used the phrase "nothing to do with". I'm sorry, but words mean things. Yes. Words mean things. You can't distort definitions to suit your argument. It doesn't work that way. But I'm fair minded. Let me qualify my statement to your satisfaction: "Your grossly dishonest distortion driven by some warped ideology is not useful in either diagnosing the homeless problem, nor coming up with a solution". That is what I wanted to convey to you. I hope that clears it up. >I repeat: Your position is that concentrations of wealth ... You can warp, distort and repeat as much as you want. That is not my position. >I've hung around with way too many homeless people who were working three to five years ago We both know you haven't. You wish you had, but you haven't. You come off like a disaffected college student who is really excited about Marx. >Don't worry about what I'm accomplishing The point is, I wish you were honest. If you're trying to argue for the replacement of the current soci-economic system, then argue it, instead of falling back on the eye-rolling "I'm just asking questions ... for a friend" cliche.
- harrumph 7y ago
  Yeah, if I had nothing to counter with on the topic and had my own indoctrination demonstrated so clearly, I might go ad hominem too.
  - macspoofing 7y ago
    Let me try another way. I think you have to find a way to manage your expectations in these discussions. For example, if the discussion centers around the problem of library fines, suggesting to overhaul the entire socio-economic system to solve it is not rational. In the same vein, the problem of homelessness in certain urban areas does not lend itself to a solution based on destroying the entire system. I understand you're very excited about Marx and every issue is just another entry to an ideological debate of communism vs capitalism that you want to have, but it tends to not be very productive and most will just ignore it. I know you feel slighted that I haven't answered your objections, but honest to God, I have no idea what specifics to answer to. You view our modern society through a specific ideological lens and you can't just expect others to take on your ideological assumptions. Here's an example of something you argued: "Your position is that the unavailability of housing to those suffering diseases tied directly to their being unable to pay market price for housing somehow has nothing to do with the prevailing economic arrangement that utterly defines the housing market these persons cannot participate in." To that, I can only say the following: 1) You're putting words in my mouth, that isn't my position. 2) That isn't the system we live in. We don't live in a purely capitalist system where everything is determined by the cold hand of the market. We live in a market-based economy, with a social welfare state. We spend inordinate amount of money on providing a safety net, from government programs to grants and subsidies. Government social spending is also complemented by non-profits, private charities, and churches. So no, not having an income to pay rent does not imply you're going to be homeless. 3) Lack of income isn't what is driving homelessness. Chronic homelessness is driven by drug and alcohol abuse, and mental illness. That is a fundamentally different problem, requiring a fundamentally different approach for a solution. Communist regimes (and I grew up in the Soviet Block)side-stepped this issue because they would simply forcibly institutionalize a mentally ill person found living on the street. I actually think that this is the correct solution in this case as well. So you tell me, given all that, how do I argue with you? What kind of an argument do you expect from me, given that I don't share your ideology.

macspoofing 7y ago

>You absolutely did. In fact, you plainly used the phrase "nothing to do with". I'm sorry, but words mean things. Yes. Words mean things. You can't distort definitions to suit your argument. It doesn't work that way. But I'm fair minded. Let me qualify my statement to your satisfaction: "Your grossly dishonest distortion driven by some warped ideology is not useful in either diagnosing the homeless problem, nor coming up with a solution". That is what I wanted to convey to you. I hope that clears it up. >I repeat: Your position is that concentrations of wealth ... You can warp, distort and repeat as much as you want. That is not my position. >I've hung around with way too many homeless people who were working three to five years ago We both know you haven't. You wish you had, but you haven't. You come off like a disaffected college student who is really excited about Marx. >Don't worry about what I'm accomplishing The point is, I wish you were honest. If you're trying to argue for the replacement of the current soci-economic system, then argue it, instead of falling back on the eye-rolling "I'm just asking questions ... for a friend" cliche.

harrumph 7y ago
Yeah, if I had nothing to counter with on the topic and had my own indoctrination demonstrated so clearly, I might go ad hominem too.
- macspoofing 7y ago
  Let me try another way. I think you have to find a way to manage your expectations in these discussions. For example, if the discussion centers around the problem of library fines, suggesting to overhaul the entire socio-economic system to solve it is not rational. In the same vein, the problem of homelessness in certain urban areas does not lend itself to a solution based on destroying the entire system. I understand you're very excited about Marx and every issue is just another entry to an ideological debate of communism vs capitalism that you want to have, but it tends to not be very productive and most will just ignore it. I know you feel slighted that I haven't answered your objections, but honest to God, I have no idea what specifics to answer to. You view our modern society through a specific ideological lens and you can't just expect others to take on your ideological assumptions. Here's an example of something you argued: "Your position is that the unavailability of housing to those suffering diseases tied directly to their being unable to pay market price for housing somehow has nothing to do with the prevailing economic arrangement that utterly defines the housing market these persons cannot participate in." To that, I can only say the following: 1) You're putting words in my mouth, that isn't my position. 2) That isn't the system we live in. We don't live in a purely capitalist system where everything is determined by the cold hand of the market. We live in a market-based economy, with a social welfare state. We spend inordinate amount of money on providing a safety net, from government programs to grants and subsidies. Government social spending is also complemented by non-profits, private charities, and churches. So no, not having an income to pay rent does not imply you're going to be homeless. 3) Lack of income isn't what is driving homelessness. Chronic homelessness is driven by drug and alcohol abuse, and mental illness. That is a fundamentally different problem, requiring a fundamentally different approach for a solution. Communist regimes (and I grew up in the Soviet Block)side-stepped this issue because they would simply forcibly institutionalize a mentally ill person found living on the street. I actually think that this is the correct solution in this case as well. So you tell me, given all that, how do I argue with you? What kind of an argument do you expect from me, given that I don't share your ideology.