I know this is a classical bad faith argument and doesn’t warrant a response, but hilariously, i’ve genuinely done that before. I got to know one of those street punk types and he slept on my couch multiple times.
For what little i know of this internet stranger, i’d rather him stay at my place than you
It’s ok, I own my own home and am a functional human being, I don’t rely on hand outs from strangers to make up for an inability to behave like a person.
You’ve taken the comic way too literally. Homelessness is a policy choice, and politicians are responsible for failing to allocate funds towards prevention, housing, etc. That applies to politicians at every level of government, with varying levels of responsibility/ability.
Reality is more complicated than you’re viewing it.
junkies and other socially unfit people
You don’t seem to understand what leads a person to do drugs either.
The financially wise decision is to house people, keep them fed, and in good health. Because when politicians let housing get fucked, when they let people starve, when they let them be ill, you get problems that get expensive in the form of prison time, police budgets, and crime rates. This is an area where doing the morally right thing is the most cost effective thing. Dehumanizing people as “junkies” and “socially unfit” just makes everything worse, for yourself included.
The financially wise decision is to house people, keep them fed, and in good health.
Feel free to invest into housing and then practice what you preach.
Also, I’m not dehumanizing junkies and socially unfit people. They’re definitely human. Being human however does not entitle you to free shift from people who are actually functional.
If anything, it’s the people who say we should give them a home and food that are the ones who do the dehumanizing, treating them like pets that shouldn’t be left outside in the cold.
What if the road to becoming “functional” requires, at least in a plurality of cases, help from those that can afford it?
That “free shit” might be what helps them turn their life around. Do you think they have a better chance to improve their station in life if they don’t have access to support from the public?
I wholly reject that it’s somehow dehumanizing to give folks food and shelter during the worst moments in their lives.
How is a mayor responsible for junkies and mentally unstable people unfit for society?
What do you want them to do?
Feed and house them, can you not read?
How many homeless people do you let crash on your couch and eat out of your fridge?
Or is it only ok if someone else pays for it?
I know this is a classical bad faith argument and doesn’t warrant a response, but hilariously, i’ve genuinely done that before. I got to know one of those street punk types and he slept on my couch multiple times.
For what little i know of this internet stranger, i’d rather him stay at my place than you
It’s ok, I own my own home and am a functional human being, I don’t rely on hand outs from strangers to make up for an inability to behave like a person.
Way to dehumanize the homeless, buddy
Oh no they’re definitely human, like biologically.
We’re already paying for it. It’s cheaper (financially and otherwise) to fix the problem instead.
Do you think a town’s mayor has the ability to turn junkies and other socially unfit people into actual functional human beings?
You’ve taken the comic way too literally. Homelessness is a policy choice, and politicians are responsible for failing to allocate funds towards prevention, housing, etc. That applies to politicians at every level of government, with varying levels of responsibility/ability.
Reality is more complicated than you’re viewing it.
You don’t seem to understand what leads a person to do drugs either.
https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/what-does-rat-park-teach-us-about-addiction
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7234816/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-80897-8
The financially wise decision is to house people, keep them fed, and in good health. Because when politicians let housing get fucked, when they let people starve, when they let them be ill, you get problems that get expensive in the form of prison time, police budgets, and crime rates. This is an area where doing the morally right thing is the most cost effective thing. Dehumanizing people as “junkies” and “socially unfit” just makes everything worse, for yourself included.
Feel free to invest into housing and then practice what you preach.
Also, I’m not dehumanizing junkies and socially unfit people. They’re definitely human. Being human however does not entitle you to free shift from people who are actually functional.
If anything, it’s the people who say we should give them a home and food that are the ones who do the dehumanizing, treating them like pets that shouldn’t be left outside in the cold.
What if the road to becoming “functional” requires, at least in a plurality of cases, help from those that can afford it?
That “free shit” might be what helps them turn their life around. Do you think they have a better chance to improve their station in life if they don’t have access to support from the public?
I wholly reject that it’s somehow dehumanizing to give folks food and shelter during the worst moments in their lives.
Feel free to feed, house and finance a homeless person.
You tell me how it goes.
Be the change you wish to see in society.
You talk like it’s somehow my responsibility to fix other people.
It’s not.