• redisdead@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      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?

      • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Or is it only ok if someone else pays for it?

        We’re already paying for it. It’s cheaper (financially and otherwise) to fix the problem instead.

        • redisdead@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          Do you think a town’s mayor has the ability to turn junkies and other socially unfit people into actual functional human beings?

          • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            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.

            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.

            • redisdead@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              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.

              • Charapaso@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                5 months ago

                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.

                • redisdead@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  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.

                  • Charapaso@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    Nowhere in my comment did I suggest that, because it would be a silly way to deal with such a big problem. It takes a lot of training to help people in crisis, and a lot of infrastructure to get people on their feet.

                    It’s not your responsibility alone, it’s not my responsibility alone. If you’d like to discuss any of the points I actually made, great. Otherwise you can try to oversimplify the discussion and I won’t respond anymore

      • thawed_caveman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        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