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.
The issue is that tax payers are already paying for it. It cost money for cops to go out and arrest people, then process them. The homeless person ain’t going to show up to court later, and the tax payer usually eats the cost of all that plus any anti homeless benches or windows.
I think if that the cost gets directed toward housing and food, so they have a stable place to grow from, it would be a better option in the long run.
Step 1) defund police to provide free house and food to socially unfit people
Step 2) socially unfit people trash the place because that’s what junkies do.
Step 3) omg what is the police doing
Step 4) it’s defunded.
Step 5) who could have seen it coming?
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.
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
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.
The issue is that tax payers are already paying for it. It cost money for cops to go out and arrest people, then process them. The homeless person ain’t going to show up to court later, and the tax payer usually eats the cost of all that plus any anti homeless benches or windows.
I think if that the cost gets directed toward housing and food, so they have a stable place to grow from, it would be a better option in the long run.
You’ll pay cops regardless.
Not if they get defunded
Step 1) defund police to provide free house and food to socially unfit people
Step 2) socially unfit people trash the place because that’s what junkies do.
Step 3) omg what is the police doing
Step 4) it’s defunded.
Step 5) who could have seen it coming?
i doubt you’d need as many
You will, because you’ll need to evict the junkies out of the place they’re trashing.
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.
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