Right or left why homeless ?

[Pangloss]

Tater, how many homeless people do you have coffee with?

 

Beneath you.

[Coral Rhedd]

Beneath you.

 

I have a point.

[Coral Rhedd]

A better question would be' date=' "how many homeless people have I bought lunch for?"

 

The answer is "many."

[/quote']

 

Yes, but did you actually sit down and eat with them?

 

Do I personally know anyone who is homeless? yes.

 

I too know many. In fact I have worked with many homeless people trying to help them find employment. Certain things stand in their way:

 

1. Work history. This is often very spotty. Because they have various problems they tend to fall into the trap of sporadic or temporary employment. Sometimes problems began when they were quite young and they never established a work history in the first place. (Example: I have met no less than three young men with active AIDS, who had been kicked out of their homes when they became infected.)

 

2. Emotional problems. This tends to be much the same as mental illness, but for the sake of your greater understanding, I will be very specific. They often have Bipolar Disorder, Schizoaffective Disorder, and Schizophrenia. These are the major serious mental problems that affect many. Other problems are PTSD, Dependant Personality Disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder and many more. (Example: A Schizoaffective woman with ADHD and PTSD I worked with to try to help her find employment. She was unable to stop talking long enough to be interviewed. She thought everyone was conspiring against her, and -- when in desperation -- we explored self-employment options, she wanted funding to build Disneyland New Mexico.)

 

3. Substance abuse problems. Alcoholism is one substance abuse problem that occurs frequently -- in homeless males more often than females. (Example: An alcoholic artist with an MFA who had been painting window advertising before he suffered serious neurological damage that affected control of his legs. There were times he could not walk. He also could not stop drinking despite the fact that he would soon become paralysed if he persisted.)

 

4. A background of suffering from violence or abuse. (I have met so many war veterans, ex gang members, and physically and sexually abused and raped homeless people that I have given up thinking that the next homeless person I meet will not have it. I have come to expect this as a common problem in the homeless.

 

Most of them have nothing wrong with them, they are living in the land of opportunity and they would simply rather whine about what what someone else is not doing for them rather than doing anything to help themselves.

 

I am glad you have met so many homeless people with nothing wrong with them. It is heartening to hear so. I am assuming that you knew them well enough and that you had acquired their trust so that they willingly confided in you that they had nothing wrong with them. It is a little surprising however; most people don't willingly confide in people who so obviously have contempt for them.

 

I, too, have met recently a homeless man who claims that he is absolutely sane and there is nothing wrong with him. As soon as he saves the world, he expects his Father in Heaven to call him home. At such time we can all breathe a sigh of relief at the improvement in our circumstances.

[Coral Rhedd]

And almost anyone can write a book as even a cursory examination of the book stores will attest.

 

Oh really. It is odd that you are so dismissive of people. I thought your attitude was directed at the "shiftless' date='" but I now see you have little respect for people who author books. What constitutes real work in your opinion?

 

May I ask what sort of work [b']you[/b] do?

[Coral Rhedd]

Hey Coral' date='

 

Just out of interest have you read Bryce Courtneys, Matthew Flinders Cat?[/quote']

 

No I have not. Can you tell me a bit about it?

[darth tater]

 

May I ask what sort of work you do?

 

You may not.

[darth tater]

Yes' date=' but did you actually sit down and eat with them?

 

[/quote']

 

Many times.

[Aardvark]

Many times.

 

Not wishing to be rude, but judging from your previous posts about homeless people that doesn't seem likely.

[Pangloss]

You do have a point, Coral, but it seemed to me that the reason you pursued Tater's personal involvement in the homeless is because of this statement that he made:

 

I would put someone into a hospital also if he collapsed on the street. But that is a good long ways from providing permanent housing for anyone who is willing to claim that he can't provide for himself.

 

If the test is simply the fact that a person doesn't have a home and the fix is for the government to provide one, then you will find a lot of people who suddenly "can't" provide for their own housing.

 

This is the part that liberals just can't understand. There is no amount of rationalization -- no level of human suffering -- that can put the "will" back in "goodwill" once you've used force to take it away. It doesn't matter how far removed you are from that use of force, either.

 

Sure, it's cadswallop to say that ALL homeless are hoist by their own petard. But in the end it's more or less irrelevent unless it teaches you something about how to get them back on their feet. Ignorance is not an excuse to get the public to bend over and take it up the rear.

[darth tater]

Is it your habit to make comments that you have no way to know are true or false?

 

How would you know what my life experience has been?

[Aardvark]

Is it your habit to make comments that you have no way to know are true or false?

 

How would you know what my life experience has been?

 

It's possible to form a judgement on the basis of the posts a person makes. From the posts you have made concerning homeless people it seems highly unlikely that you have shared many meals with homeless people.

 

If you wish you could back up your bald assertion, otherwise i shall retain my doubts.

[Pangloss]

Ad hominem, Aardvark. 10 points, go sit in the box.

 

See what I mean? Coral didn't like what he has to say, so accused him of "having contempt". Aardvark can't fathom that Tater could possibly form that opinion having had that particular set of experience. So what does he do? He accuses Tater of not having that experience.

 

These reactions are not atypical in the homeless debate, though I'm sorry to see them here from people whose opinions I've found enlightening in the past.

 

I see nothing in Tater's posts to warrant that kind of personal attack. This quote sums up his point briefly:

 

I grant that there are people in the US who are homeless and who would really really like to have a normal home, but they just have had enough bad luck that it is impossible for them. For these people, something can be done and indeed in my area, something is being done.

 

There are many others, perhaps a majority, who are homeless simply because they do not want it bad enough to make the necessary effort to achieve that goal. After all, sacrificing 8 hour a day for some 45 years is a significent sacrifice. In short, it is easier for them to drift in the wind like a thistel seed and exist on the handouts of others.

 

This is a reasonable, studious, intelligent point of view. It also happens to be one shared by a great number of people who work in public service, welfare, churchs and other humanitarian areas all around the country.

 

You may not like what he has to say -- nobody said you have to agree with him. But as far as I'm concerned you both have slipped into ad hominem that has seriously degraded your message. I for one am very disappointed.

[darth tater]

It's possible to form a judgement on the basis of the posts a person makes. From the posts you have made concerning homeless people it seems highly unlikely that you have shared many meals with homeless people.

 

If you wish you could back up your bald assertion' date=' otherwise i shall retain my doubts.[/quote']

 

I suppose there are many reasons to form a judgement.

 

The trick is to form an enlightened judgement.

[Coral Rhedd]

See what I mean? Coral didn't like what he has to say' date=' so accused him of "having contempt".

[/quote']

 

It seems to me that Tater was contemptuous of homeless people, but if he is not, he is perfectly capable of explaining that, on the contrary, he likes them very much.

 

You may not like what he has to say -- nobody said you have to agree with him. But as far as I'm concerned you both have slipped into ad hominem that has seriously degraded your message. I for one am very disappointed.

 

I believe I asked Tater some reasonable questions. He seemed to be expressing the opinion that many people are voluntarily homeless. Since we generally ask that people back their assertions, it did not seem to me that I was being rude to find out where he got his information. I think acquiring information first hand is a perfectly legitimate way of getting it.

 

Tater has told me he has lunched with many homeless people. I am eager to see him elaborate about the relationship he had with them that has convinced him that they were perfectly capable of work.

 

I am in the unique situation of having often read their psych evals. Tater need not have such specific information to post his opinion but husmusen has posted several sources that Tater seems to dismiss without presenting either anecdote or links of his own.

 

Why so defensive on his behalf Pangloss?

[husmusen]

Darth:

 

And almost anyone can write a book as even a cursory examination of the book stores will

attest.

 

Yes, but not almost everyone does, in this case you just dumped on the Senior Economics Editor of the Australian equivalent of the London Times, the Sydney Morning Herald. Now this gentleman is a most respected economic analyst and I would suggest that he probably knows a lot more about these stats than you do, he found them credible enough to include in a book he put his name to, and when someone with that amount of experience says 'Hey we have a problem here' I am inclined to take what he has to say seriously unless I have reason to do otherwise.

 

That is 'reason', some sound evidence to the contrary or logical argument, even personal experience at a scratch.

 

Now if you can demonstrate a flaw, or you can find good solid stats that contradict his argument, I would enjoy seeing them.

 

But statements in the vein of "Oh well anyone can write a book" aren't going to wash with me.

 

I can show you the way things are but I'm not going to force you to open your eyes.

 

The fact that you also refuse to provide your own sources and the basis for your own experience, ("No you may not"), can only invite speculation as to their ability to withstand the harsh light of day.

 

Cheers.

[husmusen]

Hi Coral,

 

I liked this book so much that I have trouble in not writing an essay.

 

It's a book about about a homeless person(actually a number of them),

living in Sydney, I think in 20 years time it will be considered a classic

of literature.

 

I sat down offline to write about it but it turned into an essay .

(I've excerpted a paragraph from that essay)

 

The book goes through life on the streets, drawing on the

authors experiece of being homeless, and on meticulous research.

So although the characters are fictional, all the stuff that happens

in the book is pretty factual. The places are real, the sort of

things that happen are real, the food vans and charities are real,

the programes mentioned are real programs.

 

I've got it, perfect decription, It's 'One day in the life of Ivan

Denisovitch' only set amongst the homeless of Sydney as opposed to

a Russian labour camp.

 

He doesn't pretty up his characters, in that sense he is an artist,

he strives for detail and accuracy and the result is deep, complex

and flawed characters that feel much more real than your avg book.

 

I think that's why I liked it.

Cheers.

[Coral Rhedd]

Thanks for the mini book essay husmusen. It sounds fascinating and I have made a note of it.

 

I have thought of writing about my experience at the shelter that I was in. I would take particular relish in describing the guy who ran the place whose previous experience had been in the prison system. I will never forget when he called a meeting telling us we were eating too much. A typical meal was tater tots and hotdogs and canned corn. He wanted to rescue us from obesity by decreasing our rations. He did not like it when I pointed out that the SSRIs and the psychotropic drugs so many were on caused ravenous appetites. I suggested that if he was really concerned about our weight we needed higher quality protein than hotdogs and that green salads and low starch fresh veggies were better than bread and potatoes.

[Pangloss]

Tater has told me he has lunched with many homeless people. I am eager to see him elaborate about the relationship he had with them that has convinced him that they were perfectly capable of work.

 

He actually did elaborate about his level of involvement in the affairs of the homeless. Eventually you hit a point that he clearly felt he couldn't cross or it would reveal personal information, then you started crying foul. I have a problem with that, because there is no way that EITHER of you can prove your involvement with the homeless short of revealing personal information, and you knew that going in. So no matter what he did, at some point you would be able to just cry foul.

 

All any of us has in these debates, aside from verifiable citations and references, is the weight of our reputation from previous posts. What you've done here is to resort to an attack on the basis of reputation -- asking us to judge Darth Tater on whether we are more inclined to believe him, or to believe you.

 

I have a problem with that. I'm here to debate. Not to be given lessons by people who tell me their opinion is more valuable because of their personal experience. You want to tell me what you think, and why you think it? Great -- that's what I'm here for. But don't dismiss mine or someone else's opinion just because you don't think they have the proper experience.

 

In short, don't tell someone they're not QUALIFIED to have a say. Tell them WHY they're wrong.

[Coral Rhedd]

He actually did elaborate about his level of involvement in the affairs of the homeless. Eventually you hit a point that he clearly felt he couldn't cross or it would reveal personal information' date=' then you started crying foul. I have a problem with that, because there is no way that EITHER of you can prove your involvement with the homeless short of revealing personal information, and you knew that going in. So no matter what he did, at some point you would be able to just cry foul.

 

All any of us has in these debates, aside from verifiable citations and references, is the weight of our reputation from previous posts. What you've done here is to resort to an attack on the basis of reputation -- asking us to judge Darth Tater on whether we are more inclined to believe him, or to believe you.

 

I have a problem with that. I'm here to [i']debate[/i]. Not to be given lessons by people who tell me their opinion is more valuable because of their personal experience. You want to tell me what you think, and why you think it? Great -- that's what I'm here for. But don't dismiss mine or someone else's opinion just because you don't think they have the proper experience.

 

In short, don't tell someone they're not QUALIFIED to have a say. Tell them WHY they're wrong.

 

Since, you keep saying I have attacked Tater, please quote the sentence(s) where I attacked him.

 

Don't bother quoting perfectly reasonable questions. Questions are not an attack.

[Pangloss]

No, I agree that your questions were not the problem. Let me quote you again, and add some bolds just to clarify.

 

I am glad you have met so many homeless people with nothing wrong with them. It is heartening to hear so. I am assuming that you knew them well enough and that you had acquired their trust so that they willingly confided in you that they had nothing wrong with them. It is a little surprising however; most people don't willingly confide in people who so obviously have contempt for them.

 

Oh really. It is odd that you are so dismissive of people. I thought your attitude was directed at the "shiftless," but I now see you have little respect for people who author books.

 

 

He didn't attack you, but you certainly went after him. His point is not unreasonable, and it deserves the respect due to a respectful fellow debater, not belittlement and ad hominem attack.

[Aardvark]

Aardvark can't fathom that Tater could possibly form that opinion having had that particular set of experience. So what does he do? He accuses Tater of not having that experience[/i'].

 

Darth Tater choose to base part of his argument on personal experience, stating intimate knowledge of homeless people having even shared meals with them 'many times'. If he wants that argument to be taken seriously he has to back it up with some corroborating detail, a bald assertion on its own is inadequate and leaves me doubting his statement.

[darth tater]

Darth:

 

 

 

Yes' date=' but not almost everyone does, in this case you just dumped on the Senior Economics Editor of the Australian equivalent of the London Times, the Sydney Morning Herald. Now this gentleman is a most respected economic analyst and I would suggest that he probably knows a lot more about these stats than you do, he found them credible enough to include in a book he put his name to, and when someone with that amount of experience says 'Hey we have a problem here' I am inclined to take what he has to say seriously unless I have reason to do otherwise.

 

That is 'reason', some sound evidence to the contrary or logical argument, even personal experience at a scratch.

 

Now if you can demonstrate a flaw, or you can find good solid stats that contradict his argument, I would enjoy seeing them.

 

But statements in the vein of "Oh well anyone can write a book" aren't going to wash with me.

 

I can show you the way things are but I'm not going to force you to open your eyes.

 

The fact that you also refuse to provide your own sources and the basis for your own experience, ("No you may not"), can only invite speculation as to their ability to withstand the harsh light of day.

 

Cheers.[/quote']

 

 

Oh, I don't think I have to prove anything.

 

It is my opinion that many people who are homeless are living the sort of lifestyle that they like to live and that many others would perhaps like a little better lifestyle, but are unwilling to make the sacrifices required to change it. Going to work every day is a bit of a drag.

 

I really don't think you disagree with that--do you?

 

I also believe that there some who would indeed have a more productive lifestyle, but because of bad luck or ordinary stupidity, are unable to do better than they are currently doing. These I think it perfectly proper to provide help for.

 

The trick is in separating the 2.

 

As to the lofty credentials of the people you quoted, well, just let me say that I have heard some quite incredible opinions from some very well placed and well educated people.

[darth tater]

Darth Tater choose to base part of his argument on personal experience, stating intimate knowledge of homeless people having even shared meals with them 'many times'. If he wants that argument to be taken seriously he has to back it up with some corroborating detail, a bald assertion on its own is inadequate and leaves me doubting his statement.

 

I really don't care whether you doubt my assertions or not. I read posts here every day that I doubt. But since there is no way that I can prove what I say about my involvement with homeless people, what is the point as asking for such "proof?"

 

I suspect that since you understand that these posts are basically unprovable (mine as well as others) that you think that you can point to that lack of proof as some sort of proof that the post is false.

 

With all due respect, to me, that tactic has the earmarks of a cheap debating copout. Is that the impression that you wish to give?

[Phi for All]

As to the lofty credentials of the people you quoted, well, just let me say that I have heard some quite incredible opinions from some very well placed and well educated people.

Guilt by association fallacy. You could discredit everyone's citations with this argument.

[darth tater]

Guilt by association fallacy. You could discredit everyone's citations with this argument.

As any citation could be supported by the blind acceptance of anyone elses.

 

I think the point is that no one really knows why people are homeless. There are as many reasons as there are homeless. Anyone who tries to say that it is the fault of this, or the fault of that, without an extremely long list of causes--including lethargy, sloth and general indifference to one's surroundings, is probably missing a few things regardless of the letters behind his/her name.