It’s okay to not want to put yourself directly in the line of fire. Just make sure not to stop others from standing up for us all

You didn’t refute how I explained your interpretation of their sentence, even said it would have made more sense if structured like that. I pointed out that this interpretation requires them to contradict themself. You said it’s right there in their reply. If “it” isn’t the contradiction, then what is “it? What is your interpretation of what they said? Did they contradict themself?

Basically my point is: you are arguing that their message has a contradiction in it. You are arguing that they both stated that they believe or otherwise “can say with a straight face” that a housing only solution does not solve the homelessness problem, and that they believe it can solve the housing solution but not as well as adding assistance. That is a contradiction.

You are ignoring their use of the words ‘combination’ and ‘and’, interpreting their statement as an ‘or’ logically where ‘housing only’ OR ‘housing only with assistance works’. They literally said assistance and housing, with emphasis on and. You turned that and into an or by conflating their reasoning for their position as a clarification of what they meant.

Their logical argument has the predicate(reasoning): Some people without the extra assistance will not fully benefit.

And their hypothesis, argument, or logical statement is: Housing AND assistance is what will solve homelessness.

At no point did they say that housing without assistance could in anyway sufficiently solve homelessness, not in any way that would follow in a logical argument.

In any case, everyone is making assumptions here. It’s literally the basis of communication and it’s not a negative thing. You must assume certain things about what a person says in order to communicate. You must assume that they are saying things they believe unless there is a reason not to. You must assume that they are using words in the way that you understand, or otherwise you must come to a conclusion about the meaning of those words in order for communication to be effective. Assumptions aren’t a bad thing, just don’t assume bad things.

There is no assumption on my part…

Well, we’re both assuming the intent behind the words used. I’m assuming they did not contradict themselves, because their meaning was “my solution is different”. You are assuming that they contradicted themselves because their meaning was “my solution is better”

Your argument ignores something significant:

I can

What can they do? The question they are answering is:

How can anyone seriously say with a straight face that the solution to homelessness is anything other than providing free housing?

(As a logical statement: The solution to homelessness is to provide free housing)

I read the first reply as

“I can [seriously say with a straight face that the solution to homelessness is something other than providing free housing]…” where I can is a shortening of rephrasing the question. If the predicate is that their argument is that the solution is not providing housing, it is something other than free housing, then it wouldn’t make any sense for them to say that they can make this claim. If they believed that providing free housing would solve the problem, but not adequately, then they cannot in fact say that free housing would not solve the problem. Therefore,

“The solution to homelessness, in place of the suggested solution, is to provide a combination of [forms of assistance] and free housing” emphasis mine.

Your suggestion reads as follows:

“I can [seriously say with a straight face that the solution to homelessness is something other than providing free housing]. Providing free housing solves the problem, but a more comprehensive solution is to provide free housing and assistance.”

In what way does it make sense to assume that someone would immediately contradict themself? How can one “say something with a straight face” a la “The solution is something other than providing free housing” and immediately say “Providing free housing solves the problem…” unless “saying something with a straight face” means “to say something I do not believe”

I appreciate your emotional disconnectedness from this debate, by the way. While my initial comment was meant to be tongue in cheek, this has been a good exercise in reading between the lines of written words. However silly and benign this has become lol

I never understood this. How can anyone say with a straight face that the solution to homelessness is anything other than providing free housing?

I can…

So you’re telling me that this first reply does not state “I can tell you with a straight face that the solution homeless is something other than providing houses. The solution is to provide houses AND assistance”

Or you’re telling me that “The solution is to provide houses AND assistance” means “providing a house without providing assistance solves the problem” ETA: which then implies that this reply states “I can tell you with a straight that the solution to homelessness is something other than providing houses. Providing houses is sufficient.”

Granted, I did say “not enough” I should have clearly stated that “not enough” is equivalent to “not at all”. Keep in mind this is a generalized statement, so in order for it to be true it must be true across the entire domain. Our domain is homeless people, therefore if adequately helping some but not all homeless people is accomplished then “solving the homeless problem” has not been accomplished; the only thing that accomplishes this goal is to put every person in a home, and the second argument implies that the first one will inevitably cause some of those who do not receive mental health assistance to go homeless again therefore failing to put every person in a home.

If the first argument is true, that putting people into homes solves the homeless problem, then it is also true that putting people into homes and adequately assisting them also solves the homeless problem. The third argument finally states that the second is false because putting people into homes without help is adequate, as they are in a home. This fails to satisfy the predicate of the second argument, making it an invalid counterpoint. If the predicate is not true, the argument cannot be evaluated therefore the counterpoint is invalid. However, if the predicate of the third argument is true then the second argument is invalid. Hence, I asked for sources.

There is no must in there…

This where we disagree and the communication broke down. Let’s look at the whole context, starting with the original comment that started the reply chain:

I never understood this. How can anyone say with a straight face that the solution to homelessness is anything other than providing free housing?

Along with the reply which I claim states mental health assistance must accompany housing assistance:

I can: The solution to homelessness is a combination…

Logically, this is a proposition which attempts to be a counterpoint to another logical argument. The original logical argument is that the solution to homelessness is to provide houses. The counterpoint is that providing houses is not enough of a solution, and that in order to actually solve the problems that homeless people face, they must also receive the other assistances listed.

ETA: Actually, if you’re familiar with Boolean algebra, all three of these arguments are well-defined logical functions that can be written out. The second argument is a tautology stating if the first argument is true, then adding additional assistance (or functions in a logical expression) will continue to be true so long as those additional assistances are beneficial. The third argument simply accuses the second argument of being false and uses flawed logic to “prove” it, because their theoretical person who is struggling with a mental illness but has a house does not satisfy the truth table for the “if” portion of the second argument. In other words, the theoretical person is not receiving the necessary aid that is proposed by the second argument and therefore by the logic of the second argument, assuming the argument is true, then that person is not be helped enough and cannot be adequately represented by that system

First reply states that mental health assistance must accompany housing assistance 1.2;

If you just provide free housing, there will be a significant proportion of people who would not be able to fully benefit from it due to mental health issues, addictions, and lack of purpose in life.

Next reply states that this goes against the findings of a housing-first approach 2.1:

Your speculation doesn’t trump the massive real-world success and scientific evidence behind a housing-first approach.

Their next statement makes little sense to me 2.2:

You know the difference between a homeless person with mental health issues and a housed person with mental health issues? The latter has housing.

Because the initial reply said to give both, not one or the other 1.1:

the solution to homelessness is a combination of mental health ed in schools, free & non-judgemental mental health support (incl. medication), free addiction recovery programs, free food, job & community support, and free housing.

So, if giving both mental health assistance as well as housing assistance is antithetical to housing-first research, then there must be a study which shows that mental health assistance is either unnecessary or detrimental.

Which portion am I interpreting incorrectly?

ETA: If they’re arguing for the same thing, then why did the second person imply that the first one was wrong?

I’m interested, do you have sources on this? I remember reading about some places providing homes to the homeless, but I can’t think of any examples where they didn’t provide mental health support alongside it

I feel like this isn’t a reciprocal thing though. “Guy does good thing” /=/ “You shouldn’t question his judgement/his other ideas are also good. ” feels fair

However

“Guy does bad thing” = “You should question his judgement/his other ideas tend to also be bad” also feels fair

We have to assume that eventually we will win and someone will see to the justice. If you assume we’ve already lost then we have

The pope doesn’t like AI, brandished a sword and called people idiots. More at 11

You start with the Time Watcher feat

Took me a while to spot #3 lmao

They got back together and got up the first time they died, why not do it again the second time?

I didn’t make the policy and I would have lost my job, and therefore my ability to pay to live, if I refused. I only worked there for a few months anyway. But yeah, man, direct your fury at the bottom of the totem pole

Not the person you replied to, but I don’t imagine I’m the only one that would just say yes to this.

Nick Fuentes, an open anti-Semite

Every now and then it occurs to me that people can just openly and proudly be hateful and it disgusts me

I think this might be locally decided. When I worked retail we always put the food back and pretended nothing was wrong

Low bar, though

Gizmo looks just like Minion!