Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As I said, they don't try to hide these things. Do I really have to dredge up other examples? And don't provide bull* rationalizations claiming not enforcing the drug laws really doesn't enable homeless addicts and encourage them to head to Seattle. I've seen interviews with homeless people where they specifically mention the legalization of marijuana as a reason for moving to the west coast. (No, I didn't save the link just in case you'd ask.)
So I see you edited and added after my initial reply.
Genghis, yes, you need to provide examples for your irresponsible generalizations ... because they are so often destructive opinionations.
You continuously refer to having “seen interviews”. Interviews are anecdotal until validated by multi-sourcing and statistical analyses.
The fact that some people move to be where drug laws are lax or under alternative experimentation doesn’t amount to statistically significant impact on the macro-problem of homelessness as you suggest. (The link you “didn’t save”, btw, was almost certainly to a story about the legalization of pot in Colorado ... and careful reading of that article, which has been quoted and linked several times in various threads on the forum, reveals that the commentaries supporting your assertion were delivered by persons who were also just expressing unsurveyed personal opinions.)
Logic? Lol. Genghis, you have written before that you completed advanced levels of higher education. One course you clearly either never undertook, or which you failed, was Logic.
What’s amazing is how many people continually conflate correlation and causation.
Well, maybe I just didn't make myself clear. What I am saying is that people who work with the homeless such as yourself are fully aware that drug and alcohol abuse often are major contributors to people ending out homeless. So in my opinion, when they say it's correlation, and not causation, they are lying in order to portray the homeless as less responsible for their situation. They are fully aware that their drug and alcohol abuse are very often a cause of their homelessness and not a consequence of it, and choose to deny it.
Quote:
Re: “churning out scientific studies” ... what’s your take on climate change? Any anthropogenic effects in process in our lifetimes?
Well you see, climate change is much easier to analyze. You plot the temperature with respect to time, and it becomes abundantly clear that the global temperature is increasing. The only plausible theory for this is the increased level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to human activity. This is very different from social science studies... temperature data doesn't lie. The data in climate science studies is not based on a survey of someone's words.
A major goal of the homeless and their advocates is to generate sympathy for the homeless. So they present the narrative that they're just like us, except unlucky. "It could happen to anyone". They're not drug addicts and schizophrenics, they're just random locals who fell behind on their rent. They didn't move here to take advantage of the weather and lax laws, they're just like you and me.
Look, I'm not claiming to know what percentage of them are locals. But when you get these propaganda pieces like the one the Seattle Law School report which spews forth utterly unbelievable statements, it makes me highly suspicious.
Your generalizations are just nothing short of plain stupid. The “narratives” about homelessness are very diverse. They include in-depth research findings that parse out in great detail the numbers of homeless who are addicted to drugs, incapacitated by alcohol, afflicted with mental illnesses (and broken down into many specific forms and severities of mental illness), spousal abuse, released from prison without resources, students, underage youth expelled from homes for various reasons, criminal transients, veterans who have failed to reintegrate after discharge, physically disabled, seniors with insufficient resources to pay rents and buy food, medically bankrupted ... and more. Some of those origins are “unlucky”. Others are the result of low character. Others just bad decision making. It’s all covered in many “narratives”. You just aren’t willing to to read on the topic in depth and become objectively educated.
You don’t, therefore, know the truth of statements you find “utterly unbelievable” ... and you being “highly suspicious” is meaningless.
Using the same logic: There are many people who get shot who don't die. So it's clear that getting shot is not a cause of death.
It's amazing how some people can just find an endless list of excuses to blame others for their situation. It's even more amazing when supposedly respected academic institutions will churn out "scientific studies" purporting that there is a scientific basis for this mentality.
No, that's not the same logic, not at all. Using drugs/alcohol in and of itself does not cause homelessness. The correct answer is that some people become homeless because their addiction to drugs or alcohol is out of control, but for every person like that there are 90 more that use drugs/alcohol without becoming homeless, and it's not unusual for a person to begin abusing drugs or alcohol after becoming homeless
Quote:
Poverty, unemployment, and lack of affordable housing are commonly recognized causes of homelessness. These risk factors can be exacerbated by personal vulnerabilities such as mental and substance use disorders, trauma and violence, domestic violence, justice-system involvement, sudden serious illness, divorce, death of a partner, and disabilities. https://www.samhsa.gov/homelessness-...ousing-shelter
Quote:
Poverty, unemployment, and lack of affordable housing are commonly recognized causes of homelessness. These risk factors can be exacerbated by personal vulnerabilities such as mental and substance use disorders, trauma and violence, domestic violence, justice-system involvement, sudden serious illness, divorce, death of a partner, and disabilities. https://www.samhsa.gov/homelessness-...ousing-shelter
Quote:
Debunking the Myths of Homelessness Separating Fact from Fiction
Myth: The cause of homelessness is drug and alcohol abuse.
False. Only 20% of people report drugs and alcohol as the cause of their homelessness. Drug
and alcohol abuse are often the result of homelessness, not the cause.
Myth: Homelessness is a choice. Most homeless people choose to live on the streets.
False. According to the Homeless Census in Santa Clara County, 93% of homeless respondents
want affordable housing.
The biggest barrier to housing is affordable rent.
• 68% couldn’t afford rent
• 50% had no work or income
• 38% reported no available housing
• 20% had criminal records that prevented their access to housing http://www.currytbcenter.ucsf.edu/si...melessness.pdf
No, it shows they (possibly) care more about homeless addicts than the broader community (as you clearly do as well). When I say they don't care, what I mean is that they don't care that much about the concerns of the regular people who have to deal with them every day. The people who have to deal with the smash and grabs on their vehicles. The people who have to worry about their kids stepping on hypodermic needles. The general public who have behaved responsibly their whole lives and now have to deal with this mess.
And by the way, a lot of the reason the stopped enforcing the laws (which you can verify by reading any article on the subject, including the one I linked) is that the caseload for minor drug offenses was huge and growing, and they simply couldn't keep up. So in some sense, they simply gave up and surrendered to the drug crisis. Weak, pathetic.
More stupid bullsh*. One of the very common implorations expressed in forums about homelessness is “well what is being done obviously isn’t working, we need to try something different.” Aside from that kind of statement being not necessarily true (eg: what’s “being done” in many cases IS serving the issues, but the problem grows at an even greater rate than efforts underway can keep apace of) - it’s quite obvious that new thinking and problem-solving is critical.
I didn’t weigh in on whether the new Seattle approach is intelligent, right or wrong, whatever. I pointed out that it does NOT represent what you linked it to prove: that authorities “don’t care”, nor that they have “given up”. Right or wrong, successful or failing, it is an example of authorities trying something new. Argue with its foundational and or executive bases if you will - but saying it represents acquiescence and or indifference is bullsh*. It’s not “surrender”. It’s strategic. Strategically stupid? Smart? Different conversation than what you tried to advance.
So I see you edited and added after my initial reply.
Genghis, yes, you need to provide examples for your irresponsible generalizations ... because they are so often destructive opinionations.
Destructive? What planet are you from? All I do is express my mistrust of the surveys and the people behind them, and my opposition to a lot of policies concerning the homeless. You're the one who constantly degrades and insults others, which serves to antagonize people towards the homeless far more than anything I do.
Quote:
You continuously refer to having “seen interviews”. Interviews are anecdotal until validated by multi-sourcing and statistical analyses.
The fact that some people move to be where drug laws are lax or under alternative experimentation doesn’t amount to statistically significant impact on the macro-problem of homelessness as you suggest. (The link you “didn’t save”, btw, was almost certainly to a story about the legalization of pot in Colorado ... and careful reading of that article, which has been quoted and linked several times in various threads on the forum, reveals that the commentaries supporting your assertion were delivered by persons who were also just expressing unsurveyed personal opinions.)
Almost certainly? Looks like Tulemutt is following his gut again and has come to an incorrect conclusion again. No, it was an interview I saw on YouTube with an actual homeless person. More likely to be on the West Coast somewhere than in Colorado since I am from California and mainly watch such videos concerning California, or occasionally, Seattle.
Well, maybe I just didn't make myself clear. What I am saying is that people who work with the homeless such as yourself are fully aware that drug and alcohol abuse often are major contributors to people ending out homeless. So in my opinion, when they say it's correlation, and not causation, they are lying in order to portray the homeless as less responsible for their situation. They are fully aware that their drug and alcohol abuse are very often a cause of their homelessness and not a consequence of it, and choose to deny it.
Well you see, climate change is much easier to analyze. You plot the temperature with respect to time, and it becomes abundantly clear that the global temperature is increasing. The only plausible theory for this is the increased level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to human activity. This is very different from social science studies... temperature data doesn't lie. The data in climate science studies is not based on a survey of someone's words.
But Genghis, people “such as [myself]” do not say “it’s correlation, and not causation”. We readily acknowledge when it is causation. That observation of causation is typically foundational to support in the field. How you arrived at that doozey of a claim is amazingly mysterious.
For example: the veteran’s organization I belong to that houses homeless veterans has been a ‘transitional program’ that only grants housing to vets who go through VA evaluation for substance abuse and mental health, and who engage in VA programs to regain sobriety and emotional/mental stability. These counseling programs require the participants to acknowledge their responsibilities.
As to the climate change studies comparisons: l o frickin l at your response.
Climate change statisticsl models are all over the place and *rightly* under attack for their incredible imperfections and false leads and narratives. (Yes, I agree that in spite of the chaos, there’s no question anthropomorphic effects are huge.). Yet you will acknowledge that those statistical efforts are playing valid roles in refining the path to truths and solutions.
But ya won’t give social sciences the same respect. Hilarious. Especially hilarious because the studies you constantly attack re: homelessness are so straightforward and non-technical in nature of data. They are compilations of readily available common information. The VA study in particular blows away all your smoke.
You have utterly failed to make any case for “lying”, as you try to identify in data collection. None, exactly none, of the resources available for homeless rely on the origins of the homeless ... geographic or causative. Thus no incentive to “lie”.
And your protest that advocates hide underlying failures of personal responsibility in order to generate sympathy grossly fails any sniff test as the causes of homelessness are brutally represented everywhere.
Your entire campaign for months and months of these arguments is based on your bitter dislike of me personally, and your desire to try and cast me in a bad light. The entertaining part of that is how blatantly obvious it is that you don’t know squat about the topic ... yet think you can bullsh* your way through all the validated rebuttals.
Give it up Genghis. You’re embarrassing yourself. You sometimes show great understanding of other topics and make some good posts. Stick with what you know. I never negatively critique what is well posted. I have even complimented and repped you at times. Homelessness is not your topic.
Destructive? What planet are you from? All I do is express my mistrust of the surveys and the people behind them, and my opposition to a lot of policies concerning the homeless. You're the one who constantly degrades and insults others, which serves to antagonize people towards the homeless far more than anything I do.
Almost certainly? Looks like Tulemutt is following his gut again and has come to an incorrect conclusion again. No, it was an interview I saw on YouTube with an actual homeless person. More likely to be on the West Coast somewhere than in Colorado since I am from California and mainly watch such videos concerning California, or occasionally, Seattle.
Yes “destructive”, Genghis. The nonsense you spew supports myths destructive to productive, factual understanding of circumstances and issues.
You may find me insulting and antagonizing toward you, but I reserve my confrontational style for very few people ... persons who grossly persist in perpetuating false and destructive narratives ... some do so quite intentionally.
Oh so your “source” was a YouTube interview? Lmao. Well that certainly validates everything eh? YouTube never hosts bullsh*, huh ...
It may have been about a west coast venue ... but the oft quoted Colorado news article has appeared in these threads we have been participating in.
More stupid bullsh*. One of the very common implorations expressed in forums about homelessness is “well what is being done obviously isn’t working, we need to try something different.” Aside from that kind of statement being not necessarily true (eg: what’s “being done” in many cases IS serving the issues, but the problem grows at an even greater rate than efforts underway can keep apace of) - it’s quite obvious that new thinking and problem-solving is critical.
I didn’t weigh in on whether the new Seattle approach is intelligent, right or wrong, whatever. I pointed out that it does NOT represent what you linked it to prove: that authorities “don’t care”, nor that they have “given up”. Right or wrong, successful or failing, it is an example of authorities trying something new. Argue with its foundational and or executive bases if you will - but saying it represents acquiescence and or indifference is bullsh*. It’s not “surrender”. It’s strategic. Strategically stupid? Smart? Different conversation than what you tried to advance.
It would appear we have a very different idea of what constitutes a "strategy". If defendants are given the choice of treatment or prison, it's a strategy. If they are simply not charged and are given nonbinding suggestions on getting treatment, it's not a strategy. No one really thinks doing nothing will help solve the drug crisis. They've just come to the conclusion that what they are doing doesn't work, don't really have any good ideas on what to do about it, and so just have decided to stop doing anything about minor drug offenses to me. You can call it what you want, I call it a form of surrender.
It would appear we have a very different idea of what constitutes a "strategy". If defendants are given the choice of treatment or prison, it's a strategy. If they are simply not charged and are given nonbinding suggestions on getting treatment, it's not a strategy. No one really thinks doing nothing will help solve the drug crisis. They've just come to the conclusion that what they are doing doesn't work, don't really have any good ideas on what to do about it, and so just have decided to stop doing anything about minor drug offenses to me. You can call it what you want, I call it a form of surrender.
You are dodging, again. I said quite clearly and repeatedly that I wasn’t addressing the quality or rightness/wrongness of the strategy. What I did was demonstrate that it is NOT the acquiescence you claim.
And here you go again just spewing blind opinion and obfuscation. You’ve personally decided to call their strategy “giving up”. Garbage. The article YOU linked describes in detail what the program invests and why.
The fact is: arresting and prosecuting minor drug offenses is a well acknowledged failure ... acknowledged widely by the public and by law enforcement and government all. That is exactly why pot is becoming legal across the nation and old convictions expunged.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
