The San Francisco Trash/Needles/Poop in the Streets Containment Thread (storage, garage)

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by alliance

You do the same thing. Stories/experiences only count (and are only true) when they agree with your opinion.

Suck it up buttercup.

Originally Posted by Genghis

This thread is *still* going on? I would have thought homelessness would have been solved by now. And yeah, you sneered at my anecdotal evidence before. But surveys of the homeless, they're pure fact.

You two are too funny. That post of mine to TC isn’t a complaint. It’s a chuckle. Buttercup. .

I didn’t sneer at either of your anecdotes. I point out, regularly, that anecdotes without supporting research are empty.

What TC engages in with me is purely personal with him. He calls me a liar. I have never called either of you, or pretty much any others, including TC, liars. When you and he tell your stories I can and do accept your experiences as personal truths... just not necessarily universal truths unless you can tie them in to larger realites with facts that go beyond your anecdotes. Capiche?

Anecdotes are to forum debates what “color commentary” is to sportscasting ... it can be great stuff to make a point ‘colorfully’. Anecdotes alone, however ... do not prove universal truths.

And, in closing, let me just point out that I don’t engage in much “opinion” ... I discuss realities.

Oh, and, there are occasions where I flat out catch some poster in a blatant lie - as evidenced by their own self-contradictions. In those occasions, I sometimes will point out what they’ve done. That’s not been the case with either of you.

[Genghis]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

You two are too funny. That post of mine to TC isn’t a complaint. It’s a chuckle. Buttercup. .

I didn’t sneer at either of your anecdotes. I point out, regularly, that anecdotes without supporting research are empty.

What TC engages in with me is purely personal with him. He calls me a liar. I have never called either of you, or pretty much any others, including TC, liars. When you and he tell your stories I can and do accept your experiences as personal truths... just not necessarily universal truths unless you can tie them in to larger realites with facts that go beyond your anecdotes. Capiche?

Anecdotes are to forum debates what “color commentary” is to sportscasting ... it can be great stuff to make a point ‘colorfully’. Anecdotes alone, however ... do not prove universal truths.

And, in closing, let me just point out that I don’t engage in much “opinion” ... I discuss realities.

Oh, and, there are occasions where I flat out catch some poster in a blatant lie - as evidenced by their own self-contradictions. In those occasions, I sometimes will point out what they’ve done. That’s not been the case with either of you.

Calling the anecdotes empty sounds like sneering to me. And it's not like I can go out and do research on the homeless myself.

By the way, I found out the stats you gave before about 69 percent of SF's homeless being from the city was based on asking the homeless themselves. They have an incentive to say they are from the city even if they're not, as they potentially will get better services that way. My point here is that "universal truth" is hard to come by. It's like with the cable news channels... constantly touting polls and research to show what they hope is true really is true. We don't have hard facts to rely on, really. So we pay attention to our eyes and ears, and the experiences of others. Yes, these could be misleading too, but I don't think they should be discounted altogether.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Genghis

Calling the anecdotes empty sounds like sneering to me. And it's not like I can go out and do research on the homeless myself.

By the way, I found out the stats you gave before about 69 percent of SF's homeless being from the city was based on asking the homeless themselves. They have an incentive to say they are from the city even if they're not, as they potentially will get better services that way. My point here is that "universal truth" is hard to come by. It's like with the cable news channels... constantly touting polls and research to show what they hope is true really is true. We don't have hard facts to rely on, really. So we pay attention to our eyes and ears, and the experiences of others. Yes, these could be misleading too, but I don't think they should be discounted altogether.

Genghis, you can take what I say any way you’re so inclined ... you call it “sneering” because you feel personally offended by my challenge of your personal opinion, perhaps. I didn’t write my responses as sneers ... but your perception is yours to own.

And you have here written again what you’ve previously said a couple of times: that you can’t “go out and do research on the homeless“ yourself ... As I responded before: why not? You’re sitting at an internet connected computer in the information age. What’s holding you back from reading studies and research reports?

And what “better services” do local homeless get over homeless from out of area? They aren’t treated one bit differently. Where did you get that from?

[Genghis]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Genghis, you can take what I say any way you’re so inclined ... you call it “sneering” because you feel personally offended by my challenge of your personal opinion, perhaps. I didn’t write my responses as sneers ... but your perception is yours to own.

And you have here written again what you’ve previously said a couple of times: that you can’t “go out and do research on the homeless“ yourself ... As I responded before: why not? You’re sitting at an internet connected computer in the information age. What’s holding you back from reading studies and research reports?

Lack of time, I have too many other responsibilities and interests. It would take hours and hours to pore over them properly. Also, it might be hard to access some studies due to paywalls. I still have the right to form my own opinions, however.

And what “better services” do local homeless get over homeless from out of area? They aren’t treated one bit differently. Where did you get that from?

A lot of people are hostile to those who are perceived as coming from out of the area to take advantage of local services. And in some of the videos I watched (yes I know, it's not peer-reviewed scientific research) the non-local homeless people being interviewed said that people from the area had preference in terms of being given housing, so that their waiting time was longer. Even if they were incorrect, just their false belief would give them an incentive to lie about where they are from.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Genghis

Lack of time, I have too many other responsibilities and interests. It would take hours and hours to pore over them properly. Also, it might be hard to access some studies due to paywalls. I still have the right to form my own opinions, however.



A lot of people are hostile to those who are perceived as coming from out of the area to take advantage of local services. And in some of the videos I watched (yes I know, it's not peer-reviewed scientific research) the non-local homeless people being interviewed said that people from the area had preference in terms of being given housing, so that their waiting time was longer. Even if they were incorrect, just their false belief would give them an incentive to lie about where they are from.

“Lack of time”? “Hours and hours to ‘pore’ (sic) over them properly”? ... But doesn’t take hardly any time to just shoot out unfounded opinions and declarations, eh? No, it doesn’t. And it doesn’t require “hours and hours” to get a fair survey of the issues either. That can be done quite quickly in this day and age. In the time you are spending reading and responding to these posts, to say nothing of the time you admit to watching YouTube homeless interviews, you could have read through a fair sampling of investigative reporting at the least. And no, it doesn’t require paywall leaps. You are simply trying to justify sticking with your opinions over verification.

Yes, you certainly are entitled to forming your own opinions ... as Daniel Patrick Moynihan once famously said: “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts."

Now, back to your YouTube version of reality:
There are approximately 7500 homeless in San Francisco. How many YouTube interviews have you watched? A couple? Five? A dozen? ... compared to 7500 stories. YouTube episodes are interesting ... anecdotes. Statistically insignificant. Of course, they are also dramatically impressive. That’s why they made them into YouTube snippets. That’s what media is all about: storytelling.

So, “even if they were incorrect” ... which they were ... provides zero support for your opinion positions. A few homeless believing something false doesn’t taint an entire statistical pool of factual reality.

[Dapper Zoom]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

“Lack of time”? “Hours and hours to ‘pore’ (sic) over them properly”?

What was the "sic" for? That was proper usage.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Dapper Zoom

What was the "sic" for? That was proper usage.

You are correct. My error.

[Genghis]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

“Lack of time”? “Hours and hours to ‘pore’ (sic) over them properly”? ... But doesn’t take hardly any time to just shoot out unfounded opinions and declarations, eh? No, it doesn’t. And it doesn’t require “hours and hours” to get a fair survey of the issues either. That can be done quite quickly in this day and age. In the time you are spending reading and responding to these posts, to say nothing of the time you admit to watching YouTube homeless interviews, you could have read through a fair sampling of investigative reporting at the least. And no, it doesn’t require paywall leaps. You are simply trying to justify sticking with your opinions over verification.

It does take hours and hours to know if studies are trustworthy, since that would require actually examining their data. And yes, the hard data is not always available to the public. Simply watching investigative reporting would not be enough as such reporting often has an underlying political agenda.

Yes, you certainly are entitled to forming your own opinions ... as Daniel Patrick Moynihan once famously said: “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts."

Now, back to your YouTube version of reality:
There are approximately 7500 homeless in San Francisco. How many YouTube interviews have you watched? A couple? Five? A dozen? ... compared to 7500 stories. YouTube episodes are interesting ... anecdotes. Statistically insignificant. Of course, they are also dramatically impressive. That’s why they made them into YouTube snippets. That’s what media is all about: storytelling.

So, “even if they were incorrect” ... which they were ... provides zero support for your opinion positions. A few homeless believing something false doesn’t taint an entire statistical pool of factual reality.

I would say interviews on Invisible People and similar YouTube channels are more raw and honest than any investigative reporting. They are uncensored and uncoached. There's no agenda attached to them (other than helping the homeless), and there are quite a few interviews to watch. Also, statistically, a sample size of several dozen out of a population of 7500 actually does generally give a pretty good estimate of underlying statistical trends.

[TCROX]

You are correct. His error.

[TCROX]

THIS is what it's ALL about folks! Mohammed- what happened to 750 k per year? week? month? only YOU know?
Now the city has "earmarked" over 830 K NOT 750..
Well each of the team gets OVER 180 k per year!
If were about helping people- the "people" would be in facilities getting help.. EVERYONE knows that... instead they are out doing whatever.... what would happen if a homeowner in SF started doing what the city slave vagrants are doing when they need to go poo poo? Fines? jail? just letting their dog do it?
San Francisco's 'Poop Patrollers' cleaning up -- on the streets and at the bank | Fox News