Finland - No Homeless

[DBTrek]

Only 37% of Seattle’s homeless accept offers of free shelter. You tell me, what’s the opt-out ratio look like?

It’s cold and rainy here, btw. I’m case our resident geniuses are unfamiliar with Seattle’s climate.

Not choosing a shelter is not 'opting' to be homeless.

A shelter isn't a home, it is just being homeless inside. Some people would prefer to be homeless outside. Which, I would expect, is a considerably cheaper solution.

Right on, king of excuses. I think you’ve made your belief in the perpetual helplessness of anyone claiming hardship abundantly clear. I don’t know what you think you can tell us about your views that we haven’t already deduced at this point.

/shrug

[doc_loliday]

Hanarchy logic: Apartment renters are homeless because they don't outright own the place.



Unless you give them a house, a decent house too, in a nice neighborhood, with lots of nice stuff inside cus they wouldn't feel all that welcome otherwise, it doesn't count.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Only 37% of Seattle’s homeless accept offers of free shelter. You tell me, what’s the opt-out ratio look like?

It’s cold and rainy here, btw. I’m case our resident geniuses are unfamiliar with Seattle’s climate.

Not choosing a shelter is not 'opting' to be homeless.

A shelter isn't a home, it is just being homeless inside. Some people would prefer to be homeless outside. Which, I would expect, is a considerably cheaper solution.

Right on, king of excuses. I think you’ve made your belief in the perpetual helplessness of anyone claiming hardship abundantly clear. I don’t know what you think you can tell us about your views that we haven’t already deduced at this point.

/shrug

That particular post has nothing to do with helplessness or excuses. It is simply pointing out that your 37% statistic has nothing to do with 'opting' to be homeless. I think you do, actually, understand this, which is why you respond by telling me my opinions are boring and predictable, rather than argue a point.

Well, fair enough. Carry on.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Hanarchy logic: Apartment renters are homeless because they don't outright own the place.



Unless you give them a house, a decent house too, in a nice neighborhood, with lots of nice stuff inside cus they wouldn't feel all that welcome otherwise, it doesn't count.

That isn't what I said, even a little bit.

/shrug

[doc_loliday]

Hanarchy logic: Apartment renters are homeless because they don't outright own the place.



Unless you give them a house, a decent house too, in a nice neighborhood, with lots of nice stuff inside cus they wouldn't feel all that welcome otherwise, it doesn't count.

That isn't what I said, even a little bit.

/shrug

You were the one who quoted DB when he said 37% of the homeless refuse shelter, and then "interpreted" that as a preference to not have a home. I'm pretty sure they'd love a home, with no strings attached. The tax payer, private entities, and charities provide shelters, halfway housing, and sober living facilities, so people can have a place of residence to get back on their feet. I and others, in this very thread support such missions. But drug addicts don't want or are not ready to move on from the life.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Well you were the one who quoted DB when he said 37% of the homeless refuse shelter, and then "interpreted" that as a preference to not have a home.

This is exactly the opposite of what I argued. I argued that refusing a shelter has nothing to do with preferring to be homeless.

[doc_loliday]

Well you were the one who quoted DB when he said 37% of the homeless refuse shelter, and then "interpreted" that as a preference to not have a home.

This is exactly the opposite of what I argued. I argued that refusing a shelter has nothing to do with preferring to be homeless.

I know what you meant. You interpreted DB's stance as a preference for homelessness. You're deliberately ignoring the point, which is, not taking housing options because you prefer the life, but at the same time, would take a home with no strings attached, is about as close as you can get to preferring homelessness. This only escapes the definition in the strictest sense, which is why I posted what I posted.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Well you were the one who quoted DB when he said 37% of the homeless refuse shelter, and then "interpreted" that as a preference to not have a home.

This is exactly the opposite of what I argued. I argued that refusing a shelter has nothing to do with preferring to be homeless.

I know what you meant. You interpreted DB's stance as a preference for homelessness. You're deliberately ignoring the point, which is, not taking housing options because you prefer the life, but at the same time, would take a home with no strings attached, is about as close as you can get to preferring homelessness. This only escapes the definition in the strictest sense, which is why I posted what I posted.

If DB was not arguing that the 37% shelter rejection rate was evidence that people are homeless as a lifestyle choice, then I apologize for misinterpreting him.

I don't know who is arguing we start handing out 'no strings attached' homes and welfare to anyone for the asking.

[doc_loliday]

I don't know who is arguing we start handing out 'no strings attached' homes and welfare to anyone for the asking.

The OP and the article he linked.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I don't know who is arguing we start handing out 'no strings attached' homes and welfare to anyone for the asking.

The OP and the article he linked.

The article about Seattle was about allowing people to be homeless in an unsanctioned encampment, not welfare and free homes.

As I read it, the homeless-as-a-lifestyle people weren't asking for anything from taxpayers other than decriminalizing being outside, and in the same place for an extended period of time.

Feckless fucking gypsies, no doubt, but not really related to 'gibs.'