Seattle Socialists Strangle Golden Goose

[Fife]

Number of homeless off the street and into homes has always been my metric for success.

So ultimate success would be everyone becoming homeless and getting homes from the government?

Not even a little bit.

Here’s another bad faith straw man, for example:

“If Seattle decreasing their homeless populations is ultimate success would nuking Seattle be a good thing?”

Explain your "straw man" objection to the point you object to with "Not even a little bit."

:goteam: :drunk:

[Haumana]

What's the true choice?

Muh warm and fuzzy feelz.

[JohnDonne]

Then you should join me in condemning failure instead of spending your energy desperately trying to justify it.
/shrug

False dilemma.

Heh. Brilliant. Condemning failure vs. justifying failure. Sounds legit.

What's the true choice?

Choices are limitless. Just imagine all the possible positions one could hold besides gov good or gov bad. Or homeless spending resounding success or utter failure.

[Fife]

False dilemma.

Heh. Brilliant. Condemning failure vs. justifying failure. Sounds legit.

What's the true choice?

Choices are limitless. Just imagine all the possible positions one could hold besides gov good or gov bad. Or homeless spending resounding success or utter failure.

So, literally everything is a legitimate choice. "Let's end homelessness through shooting all the homeless in the temple."

OK, so your "false dilemma" post was just jizzing into a gym sock. Thanks for confirming.

[JohnDonne]

So ultimate success would be everyone becoming homeless and getting homes from the government?

Not even a little bit.

Here’s another bad faith straw man, for example:

“If Seattle decreasing their homeless populations is ultimate success would nuking Seattle be a good thing?”

Explain your "straw man" objection to the point you object to with "Not even a little bit."

:goteam: :drunk:

My objection is I didn’t say it or imply it, and nobody thinks I did.

But I appreciate the opportunity to say the obvious.

[JohnDonne]

Heh. Brilliant. Condemning failure vs. justifying failure. Sounds legit.

What's the true choice?

Choices are limitless. Just imagine all the possible positions one could hold besides gov good or gov bad. Or homeless spending resounding success or utter failure.

So, literally everything is a legitimate choice. "Let's end homelessness through shooting all the homeless in the temple."

OK, so your "false dilemma" post was just jizzing into a gym sock. Thanks for confirming.

I was just trying to stimulate your imagination, get you out of your gov good gov bad box. I’ve already been clear on my position: Hint: it doesn’t fit into the paradigm of justifying or condemning all homeless spending.

Either accept the choices DB lays out, or all choices among an infinite are equal in value? Lol. False dilemma.

I’ve already made my position clear, I support affordable housing, if that’s going to be lumped in with a bunch of supposed government quagmires and I’m given a false choice of, “It’s all theft, right? Or Is it all awesome?” then it’s a false dilemma.

[jediuser598]

We don't know the solution to solving Seattle's homeless problem.

Letting them freeze isn't a solution that most residents of Seattle are ok with.

Money is going to be spent, and people taxed, to try and solve this problem. If they misuse those funds, it should be called out.

It's a process. Think of it like buying a used car or going to a mechanic. You eventually find a good mechanic that gets results and only price gouges you a little, but most of the time it's a trial and error thing.

[Speaker to Animals]

What if we dumped them in Mexico?

It would be a find of free trade for poor people, right?

[DBTrek]

If they have money to resist taxation, then they have money for taxes -HM

Money is going to be spent, people are going to be taxed -Jedi

There’s the progressive mindset. Complete justification for taking others money and squandering it. Hey, they have money to take, and governments are gonna take money anyway.

Threaten their worldview by suggesting that government isn’t entitled to take money just because others have it, or that a wasteful government should be held accountable and not given further funds - and look out! Rage, misdirections, ad hom, non-sequitirs, and straw men for days.

/shrug

[jediuser598]

If they have money to resist taxation, then they have money for taxes -HM

Money is going to be spent, people are going to be taxed -Jedi

There’s the progressive mindset. Complete justification for taking others money and squandering it. Hey, they have money to take, and governments are gonna take money anyway.

Threaten their worldview by suggesting that government isn’t entitled to take money just because others have it, or that a wasteful government should be held accountable and not given further funds - and look out! Rage, misdirections, ad hom, non-sequitirs, and straw men for days.

/shrug

How well is the "don't spend any more money on the homeless" platform working?

Oh it's not? Well yeah no shit it's not.

This is why you're the no solution guy.

You're the libertarian of Seattle politics. Your "theories" don't work in real life. People are going to spend money on the homeless problem, and approve more levies and vote for people who will raise taxes because they want something done about the homeless people on the street. That's going to happen. So how do the people of Seattle and the Peugeot Sound area make sure that money is not wasted?

You're in the wrong state for "Starve the Beast."