3 ms·

> Relocation does not solve the problem, it simply moves it. Why didn't you argue against my point that the cost of living varies massively between regions? Wh

> Relocation does not solve the problem, it simply moves it. Why didn't you argue against my point that the cost of living varies massively between regions? Why shouldn't we send homeless to a lower cost of living area?

grasshopperpurp 9y ago
>Why didn't you argue against my point that the cost of living varies massively between regions? Why shouldn't we send homeless to a lower cost of living area? Why shouldn't we send you somewhere that you don't want to live? They're people - not cattle.
- lwhalen 9y ago
  Hey everyone, sounds like this guy just volunteered to host as many homeless as wanted to live at his place! Dude's got that purp too, hooray!
  - dang 9y ago
    Please don't make a bad thread even worse by posting like this.
frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
Contact is good. When the well-off just get to export away the ugly byproducts of their society, they're liable to produce more of them. Portlanders need contact with these homeless so that they will build a Portland which is either (1) better to the homeless or (2) doesn't produce as many of them. Besides he did make a point against your argument. Why should people in Nebraska and Oklahoma and Idaho have to deal with the homeless of Portland? We've got our own homeless to take care of so you can keep yours, thanks.
- aeorgnoieang 9y ago
  Portland already is better to the homeless – that's why they're there! But, generally, I've never come across a compelling argument or solution about homelessness. > Why should people in Nebraska and Oklahoma and Idaho have to deal with the homeless of Portland? Why shouldn't they have to deal with the homeless? Or why shouldn't homeless people be able to demand, and receive, free housing wherever they want? Surely some of the homeless in Portland now weren't born there. But even if they were – is there a real right to be able to live wherever one was born, forever, for free? And surely some degree of economic efficiency should be considered. The more cheaply housing or other accommodation can be supplied the more can be helped. Certainly it seems ridiculous to provide free housing in the most expensive places. I suspect there are no good answers, generally. Conflict is inevitable!
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    >Why shouldn't they have to deal with the homeless? They already do, that's my point. The question is why should they deal with the homeless of Portland? >Or why shouldn't homeless people be able to demand, and receive, free housing wherever they want? I know you don't believe this, because if they could then they'd just demand housing in Portland. >Surely some of the homeless in Portland now weren't born there. But even if they were – is there a real right to be able to live wherever one was born, forever, for free? Perhaps we could widen the scope of the question and then you could answer it: Is there a real right to be able to live anywhere, forever, for free? >And surely some degree of economic efficiency should be considered. The more cheaply housing or other accommodation can be supplied the more can be helped. Certainly it seems ridiculous to provide free housing in the most expensive places. I actually don't agree on the economic efficiency. For all the whining about NIMBYs when it comes to real estate costs on HN, everyone's a NIMBY when it comes to the homeless. Besides like I said the point is contact (no matter how expensive that contact might be). >I suspect there are no good answers, generally. Conflict is inevitable! Of course - that's the point of contact. Contact -> Conflict -> Resolution. If your resolution is just to remove contact then I think you're failing on a societal level.
    - aeorgnoieang 9y ago

grasshopperpurp 9y ago

>Why didn't you argue against my point that the cost of living varies massively between regions? Why shouldn't we send homeless to a lower cost of living area? Why shouldn't we send you somewhere that you don't want to live? They're people - not cattle.

lwhalen 9y ago
Hey everyone, sounds like this guy just volunteered to host as many homeless as wanted to live at his place! Dude's got that purp too, hooray!
- dang 9y ago
  Please don't make a bad thread even worse by posting like this.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago

Contact is good. When the well-off just get to export away the ugly byproducts of their society, they're liable to produce more of them. Portlanders need contact with these homeless so that they will build a Portland which is either (1) better to the homeless or (2) doesn't produce as many of them. Besides he did make a point against your argument. Why should people in Nebraska and Oklahoma and Idaho have to deal with the homeless of Portland? We've got our own homeless to take care of so you can keep yours, thanks.

aeorgnoieang 9y ago
Portland already is better to the homeless – that's why they're there! But, generally, I've never come across a compelling argument or solution about homelessness. > Why should people in Nebraska and Oklahoma and Idaho have to deal with the homeless of Portland? Why shouldn't they have to deal with the homeless? Or why shouldn't homeless people be able to demand, and receive, free housing wherever they want? Surely some of the homeless in Portland now weren't born there. But even if they were – is there a real right to be able to live wherever one was born, forever, for free? And surely some degree of economic efficiency should be considered. The more cheaply housing or other accommodation can be supplied the more can be helped. Certainly it seems ridiculous to provide free housing in the most expensive places. I suspect there are no good answers, generally. Conflict is inevitable!
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  >Why shouldn't they have to deal with the homeless? They already do, that's my point. The question is why should they deal with the homeless of Portland? >Or why shouldn't homeless people be able to demand, and receive, free housing wherever they want? I know you don't believe this, because if they could then they'd just demand housing in Portland. >Surely some of the homeless in Portland now weren't born there. But even if they were – is there a real right to be able to live wherever one was born, forever, for free? Perhaps we could widen the scope of the question and then you could answer it: Is there a real right to be able to live anywhere, forever, for free? >And surely some degree of economic efficiency should be considered. The more cheaply housing or other accommodation can be supplied the more can be helped. Certainly it seems ridiculous to provide free housing in the most expensive places. I actually don't agree on the economic efficiency. For all the whining about NIMBYs when it comes to real estate costs on HN, everyone's a NIMBY when it comes to the homeless. Besides like I said the point is contact (no matter how expensive that contact might be). >I suspect there are no good answers, generally. Conflict is inevitable! Of course - that's the point of contact. Contact -> Conflict -> Resolution. If your resolution is just to remove contact then I think you're failing on a societal level.
  - aeorgnoieang 9y ago