5 ms·

30% is fairly low, and your suggestion that schizophrenics refuse treatment a lot is pointless. Some of them refuse it, other do not refuse it, and you help tho

30% is fairly low, and your suggestion that schizophrenics refuse treatment a lot is pointless. Some of them refuse it, other do not refuse it, and you help those who do not refuse it. The situation of homeless is not as bad in countries with better systems as it is in the US, precisely because, as a tendency, their situation can be improved and less is done in the US than in other countries. The effectiveness of social welfare programs, health care, and so on, is a purely empirical question that can be measured effectively. Contrary to popular belief, these are not questions of political opinion. (What is a matter of political opinion, of course, is how much you want to spent and who is going to pay for it.) You could e.g. start by helping the 70% of those homeless who, according to your own statistics, do not suffer from severe mental illness. That's already the vast majority. As for the remaining 30%, the suggestion you're trying to make, that they are all hopeless cases, is outright bizarre. We know that schizophrenia can be treated with medicaments and that not all of the people diagnosed with schizophrenia refuse treatment. You could start by treating those who want to be treated, for example. Finally, you still haven't bother to tell anyone what to do about the 30% you incorrectly portray as being untreatable, because they allegedly refuse treatment. If your suggestion is to put them into mental institutions against their will, even when they pose no threat to the public or themselves, then my reply is that you need to check your moral compass. This is prohibited by law and by very basic moral considerations. If you have another suggestion, rather than stating the obvious truism that not every schizophrenic can fully adapt to society or be treated effectively, then I'm all ears, and so are myriads of medical professionals and street workers. Right now, to me you merely come across as someone who doesn't really have anything to say about the topic. As I've said, it works better in many other countries, so your idea of not helping at all does not really seem to be very convincing to me.

gridlockd 7y ago
> 30% is fairly low, and your suggestion that schizophrenics refuse treatment a lot is pointless. Some of them refuse it, other do not refuse it, and you help those who do not refuse it. Those who don't refuse treatment tend to not be homeless. Maybe you should have a conversation with a social worker or a medical professional about homelessness if you still believe homelessness has an "obvious solution". > You could e.g. start by helping the 70% of those homeless who, according to your own statistics, do not suffer from severe mental illness. That's already the vast majority. Yes, we can have another conversation about how helping drug addicts is really difficult. We can talk about how hard alcoholics can't hold jobs or maintain a household. We can talk about all kinds of issues that are not solved by simple having more social programs than we already have. > Right now, to me you merely come across as someone who doesn't really have anything to say about the topic. You come across to me as someone who doesn't really have a good understanding of the actual problem. All you have to say is "the solution is obvious, more welfare programs! Throw money at the problem, it'll disappear!". It's just not true. No country in the world has "solved" homelessness while maintaining the level of personal freedom that you yourself seem to be vigilant of. My point is not that we should institutionalize all these people, or that there shouldn't be more programs available. In fact I would argue that drugs in particular need to liberalized to keep addicts in the programs.
- 13415 7y ago
  > Those who don't refuse treatment tend to not be homeless. You just literally said that 30% of the homeless are severely mentally ill. That means that 70% of the homeless are not severely mentally ill. And you have not proposed any solution or way to tackle the problem at all. Not a single suggestion.
  - gridlockd 7y ago
    > You just literally said that 30% of the homeless are severely mentally ill. That means that 70% of the homeless are not severely mentally ill. In context of the reply, the sentence is: Those schizophrenics (not "those homeless") who do not refuse treatment tend to not be homeless. > And you have not proposed any solution or way to tackle the problem at all. Not a single suggestion. I don't have a solution and neither does the parent. Why should I make poorly informed suggestions on what should be done? To appear virtuous? Well here you go: Every homeless person should get a Macbook and free Javascript courses so they can get a job in San Francisco! Is that what you expect out of people?
    - 13415 7y ago
      The parent has suggested a number of solutions, and you have not presented a convincing argument why any of those solutions would not help. You started by insinuating that most homeless are incurably schizophrenic. Then you looked it up on the Internet and found out some (fishy) statistics that stated that only 20% - 40% of all homeless are seriously mentally ill, so you backtracked and replaced your original suggestion with the statistically incorrect claim that 30% of all homeless all incurably schizophrenic and refuse treatment without presenting any evidence for that claim either. (Hint: This doesn't follow from the revised statement you gave in your last reply, for which you have also presented no evidence btw.) And when pressed about what it is you want to say, your overall point was that nothing can be done to help those schizophrenics among the homeless who refuse help. But the other poster already conceded that there is always a certain percentage who cannot be helped, so the two of you don't even disagree. The only point that you backed up with some citation was the claim that only 20% to 40% of all homeless are seriously mentally ill, which seems to support the idea that it may be possible to start helping the majority 60% - 80% of homeless who are not seriously mentally ill. And, to make this clear, the vague suggestion that most or many homeless people who suffer from schizophrenia often refuse help wasn't really informative or helpful. Not without actual numbers and actual evaluation of help programs. Your repeated suggestion that there is no solution and nothing can be done has certainly not convinced me.

gridlockd 7y ago

> 30% is fairly low, and your suggestion that schizophrenics refuse treatment a lot is pointless. Some of them refuse it, other do not refuse it, and you help those who do not refuse it. Those who don't refuse treatment tend to not be homeless. Maybe you should have a conversation with a social worker or a medical professional about homelessness if you still believe homelessness has an "obvious solution". > You could e.g. start by helping the 70% of those homeless who, according to your own statistics, do not suffer from severe mental illness. That's already the vast majority. Yes, we can have another conversation about how helping drug addicts is really difficult. We can talk about how hard alcoholics can't hold jobs or maintain a household. We can talk about all kinds of issues that are not solved by simple having more social programs than we already have. > Right now, to me you merely come across as someone who doesn't really have anything to say about the topic. You come across to me as someone who doesn't really have a good understanding of the actual problem. All you have to say is "the solution is obvious, more welfare programs! Throw money at the problem, it'll disappear!". It's just not true. No country in the world has "solved" homelessness while maintaining the level of personal freedom that you yourself seem to be vigilant of. My point is not that we should institutionalize all these people, or that there shouldn't be more programs available. In fact I would argue that drugs in particular need to liberalized to keep addicts in the programs.

13415 7y ago
> Those who don't refuse treatment tend to not be homeless. You just literally said that 30% of the homeless are severely mentally ill. That means that 70% of the homeless are not severely mentally ill. And you have not proposed any solution or way to tackle the problem at all. Not a single suggestion.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  > You just literally said that 30% of the homeless are severely mentally ill. That means that 70% of the homeless are not severely mentally ill. In context of the reply, the sentence is: Those schizophrenics (not "those homeless") who do not refuse treatment tend to not be homeless. > And you have not proposed any solution or way to tackle the problem at all. Not a single suggestion. I don't have a solution and neither does the parent. Why should I make poorly informed suggestions on what should be done? To appear virtuous? Well here you go: Every homeless person should get a Macbook and free Javascript courses so they can get a job in San Francisco! Is that what you expect out of people?
  - 13415 7y ago
    The parent has suggested a number of solutions, and you have not presented a convincing argument why any of those solutions would not help. You started by insinuating that most homeless are incurably schizophrenic. Then you looked it up on the Internet and found out some (fishy) statistics that stated that only 20% - 40% of all homeless are seriously mentally ill, so you backtracked and replaced your original suggestion with the statistically incorrect claim that 30% of all homeless all incurably schizophrenic and refuse treatment without presenting any evidence for that claim either. (Hint: This doesn't follow from the revised statement you gave in your last reply, for which you have also presented no evidence btw.) And when pressed about what it is you want to say, your overall point was that nothing can be done to help those schizophrenics among the homeless who refuse help. But the other poster already conceded that there is always a certain percentage who cannot be helped, so the two of you don't even disagree. The only point that you backed up with some citation was the claim that only 20% to 40% of all homeless are seriously mentally ill, which seems to support the idea that it may be possible to start helping the majority 60% - 80% of homeless who are not seriously mentally ill. And, to make this clear, the vague suggestion that most or many homeless people who suffer from schizophrenia often refuse help wasn't really informative or helpful. Not without actual numbers and actual evaluation of help programs. Your repeated suggestion that there is no solution and nothing can be done has certainly not convinced me.