4 ms·

> 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

by 13415 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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. There's a difference between "a solution" and "mitigation". All those programs that the parent mentioned do exist in so-called "welfare states" like Sweden, France or Germany. Yet, these countries have higher homelessness rates than the US. > You started by insinuating that most homeless are incurably schizophrenic. I actually didn't. I said that schizophrenics in particular are likely to refuse help. I didn't say all schizophrenics refuse help or that all homeless are schizophrenic. If you can't solve the problem of getting those schizophrenics off the streets (without force), you can't have a solution to homelessness, period. > Your repeated suggestion that there is no solution and nothing can be done has certainly not convinced me. I didn't say nothing can be done. I particularly don't care about "convincing" some guy on HN with poor reading comprehension. Have you done anything besides complaining about my posts? Go educate yourself on the topic if you want to "prove me wrong" or something.
    - 13415 8y ago
      > I didn't say nothing can be done. I particularly don't care about "convincing" some guy on HN with poor reading comprehension. You're the last person on HN who should tell other people about reading comprehension, at least judging from this thread. > > You started by insinuating that most homeless are incurably schizophrenic. > I didn't say all schizophrenics refuse help or that all homeless are schizophrenic. That's a typical example of your reading comprehension, which is based on constantly shifting the goalpost in order to "save face." And that is the reason why you're so unconvincing. You did start by insinuating that most homeless are schizophrenic and that most schizophrenic refuse to get help. Both statements turned out to be plain false according to your own Internet research - which you obviously conducted because you're not very familiar with the topic, otherwise you would have mentioned your single data point, namely the paper you linked to, right from the start. You dynamically adapted your claims instead of doing the mature thing of simply admitting that you were wrong and less homeless people than you thought were mentally ill. > There's a difference between "a solution" and "mitigation". This kind of hairsplitting is an immature reaction when someone points out inconsistencies in a post. The fact is that in the end you said almost nothing, but you managed to achieve that goal with erroneous reporting of statistics, peppered with several false dichotomies and a lot of insinuation. So some percentage of the (i) 20%-40% of homeless that are seriously mentally ill might (ii) be schizophrenic, and of those (iii) some other percentage might refuse treatment, and for (iv) those there may be no solution. Nobody has ever denied that in this thread, and what is even more stunning about this conversation is that you have provided 0 evidence for claims (ii)-(iv). Zero. No data, no statistics, not even an argument that would withold basic scrutiny. That's not a good track record, especially not for HN. Now you're again shifting goalposts and there is a new insinuation, of course. Now suddenly you're coming up with general homelessness rates. I suppose the insinuation this time is that mitigation strategies of welfare states like Sweden, France, and Germany don't help against homelessness - which is, of course, another obvious nonsense that could not possibly be backed up by looking at homelessness rates alone. Again, you're using the wrong data to insinuate something while keeping the actual position as vague as possible. You could just as well have mentioned North Korea and Jordan as positive examples with alleged 0% homelessness. Or that Mexico has a much lower homelessness rate than the US. Or that a welfare state like Portugal has a much lower homelessness rate than the US, too. And so forth. Fact is, of course, that homelessness rates cannot be compared in this way and that public policies need to be evaluated much more carefully by looking at their concrete effects. > Go educate yourself on the topic if you want to "prove me wrong" or something. That's called "projection" in psychology.

by 13415 8y ago

gridlockd 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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. There's a difference between "a solution" and "mitigation". All those programs that the parent mentioned do exist in so-called "welfare states" like Sweden, France or Germany. Yet, these countries have higher homelessness rates than the US. > You started by insinuating that most homeless are incurably schizophrenic. I actually didn't. I said that schizophrenics in particular are likely to refuse help. I didn't say all schizophrenics refuse help or that all homeless are schizophrenic. If you can't solve the problem of getting those schizophrenics off the streets (without force), you can't have a solution to homelessness, period. > Your repeated suggestion that there is no solution and nothing can be done has certainly not convinced me. I didn't say nothing can be done. I particularly don't care about "convincing" some guy on HN with poor reading comprehension. Have you done anything besides complaining about my posts? Go educate yourself on the topic if you want to "prove me wrong" or something.
  - 13415 8y ago
    > I didn't say nothing can be done. I particularly don't care about "convincing" some guy on HN with poor reading comprehension. You're the last person on HN who should tell other people about reading comprehension, at least judging from this thread. > > You started by insinuating that most homeless are incurably schizophrenic. > I didn't say all schizophrenics refuse help or that all homeless are schizophrenic. That's a typical example of your reading comprehension, which is based on constantly shifting the goalpost in order to "save face." And that is the reason why you're so unconvincing. You did start by insinuating that most homeless are schizophrenic and that most schizophrenic refuse to get help. Both statements turned out to be plain false according to your own Internet research - which you obviously conducted because you're not very familiar with the topic, otherwise you would have mentioned your single data point, namely the paper you linked to, right from the start. You dynamically adapted your claims instead of doing the mature thing of simply admitting that you were wrong and less homeless people than you thought were mentally ill. > There's a difference between "a solution" and "mitigation". This kind of hairsplitting is an immature reaction when someone points out inconsistencies in a post. The fact is that in the end you said almost nothing, but you managed to achieve that goal with erroneous reporting of statistics, peppered with several false dichotomies and a lot of insinuation. So some percentage of the (i) 20%-40% of homeless that are seriously mentally ill might (ii) be schizophrenic, and of those (iii) some other percentage might refuse treatment, and for (iv) those there may be no solution. Nobody has ever denied that in this thread, and what is even more stunning about this conversation is that you have provided 0 evidence for claims (ii)-(iv). Zero. No data, no statistics, not even an argument that would withold basic scrutiny. That's not a good track record, especially not for HN. Now you're again shifting goalposts and there is a new insinuation, of course. Now suddenly you're coming up with general homelessness rates. I suppose the insinuation this time is that mitigation strategies of welfare states like Sweden, France, and Germany don't help against homelessness - which is, of course, another obvious nonsense that could not possibly be backed up by looking at homelessness rates alone. Again, you're using the wrong data to insinuate something while keeping the actual position as vague as possible. You could just as well have mentioned North Korea and Jordan as positive examples with alleged 0% homelessness. Or that Mexico has a much lower homelessness rate than the US. Or that a welfare state like Portugal has a much lower homelessness rate than the US, too. And so forth. Fact is, of course, that homelessness rates cannot be compared in this way and that public policies need to be evaluated much more carefully by looking at their concrete effects. > Go educate yourself on the topic if you want to "prove me wrong" or something. That's called "projection" in psychology.