> 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 w

> 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.