> 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

> 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. I made a plain statement. I don't have the need for "insinuations". If I had wanted to say anything about "most homeless", I would've used the word "most", as I have in all other instances where I used the word "most". By using the word "insinuate" you are yourself weaseling out of having misread what I said. You can't just say I said something that I didn't say. So I must've "insinuated" it and you get to decide what I insinuated, not me. That's just really poor debating tactics. > Both statements turned out to be plain false... I never made such statements. Goalpost moved. > ... 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 are correct in guessing that I looked the number up after writing the comment. > 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. You're basically engaging in mind reading now. My claims didn't need adaption because I never said anything premised on the proportion of schizophrenics among the homeless. Whether 30% is "more or less" than what "I thought" is irrelevant. I didn't have a number in mind at all. > This kind of hairsplitting is an immature reaction when someone points out inconsistencies in a post. Another poor debating tactic - accusing the other side of "arguing semantics". > ...several false dichotomies... Really? Cite two. > That's not a good track record, especially not for HN. Dude, you're not exactly helping out with these kinds of posts...