3 ms·
I find it interesting that in an article and on a topic where no one said free, you feel the need to qualify things that way, in order to create a moral hazard.
by 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
I find it interesting that in an article and on a topic where no one said free, you feel the need to qualify things that way, in order to create a moral hazard. It's literally a scare crow argument.
Since you mention the words moral hazard, and you made up an argument to bring up the point, maybe you feel a moral hazard without really having viewed the data? In which case, I'm wondering where that comes from? (truly, not trying to imply anything)
- badpun 7y agoThere are homeless people who just do not want to work for money - they choose "freedom" over being part of a standard society. The only home you can provide to them is free, as they won't be able to pay even for highly subsidised housing.
- 4ntonius8lock 7y agoAgain, no one mentioned the word free. Adults talk about other adults who have mental health issues and who cost society more money now than it would to house them. We talk about directing existing resources. We talk about data and studies. I'm afraid you are making points based on things you are just pulling out of your... head - or you can prove me wrong and point me to a study that backs up what you said, explaining the significant percentage (it has to be since you are bringing it up) of homeless who feel the way you portray. I'll be glad to issue a retraction if you do. I previously suggested to you a little compassion. I think a little thinking and research would also do you well. Maybe then you could formulate a cohesive argument without using some extreme 1% example to try and prove that 99% of the problem is not addressable.