4 ms·

> you'll learn that while drugs are restricted at the shelter, it's a fantastic place to meet people who use drugs and find new sources of drugs Is this not al

by zepto 5y ago

> you'll learn that while drugs are restricted at the shelter, it's a fantastic place to meet people who use drugs and find new sources of drugs Is this not also a problem at homeless encampments?

pseudalopex 5y ago
Making it illegal to be homeless means outside encampments too.
- zepto 5y ago
  No it doesn’t. People already sell drugs outside of homeless encampments. Making it illegal to be homeless changes nothing.
  - pseudalopex 5y ago
    Making it illegal to be homeless means making it illegal to be homeless. Not just in encampments. They said homeless shelters have a lot of drug activity. You implied encampments do too. What was your point if it wasn't about encampments?
    - zepto 5y ago
      Their point was about drug activity being a problem in shelters relative to encampments. Your comments about making homelessness illegal seem like a non-sequitur.
      - pseudalopex 5y ago
        foxpurple proposed making homelessness illegal and forcing everyone into shelters. They didn't mention encampments. The strongest plausible interpretation of what they said is outside encampments too. xnyan explained problems with shelters relative to unspecified alternatives. They didn't mention encampments either. The comment they replied to didn't mention encampments. And you pointed out some of their points don't make sense if they were just comparing to encampments. The strongest plausible interpretation of what they said is they weren't just comparing to encampments.
        zepto 5y ago
        The strongest plausible interpretation is that the comments haven’t randomly thrown away the context of the conversation. This entire conversation is about the dangers of encampments, and how to solve that problem. Also you haven’t explained how your comment isn’t a non-seqitur. As far I can see it is an out of context contradiction that doesn’t change anything about the meaning of anything.

by zepto 5y ago

> you'll learn that while drugs are restricted at the shelter, it's a fantastic place to meet people who use drugs and find new sources of drugs Is this not also a problem at homeless encampments?

pseudalopex 5y ago

Making it illegal to be homeless means outside encampments too.

zepto 5y ago
No it doesn’t. People already sell drugs outside of homeless encampments. Making it illegal to be homeless changes nothing.
- pseudalopex 5y ago
  Making it illegal to be homeless means making it illegal to be homeless. Not just in encampments. They said homeless shelters have a lot of drug activity. You implied encampments do too. What was your point if it wasn't about encampments?
  - zepto 5y ago
    Their point was about drug activity being a problem in shelters relative to encampments. Your comments about making homelessness illegal seem like a non-sequitur.
    - pseudalopex 5y ago
      foxpurple proposed making homelessness illegal and forcing everyone into shelters. They didn't mention encampments. The strongest plausible interpretation of what they said is outside encampments too. xnyan explained problems with shelters relative to unspecified alternatives. They didn't mention encampments either. The comment they replied to didn't mention encampments. And you pointed out some of their points don't make sense if they were just comparing to encampments. The strongest plausible interpretation of what they said is they weren't just comparing to encampments.
      - zepto 5y ago
        The strongest plausible interpretation is that the comments haven’t randomly thrown away the context of the conversation. This entire conversation is about the dangers of encampments, and how to solve that problem. Also you haven’t explained how your comment isn’t a non-seqitur. As far I can see it is an out of context contradiction that doesn’t change anything about the meaning of anything.