3 ms·

This makes sense if you count 20% as a “vast majority” of a group. The singular use of “serious mental illness” in that pdf is this sentence. >In this study we

This makes sense if you count 20% as a “vast majority” of a group. The singular use of “serious mental illness” in that pdf is this sentence. >In this study we use clinical service records from the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health to estimate 20% of individuals participating in Street Outreach services had a clinical diagnosis of serious mental illness within the previous twelve years. Alternatively if you simply imagine that any and every counted incident of any mental health issue as being serious to the point of calling for mysterious unpopular “hurt the poors” policy, you do not even need a pdf to back that up. You can simply believe it in your heart like a matter of faith

cyberax 2y ago
> This makes sense if you count 20% as a “vast majority” of a group. The singular use of “serious mental illness” in that pdf is this sentence. ??? Page 5 of the PDF, the graph near the bottom right of the page: "Mental health conditions: 78% of unsheltered homeless, substance abuse conditions: 75% of unsheltered homeless". I believe, this qualifies as "vast majority". And these are from before the fentanyl epidemic. > You can simply believe it in your heart like a matter of faith Quite clearly, you can't even read a PDF file with the executive summary.
- jrflowers 2y ago
  This is a good point because “mental health condition” means “severe mental health condition”. People that live in houses can have mild anxiety or treatable depression, people that do not all have schizoaffective disorder and capgras syndrome. I agree on a skill disparity between us here. You have surpassed me by not only being able to read what is in the PDF, you are able to read things that aren’t in the PDF. For example on page 2 it says that stable housing is essential for ending homelessness and you have been able to extract additional meaning to conclude that it supports “harsh unpopular ‘hurt the poors’” policies. Of course someone could simply begin with being in favor of harsh, unpopular “hurt the poors” measures and then work backwards and read validation of that where there is none. That is fine! There is nothing wrong with having beliefs, it is part of the human condition. It is not uncommon to see a homeless person simply feel that life has not been harsh enough for them. There is no need to try to justify that feeling or invent a rationale in an attempt to enroll others into it, as this entire response is at its core disconnected from reason. The richness of the interiority of the human experience knows no bounds!
  - cyberax 2y ago
    > This is a good point because “mental health condition” means “severe mental health condition”. Yes, and the union between them and the drug addicts is around 80%. Still qualifies for the "vast majority" characteristic. > For example on page 2 it says that stable housing is essential for ending homelessness What else can they say: "We need mandatory treatment"? Yeah, sure. I can quote you another example. Utah's "housing first" has 75%+ failure rate, most of people who were simply given housing, return to homelessness within 2 years.

cyberax 2y ago

> This makes sense if you count 20% as a “vast majority” of a group. The singular use of “serious mental illness” in that pdf is this sentence. ??? Page 5 of the PDF, the graph near the bottom right of the page: "Mental health conditions: 78% of unsheltered homeless, substance abuse conditions: 75% of unsheltered homeless". I believe, this qualifies as "vast majority". And these are from before the fentanyl epidemic. > You can simply believe it in your heart like a matter of faith Quite clearly, you can't even read a PDF file with the executive summary.

jrflowers 2y ago
This is a good point because “mental health condition” means “severe mental health condition”. People that live in houses can have mild anxiety or treatable depression, people that do not all have schizoaffective disorder and capgras syndrome. I agree on a skill disparity between us here. You have surpassed me by not only being able to read what is in the PDF, you are able to read things that aren’t in the PDF. For example on page 2 it says that stable housing is essential for ending homelessness and you have been able to extract additional meaning to conclude that it supports “harsh unpopular ‘hurt the poors’” policies. Of course someone could simply begin with being in favor of harsh, unpopular “hurt the poors” measures and then work backwards and read validation of that where there is none. That is fine! There is nothing wrong with having beliefs, it is part of the human condition. It is not uncommon to see a homeless person simply feel that life has not been harsh enough for them. There is no need to try to justify that feeling or invent a rationale in an attempt to enroll others into it, as this entire response is at its core disconnected from reason. The richness of the interiority of the human experience knows no bounds!
- cyberax 2y ago
  > This is a good point because “mental health condition” means “severe mental health condition”. Yes, and the union between them and the drug addicts is around 80%. Still qualifies for the "vast majority" characteristic. > For example on page 2 it says that stable housing is essential for ending homelessness What else can they say: "We need mandatory treatment"? Yeah, sure. I can quote you another example. Utah's "housing first" has 75%+ failure rate, most of people who were simply given housing, return to homelessness within 2 years.