I have learned that some people in this world actuallydeserve to be homeless. They are selfish lazy slobs who care nothing
about anyone other than themselves and they don't care aboutthemselves all that much.

People who steal from the people they live with. People who refuse to clean up their rooms or help keep the house in some semblance of order are people who need to live in cardboard boxes.

Anyone who is a drug addict or alcoholic ofany sort deserves
if not homelessness than at least to spend the rest of their lives in any of the worst prisons imaginable on this planet.

Unfortunately there are people out there who like to take advantage of others, and unfortunately that will never change. Homelessness is a lot more complex than it seems and determining whether someone should be homeless or not is not an easy topic to discuss. There are people out there that choose to live their lives the way they do. It's not up to us to criticize them for what they do. Sure, we don't like it, but they chose to live that life. They may have a place to call home, but they will have a lot more problems than that to deal with if they chose drugs and alcohol abuse.

I'm not sure what else to say. I'm sure someone else who posts after me can clarify what I'm TRYING to say. heh :confused:

I don't agree with people who take advantage of our systems, but putting people on the streets will solve the problem???

Tentmaker,


I know what it's called and I thought you might understand that I don't support people who are like that. My question to you was ......... is making them all homeless going to take care of the problem? Afterall this post is about making them homeless, not just about how horrible they are.

Tentmaker,

What you are saying makes no sense to me at all. :confused: I'm not taking up for them. Do you know where homeless people go? They live on the streets and take over abandon homes. You can't just knock them off the face of the planet. Realistically speaking, what is your solution? (realistically meaning something other than making them vanish)

Yeah I'd say so.

Of course, being the anarchist that I am, my preference for dealing with the problem is a good eugenics program.


I was saying Yeah I'd say so to that. Wimping out.........umm no. I just don't really give a crap about it. It's been fun Tentmaker, but I'm done listening to you. No offense, but maybe in your next life you can live your dream and become Adolf Hitler.

Oh yah, almost forgot. I'm not being sympathetic. Have you not figured out that I don't like it either??? Umm Duh after this many posts I would think it would be pretty evident.

zoe,

It's not a crime to be an alcoholic.


Tent,

Now that you mention it, I support the idea of imprisonment of vagrants. Make them learn a basic job skill while in prison, and don't release them until they have some sort of job waiting for them on the outside. In exchange for giving the vagrant another shot at life, the state gets free slave labor and you prevent them from reproducing. Sounds like an effective solution to me.

Omg! :eek: Someone has a sensible answer! That sounds like a good idea. I just don't think that Tentmaker's whole "destroy them" point was very appealing.

Leper, good point about alocholism by the way. It's not a crime. Drunk driving on the other hand.......

Won't anyone here show some humanity ?
Are the only alternative prison, eugenism or eradication ?
It is SO EASY to say "they deserve to be homeless" or "most of them choosed this way of life" ! But that is only shameless excuse for our societies being unable to cope with misery and drugs/alcoholism/mental problems.
Do you only realize what it is to be homeless ?
You all make me sick.

Originally posted by Leper
I support the idea of imprisonment of vagrants. Make them learn a basic job skill while in prison, and don't release them until they have some sort of job waiting for them on the outside.

One bad thing I see with this. Who pays for them in prison? Just the "slave labor" work force? Im sure some of the money will come from tax payer money.
People will be in prison a long time waiting for a job. Look at how the job market is right now. Im looking for a job. I have very few to pick from. My husband, who has several degs has been looking for a job. The company he works for is shutting down the division he works at in late summer to early fall. Becuase the job market is very low right now, he started sending out resumes last week. Head hunter job services are holding his resume. They tell him they have very few jobs.

I do agree with teaching a new skill. The more skills one has the more chances of a job.

I also think too if homeless were off the streets we could see some crime go down.

Astropol, I agree with you, it is very easy to say that the homeless deserve to be homeless. But the fact is, in these times, it is very easy to become homeless. There are people who work hard all their lives and find that their employer has squandered or poorly invested their pension. Try getting a good job at 65. What about the family who has had their parents killed in an accident (they are now orphans, do you propose we put them in a child labor camp?) I cant believe what I am reading here. Yes, some people really take advantage of social programs and yes, some people want to be homeless and dont want to work. But that DOES NOT apply to everyone who is homeless! My taxes pay for this too but if I am helping just one person get back on his/her feet and into being a productive member of society it is worth it. I hope none of you ever become homeless.

Has anyone ever noticed that whenever a homeless person is interviewed by the local news etc.. that they always seem to have an ample supply of cigarettes? Most homeless people that I have heard squaking about life on the street admit to having relatives who are established and that could help them but most admit to being too proud to go and ask. When asked why they wont go to shelters in times of bad weather they will say, "I don't want to be preached at by those guys that run the place!" Listen, if I was starving, cold, and sick, I would sit for an indefinite amount of time and listen to preaching/sermons if it meant a warm meal and a place to sleep. I agree with TENT - let em be the way that they have chosen.

No, actually I have NOT noticed that everytime a homeless person is interviewed that they have an ample supply of cigarettes. That is a typical stereotype of a homeless person (you know, the bum lying in between buildings with a bottle of alcohol in a paper bag and a cigarette hanging out of his mouth). Again, while I agree that many homeless prefer to be that way, many are mentally ill, that stereotype does not apply to all homeless.

No, Tentmaker, What I have said is that what you and Xingy are presenting is a stereotype, and while it may apply to some homeless, that stereotype does not apply to all. The ones who are purchasing alcohol and cigarettes choose to live the way the are living. But it simply does not apply to ALL homeless. I guess in your world bad things never happen to good and deserving people, but I have seen it happen.

"No, actually I have NOT noticed that everytime a homeless person is interviewed that they have an ample supply of cigarettes. That is a typical stereotype of a homeless person "

Seems you're the one whose hung up on stereotypes Alessa. Wake up to reality. My undergraduate degree is in anthropology. One of my peers did his Graduate thesis on homeless people. He interviewed nearly 120 homeless people in six different cities. While a few fit the dillusional, left wing characterization to which you subscribe, almost 90% fit the "stereotype" of Tent and I. I think its great if you actually have strong feelings toward this cause but you should really do some research before subscribing to the left's laundry list of the way the world "should" be. Plus the 90's are over and its no longer "fashionable" to have a cause regardless of your true feelings.

I do not have a "cause" and I dont care if I am fashionable or not. What I say comes from my opinion and what I have seen. And again, apparently you have not read or refuse to understand what I am saying for the sake of a pointless argument, I said it does not apply to ALL homeless....again....now read this carefully.....it does not apply to ALL homeless. I am not going to agree with the herd to appease anyone.

Tentmaker-

Yeehaw!


Alessa-

I'm with you. The fact is that there are exceptions to the homeless stereotype and it would be wrong to condemn an entire sector of the population based on a stereotype. That's why I suggest a prison program which allows some possibility of the homeless person becoming a productive member of our society.

Relocated-

I do not deny that taxpayers would probably end up bearing much of the burden of funding the imprisonment of homeless people. However, I would hypothesize that such a program would make up for this funding in the form of a return. For instance, as you admit, such a program would cut down on crime and thus add to the public's security, which would in turn encourage commerce. It would also act as a deterrant against remaining unemployed for a substantial amount of time. I would also like to see such an approach substitute for the welfare system (in case, you haven't heard this before, it REALLY disturbs me that people on welfare are breeding)

As for persons unemployed as a result of the floundering economy, unemployment compensation should provide all the buffer such individuals need. If you just CANNOT get a job in your field, then it's time for a career change. At the very worst, I still see plenty of "help wanted" signs at Wendy's and it doesn't take much to find work with a temp agency. If you can't bear the humiliation, then maybe you'll find the humiliation of prison time easier to bear.


astrapol-

I'm open to alternative suggestions. Criticize our solutions all you like, but until you bring up one you like better, our solutions are the best you've got.

Alessa, your opinion is yours and you are entitled to it by the rights and privaledges of our laws. But an opinion is worthless unless supported by hard evidence. I do not at present have access to the original thesis or abstract that my colleague Justin completed nearly two years ago. But the data in his study which was cross examined(peer review) by myself and others suggested that the majority of homeless people not only fit the stereotype of Tent and myself, but are suprisingly in full control of their lives. Homeless people are very mobile. 3/4ths of the interviewees had lived in numerous different cities in the 5 years prior to the interview. Many had traveled over 2500 miles in this time span. All but 3 admitted to having family who could possibly be relied upon to give support. What was interesting to learn from the research was that 60%(approx) were actually satisfied with their lifestyles. 85 %(approx) of the interviewees regularly worked at temporary service agencies for cash. 30%(approx) admitted to using public welfare services(shelters, food kitchens) and spending their cash on cigarettes, beer, and in some cases controlled substances. THe percentage of individs buying cigarettes was very high in comparison to the alcohaul and drugs wich were much lower. 96% of the total # of individs. interviewed regularly used cigarettes and 65%approx) regularly consumed alchohaul(I dont remember the percentage for drugs). 10% admitted to having previous pychological problems that contributed to their situation. 80% of total interviewees disliked seeking assistance for two main reasons

1.) Many services are "faith-based" organizations and they are required to attend church services to participate. The interviewees did'nt like to be preached to.
2.) Going to such facilitees meant giving up freedoms. They liked their independence.

Keep in mind that my numbers(percentages) are general approximation and a statistical comparison of my figures could yield erroneous results. As such they are not intended for such analysis at this time.
Justin also interviewed 4 individuals related to interviewees. All said that the individuals in question were responsible for their own situations and were there as a result of poor choices and/or substance abuse. Of the 4, 3 said that if the individual would seek help, they would be willing to offer assistance to help them get established, but those individuals in the past had shown no inclination that they wanted such help. One offered his relative help but was refused.

An opinion is never worthless and definitely does not need to be backed by hard evidence. I think lilacs smell nice, do I need to have hard evidence to back that? I think not, it is my opinion and not everyone shares it. And great, your friend did a thesis on homelessness and you study anthropology, it still doesnt make it true that 100% of homeless people are chain smoking alcoholics who have no desire to change their lives, can you at least concede to that much? One more thing, there are people who genuinely believe in causes, not to be popular or fashionable but because they truly believe in them.

I am sorry you feel that way, but that is your opinion. It was , however, kind of you to try to help . I have also worked with the homeless, some thanked me for my help, some did not, in some cases seeing that person back on their feet and productive gave me a better feeling than any "thank you" ever could. Maybe I am a bit soft and naive, but I still have alot of faith in human kindness.

Alessa an opinion is worthless when it is based upon assumptions and when you are trying to use your opinion to take an official stand. I am a scientist. All of my opinions are based upon empirical evidence. When empirical observations lend credence to stances that are contrary to my opinions, then my opinions change. In scinece the next step is hypotheses. A hypotheses is an educated guess. Lets say I have a hypothesis that water flows downhill. You have a hypothesis that it flows uphill. Since I am a fluvial geomorphologist and have been trained in a discipline at a reputable institution, my hypothesis holds more weight than yours. NEITHER at this point have been formulated into a theory, but my level of expertise lends greater credibility to my position than yours. If I go out and conduct a series of controlled experiments that supports my hypothesis, and they are repeatable, then I can formulate a THEORY. A theory is a body of knowledge composed of experimentation that has stood the tests of scrutiny and appears to hold true. IF you attempt to attack my theory you must do so with more than just a hypothesis. You must conduct experiments and gather data to contradict my results. This alternate theory must, as well, be reproducable and be subjected to the same level of scrutiny. I can have an opinion about the weather just from looking outside and viewing the current conditions. But without acute knowledge of the different variable indicators of atmospheric conditions my current evaluation isn't worth anything. You should consult a meteorologist. Just by looking at conditions, or in your case, the homelessness in your vivinity, you cannot acurately take a stance. You ropinions and suggestions are just as relevent as a tinkling windchime. Your observations and assumptions are a place to begin however. The next step is to support them with rigorous resaerch. Not necessarily going out in the field which you probaly aren't qualified to do, but by collecting journal(scientific, not from Oprah Magazine etc...) articles that support your views and those that do not. Also read the peer reviews of those articles to see what other professional researchers had to say about the study. Often an article may sound great when you first read it, but after it has been picked apart by the peer review process, you are beteer able to see its limitations and the experimental error of its author(s). With all your data gathered and documented, !!!!CONGRTULATIONS!!!! you have earned the privaledge of presenting your findings at a professional convention of like minded resaerchers. Just a little background in the real world process for you.

*shrugs* Okay you win, I am sure you have the evidence to support your theory that 100% (not 80 or 90%) of homeless people (now remember some of those are children) are either smokers , alcoholics or both and want to be homeless. The fact that I have worked with some homeless too, means nothing unless I am a scientist. Okay. No point in arguing with that.

"*shrugs* Okay you win, I am sure you have the evidence to support your theory that 100% (not 80 or 90%) of homeless people (now remember some of those are children) are either smokers , alcoholics or both and want to be homeless. The fact that I have worked with some homeless too, means nothing unless I am a scientist. Okay. No point in arguing with that."

- Alessa

I do not believe that either tent or myself suggested that 100% of homeless fit our stereotype. This is a childish rhetorical backlash from a person who is losing a debate. Speaking purely in an academic framework -GROW UP!

In an argument or anytime you engage in discourse, you must follow a rhetorical schema in order to efectively support your views. In Aristotelian Rhetorical Theory, this concerns the concepts of ethos, patos, and logos.

Ethos(Greek) - meaning "ethical proof". Or in other words, establishing your credibility. Tentmaker alluded to the fact that he is an ordained minister that has worked with homeless on numerous occasions. I drew reference to my role as a peer reviewer on Justin's thesis. Only in your childish closing remarks you threw out the vague reference that ". The fact that I have worked with some homeless too". Really, well next ime why don't you address this up front and provide some DETAILS. If in fact it is true(which at this point I doubt) then maybe you will be taken more seriously.

Pathos(Greek) - meaning "emotional proof". Emotional proof cannot stand on its own. It is meant to provide an emotional transition and/or reinforcement between your credibility and the logical arguements that is ultimately the crux of your arguments.

Logos(Greek) - meaning "logical proof". This is the theory that I was addressing in my previous post. It must be sensible, cohenrent, provide quantitative supporting data, and procede in a fashion that does not belie common sense. It is the "official seal" of your arguement.

The effectiveness of your viewpoints and an overall assessment of the validity your agrguements can be judged by how well you handle the elements of rhetorical logic within the framework of your defense.

I provided you with an empirical study that suggested that 80%+ of homeless did fit our "stereotypes". You provided us with nothing to support your views other than blatently lieing when alluding to us having assumptions about 100% of homeless people fit our design. Nothing is 100%, any researcher can attest to that basic tenet. Anyone can look back through the posts and attest to the fact that neither of us made that claim.
In fact I believe that my reasearch showed that 10%+ may not have fit the caricature of our assumptions. If so then WHAT IS YOUR SUGGESTION AS TO WHAT WE SHOULD DO ACCORDING TO THAT FIGURE? You've offered nothing other than regurgitated liberal biases to simply dissagree with us. I think you need to sit down over a hot cup off tea/coffee and rethink your whole position on this issue.

Xingy, I am not a sore loser, if I were I would have continued this pointless argument with you. I have lost nothing, in my opinion. Actually you seem kinda pissed off that I refuse to agree with you. You can spout all the percentages, and fact findings you want and I will never agree with what you say. As you have pointed out, that is my right.

The problem with your beliefs Alissa is not the beliefs themselves but that to you they have become a religeon. One basic tenet of religeon - that a consituent of said religeon will hold to the doctornal dictates of that religeon even when those dictates bely common reasoning. Again I rest my case because you can argue science, but you cannot argue faith.

xingy-

When did Alessa disagree with your study? You both admit there are exceptions to the stereotype. She simply doesn't support the extreme attitude that you do, when such exceptions exist? And THAT, is a matter of opinion at this point.

Back to the topic -
Who are we to judge people while confortably sitting in our chairs in front of our computers ? We will all sleep in a bed tonight, right ? We do not risk every day to be assaulted for ten dollars or a bottle of booze or to be beaten to death by skinheads, right ?

Many homeless are alcoholic and smokers. Big deal ! Of course they are. So they need help as homeless AND as alcoholics.
When you're alone in the streets, when your life is a complete mess and people look at you like an animal, it takes a lot of guts and luck not to become alcoholic or mentally ill. And people who are in the streets are usually not in the best mental and physical shape to get out of that alone.

About the fact that some homeless "choose" their way of life : some may say it. But it is mainly rationalization. If they were really given the choice, they woud never choose such a life. Who would anyway ?

I am suprised that many people seem to have a problem when their taxmoney is used for social programs but do support massive waste of money like the space program or the military budget.
With just 1% of the US military budget, most homeless could be given a decent home and an chance to get back in society. And a cure for their dependance if they have one.

hey guys, i've come in this a bit late... so i thought i'd give you all a brief overview on my opinion from what i have read.

first of all, I totally agree with Alessa, Astrapol and Leper. How can we, as "hard-working, self reliant people" (Tentmaker) even dare to call ourselves that if we can't help out our fellow man? Yes, they do steal from who they live with. Yes, some are criminals. But how about giving college and university graduates jobs analyzing the mind of a homeless person? There is obviously something wrong, because a) social security programs have been majorly slashed by the one and only Mr. W. Bush. Why not put some money into homeland problems and easing off on the attack of countries with no hard evidence? and b) people like you, Tentmaker and xingyman, are too busy sitting at home in luxury and saying that it's all the homeless people's faults!(customary Republican traits) Obviously, some have serious psychological problems and we can create new jobs for the staggering American economy rather than sitting back and pointing fingers at some who have become homeless out of no fault of their own (go ahead, i see lots of backlash to that comment)

For example, what do we do when a criminal is deemed insane by the court? He is sent away to an institution, rather than to a prison for his sentence. Why can't we at least have something along those lines? Give them help! I know it's hard for you to give up some extra tax dollars for people who need it. You want a decent society, Tentmaker? You're not going to get it by killing them or putting them in prison! (The prisons are already full of minor drug offenders.) And if you did kill them, you'd be a criminal, wouldn't you? And then you'd go to court, wouldn't you? And you would probably try to plead for insanity, wouldn't you? (Because people who kill others do have serious problems, I'll agree to that.) And then you would spend a much better life in an institution, thinking, "wow, it's a good thing people still can go the extra mile to help people who have problems, like me." And then maybe you'd have a better understanding of the way the world works. I'm not saying I know how it works, I just think that my views sound quite a lot better than slaughtering innocent people who have just had bad luck in life.

So that's my view. Basically, what I'm trying to say is, you don't need to have a large degree, or to study how water travels downwards (personally i think people like that could be of much more use studying the pollution of water, oh well.) to know that if there's any chance of making society any better, you have to have faith in mankind, you have to give a little. It's obvious some people have a long way to go to reach that point, but it's the only way. People have to pull together. Scientists have to actually go to places where homeless people are rather than reading a book and saying they know it all. Because they don't. And neither do I. But if we all developed the right attitude - that homeless people need help and we're not giving it to them, and we need to be - then i think this whole thing would look a whole lot better.

hope this helps in the fight for the truth. :p

"Scientists have to actually go to places where homeless people are rather than reading a book and saying they know it all."
left-balled

Uh, excuse the hell out of me but I believe that going out in doing PRIMARY FIELD RESEARCH is what justin actually did.


"Basically, what I'm trying to say is, you don't need to have a large degree, or to study how water travels downwards (personally i think people like that could be of much more use studying the pollution of water, oh well.)" left bum

Typical response from a village idiot, hero in their own mind who thinks that with the movement of their lips can solve all the worlds problems. Well if you had done your research, meaning following this thread back to the begining, you would know that before I was a water scientist I was an anthropologist who sat on a peer review bourd for this research. What are your credentials? Types like you and astropool are always throwing these half-baked theories that lack any kind of credible support. The beef that Tent and I had with Alessa was that she was claiming her opinions had justifiable merit without providing any kind of collaborative support in the form of authoratative research.
Thats like myself saying something like "I hate all f@ggots and think that they are a worthless punch of immoral perverts." Well that might be my personal opinion but I cannot use that belief or statement in itself as a basis to make a case for the denial of, say adoption privaledges to those individuals seeking them. I have to have hard data to back up my claims. If you haven't already been to college, go. If so then read up on reserch and investigative technique. Your opinions don't matter either.

It makes me glad to know there is still some human kindness left in the world and I don't have to have a study conducted or a list of qualifications to justify showing some mercy and compassion.

I honestly think that it is a very noble attitude that you have if in fact that is your attitude. And I believe that the world would be a better place with more people like yourself. That aside, the debate that Tentmaker and myself had with you was not about your good intentions. Your intentions are, I repeat, honorable. The difference of opinion was on the issue of should taxpayer money be used to address them?
It's interesting to watch and listen to liberal gooffbags like astropool, j_lively, etc.... moan and grunt about the fultility of abstinence education in schools and how studies have shown that it doesn't work, and I agree to some extent that studies have shown their stance to be correct. But they will turn right around and march for an equally worthless cause in the name of political correctness ignoring the very same types of research that they so religeously cited in their own interests. THe difference between a scientist and a liberal is that the scientist goes with the data - a liberal goes with the data as long as it agrees with their agenda. If not then to them the data means nothing.
I will ask you a question and please answer me as I am interested in hearing your response.

Here goes:

Scenario - Abstinence education has been shown to have a very low success rate in public schools. However, there are some poeple who benefit from this type of system, although they pale in comparison to the total population. Of the students surveyed in one high school campus in Rhode Island, 18% said that abstinece education might have an influence in their decision to have recreational sex.
22% after voluntarily attending off campus classes designed to promote abstinence said that the classes had positively impacted their lives. Is it efficient, based on the numbers given? No.

Scenario 2 - I have presented you with information that suggests that 80% of the hokmelss population is beyond reach of any conventional programs desingned to help them. 20%+- might be able to be rehabilitated. So then is it equally acceptable to use taxpayer money to fund programs to reach that minority?

If so then would you also support taxpayer funding for programs that promote abstinece education in our high schools given that it has a similar success rate?

1- I never spoke about abstinence taught in school. But if you want my point of view on this, OK : I think sex education can mention abstinence as a possible choice, but should also explain the other choices (condoms, etc…) and let everyone decide. School is not here to tell people what to do, only to inform them of the risks, responsibilities and moral implications of any choice.

2- If 20% of homeless can be helped, it is already a lot of people ! Sure it is worth doing it. Anyway, there is no social program that works perfectly for 20% of people and not at all for the rest. Things are much more complicated ! Any social measure with a positive impact on the poorest people is worth being tried.

It seems to me that we fundamentally disagree about what taxes are for. To me, taxes should be aimed at making the society better for everyone. A society where everyone, whatever neighborhood or social group he comes from, has access to the same basic services : education, health, a decent standard of living, justice. This should be the priority of any govt, for these are the reason why humans live in organised society.

And if you care about the waste of money, think about this : sure, social programs have a cost. But having no social programs eventually always have a bigger cost. A society where people are educated, in good health and do not need to steal to get a decent life is always more efficient than a society where large parts of the population is let aside.

Tent, for someone to be an ordanied minister, you have a pretty jaded outlook on life. Wasn't Jesus surrounded by all the people you now call scum. Didn't Jesus say when you feed the poor you feed me. Never once did I read in the bible did it say to look down on the down trodden. I'm kinda glad that you weren't my preacher.

As far as the homeless are concerned, I lost a wife, a new home, a new car, and my job in about a 6 month period. All this had happened to me in 1999. I wasn't eligible for worker comp., food stamps or any type of monetary assistance. It would have been helpful since I paid my taxes up until then. But I have finally got my life back together. I have a new house, 2 paid for cars, a new wife and twin daughters, going to college and no debt except for the house. And all this was done without any Governmental assistance. Truth be known, it was God's assistance that helped me through. So don't generalize the subject, I know from first hand experience. Oh by the way, I am a Republican.

Very good points a_c5_crewchief. Couldnt have said it better myself.

And the same to you.

Whaaaaa, whaaaaa
I'm the the great Tent(Tantrum)maker. If you don't agree with me then you're all scum sucking liberals.
Whaaaaa, whaaaaa

If we all took response for our own actions there would be no homeless.

Originally posted by goldy
If we all took response for our own actions there would be no homeless. That's a rather vague statement there goldy. Can you expound for us?