“The timetable for the planned forced dissolution of the NHS and following privatisation has been moved up due to new opportunities in creatively assigning financial burdens.”

The UK isn’t the US (at least in this context) almost nobody has guns.

In very limited situations the police can, but it’s not the norm.

Don’t get me wrong, ACAB, they just don’t generally use guns a as a pretext, perhaps a knife, or perhaps there is more than an arbitrary number of people grouped together so they can claim an ‘illegal’ protest.

I’m going to add

• “My morality is the only correct morality”
• “I said lol, because I’m so right it’s laughable”

to the shortcuts, to save more time.

Depends on the circumstances but yes, intent is what matters the most, it’s just harder to see than actions. It’s important to double check the info before you go around murdering innocents, lol.

• “I said lol, because I’m so right it’s laughable”

Ok, i was wrong here, you didn’t dodge entirely, you acknowledged intent as a thing here and then completely ignored it in your following replies.

But I assume many of these just wanted the money that came with it and said “fuck morals, fuck relevant information”.

• "i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith don’t understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correct”
• “My morality is the only correct morality”

Again, ignoring that there are people that believe what they are doing is just and moral.

The Americans who signed up to kill brown people in the Middle East in the early 00s fall into this category, for example. Would they be exempted? Of course not, they like everyone else had the duty to act right, and they like everyone else knew murder was wrong (in the information era who can claim ignorance when it comes to the guidance of the prophets? Everything is freely available online, you either care or you don’t) and they still went ahead for whatever reason.

• “My morality is the only correct morality”
• "i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith don’t understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correct”
• “the baseline moral standard you should all be adhering to should be the same as mine”

Should’ve double checked! But they weren’t too stupid to get it, just intellectually lazy and overall uncaring, and disregarding that responsibility and then committing atrocities is enough to land you in Hell, especially if you never repent. Will the leaders have a harsher sentence? Definitely.

• “My morality is the only correct morality”
• "i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith don’t understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correct”
• “the baseline moral standard you should all be adhering to should be the same as mine”

Again, you keep on mentioning viewpoints but you still haven’t provided a single one you stand by that I don’t and that directly contradicts the TC (whilst also being morally right, ofc, I doubt you want to pronounce yourself a villain).

• “My morality is the only correct morality”
• "i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith don’t understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correct”
• “the baseline moral standard you should all be adhering to should be the same as mine”

I already told you why, i don’t think there is a interesting conversation about comparative viewpoints to be had with someone who uses “because some things just are” or “because god said so” as actual arguments.

There’s generally no room for any other viewpoint with such a person, it’d just be wasted breath.

Or, more succinctly, There’s no good way to discuss reason with someone who isn’t using it.

You yourself agree with them besides the ones that involve the Creator…

Unfounded assumptions.

Especially seeing as you claimed, immediately before this, that i haven’t given any of my own viewpoints.

And how could I interpret 1 as 0 unless I’m just blind and my opinion should be disregarded?

• “Feigned Ignorance”
• “My interpretation is correct”
• "i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith don’t understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correct”

How could I interpret “don’t kill” as “kill if they’re brown/if they have things you like/if you feel like it”? How can anyone?

• “My interpretation is correct”
• "i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith don’t understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correct”

Nobody was aksing you to, all i said was that snot all interpretations match your own.

Which interpretation of the TC can give you something that goes squarely against the literal meanings of these phrases ?

There is a whole thread of examples here, find one yourself.

I really don’t know what you’re saying and I’m not feigning ignorance, I think you just have a fundamental misunderstanding of people and reality.

• “Feigned Ignorance”
• “My interpretation is correct”
• "i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith don’t understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correct”

You believe in gravity (and something in your tummy feels funny when you look from a balcony on the 12th floor), I believe in God, His judgement, the moral duty He has imposed on us and Heaven and Hell as our final destinations (and I also feel something when I transgress,

• “My interpretation is correct”
• "i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith don’t understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correct”

I believe in the scientific theory of the effects of what we call gravity, until something else comes up to change that belief.

Your belief is faith because there is no proof.

I have no problem with faith, as long as it’s not imposed upon others.

everyone does at the beginning, then they either learn to pay attention to it or ignore it).

• “My morality is the only correct morality”
• "i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith don’t understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correct”
• “the baseline moral standard you should all be adhering to should be the same as mine”

And just like you wouldn’t jump out of a building unless you lost your mind because you would end up flattened, so would I and everyone on my side not commit great transgressions because we know what will happen.

• “My interpretation is correct”
• “My morality is the only correct morality”
• "i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith don’t understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correct”
• “the baseline moral standard you should all be adhering to should be the same as mine”

Perhaps you have a moment of insanity, idk, for whatever biological reason something in your brain just malfunctions… well, as soon as you come down from it you’d greatly repent your actions, make amends, seek solutions for this insanity, maybe even get yourself locked up so you don’t do it again!

• “My morality is the only correct morality”
• "i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith don’t understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correct”
• “the baseline moral standard you should all be adhering to should be the same as mine”

But, again, most people don’t just randomly murder or rape when their whole lives they didn’t even punch anyone.

Agreed.

But as you’ve repeatedly demonstrated, you refuse to (or simply can’t) acknowledge that there are people who do those things because they think it is right to do so.

And those who do and claim to believe in something that disagrees with it, like the TC, are simply lying about their beliefs.

• “Feigned Ignorance”
• “My interpretation is correct”
• "i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith don’t understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correct”
• “the baseline moral standard you should all be adhering to should be the same as mine”

They have and they will continue doing it because some people are just too dumb to realize it and they have no morals so it’s completely win-win for them.

• “Feigned Ignorance”
• “My interpretation is correct”
• "i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith don’t understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correct”
• “the baseline moral standard you should all be adhering to should be the same as mine”

wow , that really is a timesaver.

Didn’t robin williams have some other thing going on that gave him some sort of super depression.

edit: Yep, Lewy Body Dementia

How would people have read that math in the diamond?!

You mean , how would i describe the process of doing the thing i specifically said was guesswork outside of my expertise and not relevant because it was referencing something never posited ?

I wouldn’t, that’s what area experts are for.

And how would math transmit moral values? I feel like this leaves the realm of mathematics, lol.

Interesting questions, for a conversation where the answer are relevant to the discussion.

You complain about the best way to do things in this world (despite the time and alterations) but provide no alternative.

Didn’t happen, read it again.

If God wanted us to be perfect, he would’ve made us without free will, just automatons following moral law, but he gave us free will and wants us to be good, as there’s no perfection in this world.

Rampant speculation and irrelevant.

So i see this big wall of text, to save time I’m just going to refer to the shorthand for you replies (that I’ve already mentioned) and possibly direct fallacies, if they apply, if something new comes up I’ll address that directly.

he direction and base idea of things like the TC are undeniable and easily understood, but if one wants to rationalize and deform the words therein they can, one can be as silly as possible if one wants to.

• “My interpretation is correct"
• “I’m surprised you don’t understand”

If you want to rationalize murder even though they told you not to kill, or rationalize cheating even though they told you not to lust over women you’re not married to, well, that’s on you (didn’t a Brit king create a whole religion just to cheat?).

• “My interpretation is correct"
• “the baseline moral standard you should all be adhering to should be the same as mine”

But no one can, in good faith, both say they believe in the TC, for example, and God’s judgment and actively go against it. You can lie, to yourself and others, about it but you can’t do that in good faith. Who would rather taste Hell than not?

• “the baseline moral standard you should all be adhering to should be the same as mine”
• “i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith don’t understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correct””

And how are people not being “real people” a thing? Where does God say some people are people and others aren’t?

Not an actual thing i claimed or wish to, i said there are people who think/have though that, some of them bringing that into their religious doctrine.

I don’t buy you not understanding the concept of slavery, caste or any of the other systems that lead to personhood being revoked in some peoples minds.

I’m going to add “Feigned Ignorance” to the list of autoreplies

Just in case, there was a big big war about this not so long ago.

Why is murdering an innocent adult okay but not an innocent child?

Not what i said, read it again.

What? Which divine mandate?

Any

I’m only speaking for monotheism, best encapsulated in the Qur’an, but again, I don’t see “God chose me so I can be immoral” in the Mosaic laws, in Ecclesiastes or the message of Jesus.

• “Feigned Ignorance”

You know that’s not what I’m saying, there wouldn’t need to be an explicit entry about something there just has to be enough room for someone to interpret something that way.

And the Qur’an is pretty detailed when it comes to war and how it’s even better to release prisoners (some societies take no prisoners but it’s better not to kill in Islam and all of Abrahamic monotheism), even if they initiated the war.

• “Feigned Ignorance”

Again, you know this but what is actually written is not the problem i’ve been referencing(mostly), it’s the room for interpretation.

And all you’ve given me is examples of heresy, not belief.

oh damn, got you a trifecta, congrats

• “My interpretation is correct"
• “the baseline moral standard you should all be adhering to should be the same as mine”
• "i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith don’t understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correct”

Come on, man. Of course these people exist

Nearly there…so close…

and maybe that was the spin they used to convince others but they fully knew what was up (or they also lied to themselves a bit and only partially knew what was up, which is why it’s a good policy to be honest), that’s why they had to spin it in the first place.

Aww , so close, yet so far.

But this in an interesting segue into a topic i’m sure you’ll have lots of fun dodging.

How important is intent.

If a “bad apple” misleads people into murdering for the “greater good” do those people get a pass because they thought they were doing the right thing ?

How about if they unwittingly (but directly) contribute to the murder of someone ?

You can’t both believe, truly, that your soul is going to Hell for committing grave transgressions and also commit them, unless you’re actually insane and want to be deservedly tortured for your own misdeeds forever. Most people are not crazy, though.

• “My interpretation is correct”
• "i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith don’t understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correct”

You absolutely can, it’s a shitty system full l of logical loopholes.

A big one being, “fuck it I’m going to hell forever anyway, what’s one more sin added to the list, where are they going to put me, super hell?”.

Damn that shorthand really does make this quicker

You didn’t refute how I explained your interpretation of their sentence, even said it would have made more sense if structured like that. I pointed out that this interpretation requires them to contradict themself. You said it’s right there in their reply. If “it” isn’t the contradiction, then what is “it? What is your interpretation of what they said? Did they contradict themself?

I didn’t realise i was supposed to be refuting it, but here it is:

“I can [seriously say with a straight face that the solution to homelessness is something other than providing free housing]. Providing free housing solves the problem, but a more comprehensive solution is to provide free housing and assistance.”

Should be

“I can [seriously say with a straight face that the solution to homelessness is something other than providing free housing]. Providing free housing solves some of the problem, but a more comprehensive solution is to provide free housing and assistance.”

The second half of the reply is modifier to the first (i previously said addition/clarification, modifier is better)

Basically my point is: you are arguing that their message has a contradiction in it. You are arguing that they both stated that they believe or otherwise “can say with a straight face” that a housing only solution does not solve the homelessness problem, and that they believe it can solve the housing solution but not as well as adding assistance. That is a contradiction.

I’m not, and i quote:

If they were two completely separate statements made at different times i might also consider them to be at odds (it would probably depend on the context) but as they are contiguous I’m reading it as a statement followed by a clarification.

You are ignoring their use of the words ‘combination’ and ‘and’, interpreting their statement as an ‘or’ logically where ‘housing only’ OR ‘housing only with assistance works’. They literally said assistance and housing, with emphasis on and. You turned that and into an or by conflating their reasoning for their position as a clarification of what they meant.

Not really.

Though i see what you mean about it not matching exactly what was said.

I’m counting the refutation of the original Housing Only premise as a partial argument for the implication of a Housing + [1…*] <things> solution.

Partly taking in to account the variety of additional things suggested as implying an etc. rather than things being a finite list because the first part and second part have different numbers of additional things listed.

I can see how that might just be my specific interpretation though.

And their hypothesis, argument, or logical statement is: Housing AND assistance is what will solve homelessness.

I think what i’ve done here is read “assistance” as an undefined length list of additional things including the ones specified, rather than just the defined list provided.

My bad.

Assumptions aren’t a bad thing, just don’t assume bad things.

I would take all assumptions to be neutral until proven, if i start applying morality to assumptions it might interfere with my ability to verify those assumptions. That goes for both “good” and “bad”.

Why don’t you give me an example of a better way to transmit information than through words, one that could have been applied throughout history?

Firstly : Why would i need to, i wasn’t claiming there was a better option ( at the time ).

Secondly : I specifically mentioned spoken and written(on paper) words, not just words in general.

Thirdly : if i had to guess, probably some form of math stored in some long term medium like diamond or something, i’m just guessing though, not my area and still don’t need to have a good example for a point i wasn’t making.

Bonus : Another of my points was that why would i need to when there is an omnipotent deity around, whose job it is to do it.

My whole argument has been that i disagree with your repeated assertion that they are accurate to the original intention, easily understandable and not prone to misinterpretation (intentional and otherwise).

Also the "my morality is the only correct morality” thing, i cannot stress enough how much of a red flag that one is.

And it’s not that they didn’t read it properly, it’s that they simply don’t care and scammed people. Even if they had read it, which they probably didn’t, they wouldn’t care. Evangelical megachurches and their priests all know what’s up, they simply don’t care. Rapey, pedophilic priests knew what was up. The leaders of the Crusades, with strong financial interests, knew what was up. It’s not a “no true Scotsman”, it’s more like “if I’m raping a child and you find me and I tell you I’m a good moral man, a believer who’s afraid of God’s judgment, and you believe me, you’re mentally challenged”. And many people are, I guess.

You have to be intentionally skipping logical steps here, no way someone with your vocabulary accidentally overlooks the thousands/millions of “holy” warriors and zealots who wholeheartedly believe(d) in their interpretation of the guidelines.

• They aren’t <insert deity here>'s children so it’s fine.
• If this leads them to the righteous path, it’s fine.
• They aren’t real people so it doesn’t apply.
• It’s not stealing it’s fundraising for the furthering of our divine cause.
• If i kill/main/harm the infidels/blasphemers <insert deity here> will reward me.
• if i dont kill/main/harm the infidels/blasphemers <insert deity here> will punish me.
• I’m one of the chosen, i can do <x> because <insert deity here> has given me a divine mandate.

Come on now, pretending an easily provable demographic of people don’t exist because it doesn’t fit your narrative is the weakest of sauces.

You can do better.

As i said in my previously replies , there was no assumption of contradiction.

The two statements in that reply add up to a different position that if you just take the first statement on it’s own.

Not a contradiction, an addition/clarification.

But this is the most salient point:

Many people were pushing for a housing only being a suboptimal solution

No-one at any point was pushing for a housing-only solution (after that first reply of course, which for some reason has a lot of votes)

Any argument based on someone else having done so, will be flawed.

The game has been explained and being prosocial is pretty much in your bones, so we also got help from the get go. Do you want a book that mentions MySpace and ketamine? The base is there, things can follow or not, not everything needed to be said nor could they have been without being massively confusing for anyone listening to the message presently. People who transgress greatly (all the pedos in American politics, for instance) do it not out of ignorance but because they simply don’t care. Out of ignorance you might do something small, not rape or murder. It’s not that the text wasn’t available, it’s not that they haven’t heard what they should do or not do forever, this is evidenced by the way people who transgress greatly do it discreetly. They know, they just don’t care. How to make people care? Actually believing in God’s judgment is a way, believing in a non-negotiable encounter in which all your deeds are weighed and we all get what we deserve (and no confession or whatever religious trick could help you escape it). Idk other ways (no, recognising people die when they’re killed or suffer when they’re raped is not enough, else Kissinger and company would’ve been moral, lol, the is-ought problem remains a thing), and by default some will care more than others.

The game has been explained poorly, and your reply lists a bunch of scenarios that aren’t nearly as cut and dry as you make them out to be.

And you only reinforce my point about the only official “guide” we have being a book written and maintained by shitty people over thousands of years not being a convincing argument for an omnipotent, omniscient deity.

Again with the “my morality is the only morality”.

You want an objective fact?

Spoken and written language (on paper at least) is a poor medium for long term (hundreds of years) accurate transmission of data.

There are chronological shifts in meaning and usage, geographic differences, without even mentioning translation between entirely different languages.

There are words and concepts that exist in some languages and not in others.

The quintessential example of this is the game “telephone”.

The explanation of “the game” we have right now is thousands of years of these small shifts deep in changes.

Even if it “were” 100% accurate it’s till open to linguistic and cultural interpretation.

There are/were times and places when killing certain groups of people wasn’t considered murder, because they weren’t considered people, and people of religion who were perfectly fine with it because someone they had faith in said “god said it’s cool, so don’t worry”. Not unlike you are now.

Before you come back with “i never said killing certain people was fine”, you know that isn’t what i meant, I’m (still) talking about that “my morality is the only morality” surety you’ve been using to pretend nuance doesn’t exist.

“Murder” as a word means different things to different cultures at different times.

Same for adultery, stealing/theft, love, neighbour.

And on people justifying atrocities with their beliefs… I mean, sure, if you’re a Paulian Trinitarian who believes belief and acts are fundamentally disconnected, and striving to be moral is not as important as “grace” and “understanding Jesus (a man) is God”. Basically, if you take the tenets of Roman Catholicism and any offshoot seriously (and not, let’s say, the TC and the Sermon on the Mount), I can see how one could say A and do B and still pretend they’re more A than B. Only someone mentally off would think “oh but they said they were religious and believed in God” and take it seriously, lol. Come on, now, by their fruits you’ll recognise them. But how do you justify atrocities as a Mosaic monotheist, for instance? How do you go on a Crusade, so not a defensive war but you’re moving thousands of kms to murder and pillage? How? You can either go on a Crusade and not believe in God’s laws and His judgement or you don’t go but do believe, they cannot both coexist… because you know all of this is a one way ticket to hell and you’d have to be a maniac to understand hell as the most terrible thing ever and still choose to jump into it through your actions!

Absolute tripe, the crusades, the witch burnings, holy wars of all denominations, ethnic cleansings, the missionaries, fundamentalist paramilitaries, christofascists, honour killings, child brides, zealotry in general.

The long long history of child abuse in organised religions and the covering up of said abuse.

A lot of those were/are being undertaken by the leading authorities in whatever cult was/is in power at the time, individual fundamentalism and zealotry aside.

You can’t sanely claim the texts are clear and in the same breath say “but those thousands/millions of nutjobs obviously didn’t read it properly”, that’s mental gymnastics of a level only spoken in hushed whispers by the firelight.

I mean you can/are but you probably shouldn’t, i know i’m not taking you seriously, maybe i’m the minority here.

Though i will say the lol’s do make for a convincing rebuttal.

You can “no true scotsman” as much as you like but it’s not a convincing argument.

Your argument ignores something significant:

I’m not ignoring that part of the statement I’m taking it in the context of the whole reply.

In what way does it make sense to assume that someone would immediately contradict themself?

There is no assumption on my part, it’s in the reply.

If they were two completely separate statements made at different times i might also consider them to be at odds (it would probably depend on the context) but as they are contiguous I’m reading it as a statement followed by a clarification.

I agree they probably would have been better understood by merging the two together.

I appreciate your emotional disconnectedness from this debate, by the way. While my initial comment was meant to be tongue in cheek, this has been a good exercise in reading between the lines of written words. However silly and benign this has become lol

Yeah, between the lines took me a really long time to get reasonable at, these interactions help me get better at working through my understanding(or lack thereof)

Viewpoints haven’t been proposed, at least not any I’d disagree with or that go outside of the framework of Mosaic laws, for example. Only additions (“why no rape? Include no raping!”) that make sense and follow from/do not leave the same virtuous paradigm.

Is that in response to something said or just a statement ?

And saying that a death caused by self defense is not the same as violently going outside starting shit/killing people are not similar things just because someone died and that you’d have to be in a coma not to realize it is a pretty lukewarm take, lol.

So…“Only people in a coma wouldn’t come to the same exact interpretation as i have”

That aside, you’re response to that reply was essentially:

• an agreement that it’s open to interpretation
• you agreeing that your interpretation is similar to theirs

then proceeding to claim that western imperialism is because people don’t have the exact same interpretation as you.

Then for some reason pretending they were arguing against their own interpretation because they don’t like the vagueness of the original.

And finally, saying some things are A and others are B, that truth exists regardless of our ability to get to it, and that not everything can change on the basis of our whims (right and wrong in every situation, for example, but it’s beyond morality) is just an epistemological stance.

An epistemological stance that conveniently doesn’t require you to actually engage with any argument you don’t want to “because it just is”.

Nothing about faith, or religion, just how you see the world.

“Some things just are” is one of the the very definitions of faith (firm belief in something for which there is no proof)

And the Qur’an? You mentioned wanting something solid, something extensive and well written and I know that, besides the fact that I’m lazy and easily distracted and will probably never write anything, even if I did write something of quality on the topic, it would not be better than the Qur’an. I can’t even write to the level of Ecclesiastes and that’s just Solomon speaking from lived and analysed experience! That’s another book recommendation, btw, it’s in the Bible.

Ah, i see, yeah, no.

If it can be taken and used to justify atrocities, it’s not solid enough.

All the current religious texts have the same problem i described before.

If i’m going to follow the rules from an omniscient, omnipotent deity on how not to end up in an eternal suffering made specifically as punishment for not following said rules, that shit needs to be ironclad.

Otherwise that’s just someone setting up their own torture-based reality drama series with the deck stacked against us.

Why does it even need to be in writing, there are clearer ways to signal an imminent fuckup if you are all powerful.

You can also save your “but free will” argument as well, i’m not saying don’t let us do stupid shit, I’m saying use the infinite power and understanding to devise as way to absolutely certain we understand the game being played.

A three thousand year game of textual telephone with malicious actors inbetween, is not that.

Fuck-it, an indestructible book(even a pamphlet) everyone has their own copy of that can’t be lost or stolen would do it.

If it can’t be codified like that then it’s guidelines that are open to interpretation and i’m good with figuring that shit out myself.

So you’re telling me that this first reply does not state “I can tell you with a straight face that the solution homeless is something other than providing houses. The solution is to provide houses AND assistance”

If you’re going to use a quote as a supporting argument at least include the whole quote or it seems like you’re purposely missing out the parts that don’t support your argument.

the whole reply is:

I can: the solution to homelessness is a combination of mental health ed in schools, free & non-judgemental mental health support (incl. medication), free addiction recovery programs, free food, job & community support, and free housing.

If you just provide free housing, there will be a significant proportion of people who would not be able to fully benefit from it due to mental health issues, addictions, and lack of purpose in life.

The second part adds context to the first, which changes it from a

"The solution is to provide houses AND assistance”

to a

"A more comprehensive (though not complete) solution is to provide houses AND assistance”

Or you’re telling me that “The solution is to provide houses AND assistance” means “providing a house without providing assistance solves the problem” ETA: which then implies that this reply states “I can tell you with a straight that the solution to homelessness is something other than providing houses. Providing houses is sufficient.”

See above

Granted, I did say “not enough” I should have clearly stated that “not enough” is equivalent to “not at all”. Keep in mind this is a generalized statement, so in order for it to be true it must be true across the entire domain.

Somewhat agreed, though that’s is dependant on the criteria for true, but let’s go with this for now.

Our domain is homeless people, therefore if adequately helping some but not all homeless people is accomplished then “solving the homeless problem” has not been accomplished; the only thing that accomplishes this goal is to put every person in a home, and the second argument implies that the first one will inevitably cause some of those who do not receive mental health assistance to go homeless again therefore failing to put every person in a home.

Let me break this one down:

1. if adequately helping some but not all homeless people is accomplished then “solving the homeless problem” has not been accomplished; the only thing that accomplishes this goal is to put every person in a home
2. and the second argument implies that the first one will inevitably cause some of those who do not receive mental health assistance to go homeless again therefore failing to put every person in a home.

You’re conflating “solving the homeless problem” and “put every person in a home”

That first argument was never provided as you’ve written it, nobody was arguing a housing-only solution as a complete solution.

If the first argument is true, that putting people into homes solves the homeless problem, then it is also true that putting people into homes and adequately assisting them also solves the homeless problem. The third argument finally states that the second is false because putting people into homes without help is adequate, as they are in a home. This fails to satisfy the predicate of the second argument, making it an invalid counterpoint. If the predicate is not true, the argument cannot be evaluated therefore the counterpoint is invalid. However, if the predicate of the third argument is true then the second argument is invalid. Hence, I asked for sources.

Putting aside that , again, i wasn’t arguing any of those actual points (though i can engage on that if you want to start a separate thread)

That’s a load bearing initial if and it’s load is resting on a specific interpretation of “solves the homeless problem”

I’m not arguing your algebraic logic here, at a glance it seems fine.

I’m arguing your interpretation of the context.

No one was arguing that housing is the full solution in and of itself, so asking for sources to prove a position not taken doesn’t make sense.

(there was one person who seems to be confusedly arguing for housing+ against someone who was also arguing housing+, for some reason)

As i said, boolean algebra only works if the values are correct to start with.

But I’m not saying anything wild, or at least I don’t think so, you’d have to point it out to me.

I would consider “Only people in a coma wouldn’t come to the same exact interpretation as i have” to be fairly non-standard.

Not wild exactly, but certainly subjectively arrogant.

“God will judge us all for our actions so be a righteous and virtuous boy/girl, a good slave of the Divine, to whom we all owe everything to”

That’s a supremely weak foundation for actual conversation, not only is it couching your own interpretation as fact it’s also one of the strongest reasons you might not be considered to be conversing in good faith.

It amounts to:

“I believe we all owe god everything so you must follow along with my personal interpretation of what they are expecting, because i say god says it must be so”

If your reasoning boils down to “because god said so” that’s not a conversation, that’s a dictate because you can’t reason with someone who’s only basis is faith.

To me, that’s almost the exact reason organised religion is the greatest impediment to personal faith and/or worship.

Because when you take that attitude and scale it up, organised religion is the result and it leaves no room for anything else.

Btw, unironically, and remembering that whatever Western anti-islamic, racist take was pushed to get support for the Western/American wars in the Middle East, my best advice to you is to read the Qur’an. For real for real. “Qur’an: a Monotheist Translation” is a freely available app. And don’t forget that God is just Allah in English!

I’m not sure how that is related to anything being said, but genuinely, to what end?

All of the organised religions (cults over a certain size) have done heinous shit over the years, in conjunction with nations, empires, tribes etc.

Same as with basically all of the nations that have existed, using othering(religion being a top contender in that list) to justify whatever bullshit they want to do.

start believing in objective reality and ethics

Isn’t going to work if all of the surrounding statements from you are based in faith.

some things just are or aren’t

or “it is, because i/god said so”

Isn’t a basis for arguing objectivity, it’s hiding behind faith as a means to not have to actually engage.

Your whole conversation history in this thread has been variations on “My interpretation is correct/the baseline moral standard you should all be adhering to should be the same as mine/I’m surprised you don’t understand/i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith don’t understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correct”

That’s not a good faith conversation, that’s a repetitive statement.

Holy fuck, “Space logistics simulator with some casual space piracy” the game.

For the receptive kind of brain that’s some premium crack.

Actually , before we get on to the original response, which, while somewhat sarcastic is a legitimate offer.

I do have an actual question, are you , as an individual allowed to claim that your interpretation is the correct one?

Like in a religious sense, wouldn’t claiming to be the only one with the real understanding of god’s intentions be some kind of blasphemy ( sort of like claiming you’re a prophet ).

Now, on to the actual response.

It sounds like you have the inside track on the correct interpretation of the sentences.

It’s clear we are all struggling with coming to the correct conclusions with the information available, why don’t you save us all the trouble of trying to figure out what was actually meant and publish a book with very clear, step by step definitions.

I, legitimately, would benefit from being able to reference something that could 100% keep me out of the bad place.

The existing texts are generically vague, linguistically shifting, contextually contradictory and subjective in many ways.

Not to mention thousands of years old and filtered through many many generations of truly shitty organisational power structures that changed them suit their own desires for power or control.

A genuine guide that covers all the contextual and subjective nuances would be a literal godsend.

Send me a link when you’ve published, I’ll even pre-order (well, I’ll probably look at the reviews first, I’m not an idiot)

This where we disagree and the communication broke down.

It seems we do disagree because even in this reply you provide no justification for assigning a must to an argument that is provided as a should.

The original logical argument is that the solution to homelessness is to provide houses.

Agreed.

Though technically™, and for a very literal definition of homelessness, that is correct.

The arguments that followed look like they are providing counterarguments using a less literal definition, like “modern day homelessness and the causes thereof”

The counterpoint is that providing houses is not enough of a solution

Agreed, emphasis on the not enough, meaning, still partially enough.

and that in order to actually solve the problems that homeless people face, they must also receive the other assistances listed.

This is where our interpretations differ.

I’m reading this as :

and that in order to solve more of the problems that homeless people face, they should must also receive the other assistances listed.

They were providing a possible suggestion to increase the effectiveness of the solution, that’s not a must that’s a should also

Less of a “It won’t work at all without this” vs “yeah, ok, but we should also do this as well”

I’ll concede it is a very strong should but it’s not close enough to a must to come to “So, if giving both mental health assistance as well as housing assistance is antithetical to housing-first research” as a conclusion.

ETA: Actually, if you’re familiar with Boolean algebra…

I am familiar with it, boolean algebra doesn’t help if the values you are using are faulty.

At this point, I’ll stress I’m not arguing for or against any of the points raised in the actual discussion, my original reply consisted of: “housing-first” doesn’t mean “housing only”

The only thing i’ve been doing is taking the examples you’ve provided (and in the original case, the request you made) and pointed out where they seem to rely on faulty interpretations or information not provided.

Which portion am I interpreting incorrectly?

The portion contained in the reply you were responding to.

You were asking for sources in response to a specific reply, sources that included only housing and not accompanying mental health support.

i was just saying that the reply you responded to mentioned “housing-first” not “housing-only”, so it seemed like you were asking for sources for something that was never mentioned ( in that reply ).

But i’ll respond to your reply , point by point.

First reply states that mental health assistance must accompany housing assistance 1.2;

It does not, it posits that mental health support will help a greater proportion of people, there is no must in there.

Next reply states that this goes against the findings of a housing-first approach 2.1:

So i’ll concede that this person does seem a bit confused, given that they seem to be arguing the same point as the person they were responding to in what seems to be a fairly hostile manner.

But they still seem to be championing a housing-first approach.

Their next statement makes little sense to me 2.2:

Because the initial reply said to give both, not one or the other 1.1:

Those two statements aren’t mutually exclusive.

One is a proposed solution, the other is a somewhat pointless statement, but it’s not contradictory.

So, if giving both mental health assistance as well as housing assistance is antithetical to housing-first research, then there must be a study which shows that mental health assistance is either unnecessary or detrimental.

I’m not sure how you’re getting from "I think these two things would solve the problem " to “Only thing one is required, thing two is useless and possibly detrimental to the goal”.

ETA: If they’re arguing for the same thing, then why did the second person imply that the first one was wrong?

Confusion or misunderstanding probably.

Not me you’re replying to, but I assume “housing-first” doesn’t mean “housing only”

I guess they were coming back to pick them up again later?

That makes sense, didn’t even think of that.

Is there a pro-conservation reason for stringing them up? genuine question.

Like some territory marking thing ?

That aside, fox hunting as a “sport” is traditionally a shitshow , not because of the foxes dying specifically , but because of the way it is conducted.

This doesn’t seem to be related to fox hunting (the “sport”) though, perhaps the two are being conflated here, or there is some sort of link not disclosed ?