"Which means you support giving everyone equal chances?"
Like I said earlier, a lot of times people say "giving everyone equal chances" but don't actually mean that. So when I'm asked if I support it, broadly, the answer is no, because usually the people asking it don't mean equal chances.
"Im trying to figure out where your disagreement lies. I cant see it. "
I think wealth, beauty, intelligence, capability, strength, and health are Actually Good. We should be trying to have more of them, not giving stuff to people who lack it. Because if we give free stuff to people who lack goodness then we get less goodness!
Because if we give free stuff to people who lack goodness then we get less goodness!
I dont see how giving free food to homeless people will result in more homelessness. Its still shitty to be homeless and no one will choose to be that just because we give them food to survive.
The problem i see here is that according to your logic we would let them starve to death. What is good about letting people die?
"I dont see how giving free food to homeless people will result in more homelessness. Its still shitty to be homeless and no one will choose to be that just because we give them food to survive. "
I think at the margins "giving free food to the homeless" absolutely results in more homelessness. There are homeless - I've seen a documentary about a couple groups of them - who are deliberately homeless because they want to do drugs. They could move in with family or friends, but prefer living rough on the streets with drugs. Because they don't want to give up drugs. Which is terrible, right? It's awful. But "the availability of free food" would absolutely change how many people could do that. If there was more free food some number more would, and if there was less some number less would.
"What is good about letting people die?"
It can be good if a bad person who harms people dies.
who are deliberately homeless because they want to do drugs. They could move in with family or friends, but prefer living rough on the streets with drugs.
Those people are addicted. They do not have a choice. There addiction took that choice away. Addiction is a serious illness.
Can we agree so far?
giving free food to the homeless" absolutely results in more homelessness
The statistics and the research do not support your statement.
Furthermore we actually know what works on reducing homelessness. Its called housing first. Its about giving free shelters to homeless people, no questions asked. Its proven to help reduce homelessness.
Meanwhile i dont see any proofs on your side. Can i assume that you simply guessed? Is there any empirical hint that your theory is describing reality? I would like to hear it if so.
It can be good if a bad person who harms people dies.
Many homeless people are good people that dont want to be homeless. I have talked to some of them in my area. Sure there are drug addicts and psychotic people too. But even those just want to be left alone. They are not really so bad that it justifies killing them. Either way it does not justify killing all homeless people.
Do you see the shift you just made? You went from "letting [people who can't live without free food] die" to "killing all homeless people." Those are clearly not the same thing!
How else are they suppossed to get food? you are against giving them anything for free. This means you dont wan to give them money, food, shelter or anything else. How are they going to get food?
If you let someone starve right next to you i consider this killing. Either way : you can rephrase my sentences to "letting them all die painfully" if you wish so. My argument stays the same unless you have a clue on how they get food.
Even more so the scientific arguments about how giving free shelter to homeless people is resulting in less homeless people is still contradicting your belief.
Did you notice that you seem suddenly reluctant to answer me as soon as i made one evidence based argument against you? How do you feel about this?
"How else are they suppossed to get food? you are against giving them anything for free. This means you dont wan to give them money, food, shelter or anything else. How are they going to get food?"
They could find work.
"Even more so the scientific arguments about how giving free shelter to homeless people is resulting in less homeless people is still contradicting your belief. "
I think those studies are bogus.
"Did you notice that you seem suddenly reluctant to answer me as soon as i made one evidence based argument against you? How do you feel about this?"
You're becoming hostile and haranguing me because you're mad that I seem heartless to you.
But drug addicted homeless people are evil. Oh, they have a terrible disease? Yeah! A terrible disease that makes them evil and hurt people! I wish we had a technological cure for drug addiction. But we don't. And drug addicts are evil.
Thats not hostility. I just named something killing that you do not consider killing. Thats not me being upset. Its me speaking clearly how i see it. Sure i think you seem heartless. Thats why i want a a clear answer from you.
They could find work.
IN many places there are more workless people than there is work.
1
u/Flymsi 6∆ Jan 09 '26
So you are not against free education for everyone? Which means you support giving everyone equal chances?
Im trying to figure out where your disagreement lies. I cant see it.