[istjohn]

You make it sound like solving homelessness would require a Manhattan Project-like effort. It's not a trivial problem, but the solution is within easy reach of our society if we had the will.

What should be done? Give the poor guy a freaking bed with a roof over his head! Why don't you just say we need to take care of that guy so he doesn't have to sleep on your fire escape?

You make it sound like you think that would be asking too much of society. Like it's obvious that would be too much. That guy's going to sleep outside, so the least society can do is make sure he's not doing it somewhere that you don't have to worry about tripping over in case of a fire.

No! There is no good reason anyone should have to sleep outside in this country. And as long as people do have to sleep outside, those of us who sleep comfortably in our homes should respond to their presence not with disgust but with action.

[closeparen]

Do I have your position correctly, that scarmig is morally obligated to die in fire unless they can pay the rent on an apartment for this person?

What happens when a second person starts sleeping there? How many apartments must scarmig rent before they are allowed to evacuate in case of fire?

What if scarmig doesn't make a high enough multiple of the minimum viable rental price? Have you just decided they're obligated to die because they don't make enough money? That's kind of ironic.

>Why don't you just say we need to take care of that guy so he doesn't have to sleep on your fire escape?

Because if saying that conjured shelter beds into existence, we wouldn't have a homeless problem anymore.

>the solution is within easy reach of our society if we had the will.

I don't think the American people could message "fuck poor people" any louder or any clearer than they just did by electing Trump. The American electorate doesn't lack the will to help the downtrodden, it actively wills them to die. Are we obligated to fight the good fight? Sure. Are we obligated to die in fires unless we achieve a 100% reversal of the poiltical climate? No.

> not with disgust but with action.

There is no action you can take that will move the needle on homelessness anytime soon. At best, there are actions that a few hundred million people could take together that would achieve a marginal reduction in the problem in in a few decades.

[ZenoArrow]

> "Do I have your position correctly, that scarmig is morally obligated to die in fire unless they can pay the rent on an apartment for this person?"

That's not what was said.

> "How many apartments must scarmig rent before they are allowed to evacuate in case of fire?"

Zero.

> "What if scarmig doesn't make a high enough multiple of the minimum viable rental price? Have you just decided they're obligated to die because they don't make enough money? That's kind of ironic."

Again, you're missing the point. The idea is to tackle the issues collectively.

> "Because if saying that conjured shelter beds into existence, we wouldn't have a homeless problem anymore."

The money already exists within the government to solve it. It's just a matter of priorities.

> "I don't think the American people could message "fuck poor people" any louder or any clearer than they just did by electing Trump."

Bollocks. You do realise that there were poor people who voted for Trump? What message do you think they were trying to send?

> "The American electorate doesn't lack the will to help the downtrodden, it actively wills them to die."

Are you an American?

> "Are we obligated to fight the good fight? Sure. Are we obligated to die in fires unless we achieve a 100% reversal of the poiltical climate? No."

Again, you're twisting words, that's not even close to what was said.

> "There is no action you can take that will move the needle on homelessness anytime soon. At best, there are actions that a few hundred million people could take together that would achieve a marginal reduction in the problem in in a few decades."

What do you propose is done?

[closeparen]

>The idea is to tackle the issues collectively.

Indeed, this is the notion behind liberal politics, which have been soundly rejected by the public.

>It's just a matter of priorities.

The public couldn't be clearer that meeting basic needs for people who are unable to earn a living isn't a priority.

>What message do you think they were trying to send?

"Fuck the even poorer people who are changing my culture and taking my jobs."

>Are you an American?

Um, yes, the context of this thread is the San Francisco public library.

>What do you propose is done?

Make city life as attractive and cheap as possible to bring back the tax base from the suburbs; use the money to fund public housing and mental health services.

Continuing to degrade city life only drives away the resources that could be tapped for real solutions.