>You absolutely did. In fact, you plainly used the phrase "nothing to do with". I'm sorry, but words mean things.
Yes. Words mean things. You can't distort definitions to suit your argument. It doesn't work that way.
But I'm fair minded. Let me qualify my statement to your satisfaction: "Your grossly dishonest distortion driven by some warped ideology is not useful in either diagnosing the homeless problem, nor coming up with a solution". That is what I wanted to convey to you. I hope that clears it up.
>I repeat: Your position is that concentrations of wealth ...
You can warp, distort and repeat as much as you want. That is not my position.
>I've hung around with way too many homeless people who were working three to five years ago
We both know you haven't. You wish you had, but you haven't. You come off like a disaffected college student who is really excited about Marx.
>Don't worry about what I'm accomplishing
The point is, I wish you were honest. If you're trying to argue for the replacement of the current soci-economic system, then argue it, instead of falling back on the eye-rolling "I'm just asking questions ... for a friend" cliche.
I think you have to find a way to manage your expectations in these discussions. For example, if the discussion centers around the problem of library fines, suggesting to overhaul the entire socio-economic system to solve it is not rational. In the same vein, the problem of homelessness in certain urban areas does not lend itself to a solution based on destroying the entire system. I understand you're very excited about Marx and every issue is just another entry to an ideological debate of communism vs capitalism that you want to have, but it tends to not be very productive and most will just ignore it.
I know you feel slighted that I haven't answered your objections, but honest to God, I have no idea what specifics to answer to. You view our modern society through a specific ideological lens and you can't just expect others to take on your ideological assumptions. Here's an example of something you argued: "Your position is that the unavailability of housing to those suffering diseases tied directly to their being unable to pay market price for housing somehow has nothing to do with the prevailing economic arrangement that utterly defines the housing market these persons cannot participate in."
To that, I can only say the following:
1) You're putting words in my mouth, that isn't my position.
2) That isn't the system we live in. We don't live in a purely capitalist system where everything is determined by the cold hand of the market. We live in a market-based economy, with a social welfare state. We spend inordinate amount of money on providing a safety net, from government programs to grants and subsidies. Government social spending is also complemented by non-profits, private charities, and churches. So no, not having an income to pay rent does not imply you're going to be homeless.
3) Lack of income isn't what is driving homelessness. Chronic homelessness is driven by drug and alcohol abuse, and mental illness. That is a fundamentally different problem, requiring a fundamentally different approach for a solution. Communist regimes (and I grew up in the Soviet Block)side-stepped this issue because they would simply forcibly institutionalize a mentally ill person found living on the street. I actually think that this is the correct solution in this case as well.
So you tell me, given all that, how do I argue with you? What kind of an argument do you expect from me, given that I don't share your ideology.
Okay, no more weak, baseless and condescending ad hominem?
> I understand you're very excited about Marx
> I know you feel slighted
That didn't last long.
You ask: how do we argue? We don't, because you've already performed your function.
Recall why you engaged: I noticed that despite the topic's plainly economic roots in housing markets, literally nobody in the thread was talking about the dominant economic system, prompting you to contribute the idea that capitalism somehow bears no responsibilities for what happens to the steadily growing population of persons who specifically lack the capital to pay for shelter under its system.
Effectively, you believe nobody actually lacks the protections of having capital under capitalism even when they don't have capital. That is a howling absurdity on its face, available for all to see, similar to a turd worn as a hat.
I thank you for your help in demonstrating my point: indoctrination tends to make people believe absurdities and enforce taboos to suppress examination.
Yes. Words mean things. You can't distort definitions to suit your argument. It doesn't work that way.
But I'm fair minded. Let me qualify my statement to your satisfaction: "Your grossly dishonest distortion driven by some warped ideology is not useful in either diagnosing the homeless problem, nor coming up with a solution". That is what I wanted to convey to you. I hope that clears it up.
>I repeat: Your position is that concentrations of wealth ...
You can warp, distort and repeat as much as you want. That is not my position.
>I've hung around with way too many homeless people who were working three to five years ago
We both know you haven't. You wish you had, but you haven't. You come off like a disaffected college student who is really excited about Marx.
>Don't worry about what I'm accomplishing
The point is, I wish you were honest. If you're trying to argue for the replacement of the current soci-economic system, then argue it, instead of falling back on the eye-rolling "I'm just asking questions ... for a friend" cliche.