From: hjkhjkhd@hhhh.com
"ROBBIE" wrote in message
news:q6Sdnd6w1-P3n83bnZ2dnUVZ8v2vnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "Martha Bridegam" wrote in message
> news:_HK3i.21299$YL5.17267@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>> ROBBIE wrote:
>>
>>> ...I am not an addict. Addicts cannot Go Without. I am an abuser,
>>> different matter entirely.
>>>
>>> But I find it fascinating that you simply don;t want to look at the
>>> nuances of personal behaviour. Yet surely this is a way of getting
>>> beyond vagaries. You like to look at the shelter system with a macro
>>> lens but you smear vaseline all over it when it comes to the people who
>>> use it. Why?
>>>
>>
>> It's not necessary to approve of people morally to treat them as human
>> beings.
>
> So your crowning intellectual achievement is one-eyed amorality. Bully for
> you!
>
>
> The impulse to judge between the deserving and undeserving is
>> strongest in people who are overanxious to prove they belong on the
>> wielder's end of the stick.
>>
>
> By your own logic, the impulse not to judge between the deserving and the
> undeserving is strongest in people who are overanxious to rid themselves
> of a misplaced guilt. Of course, if you hadn't been middle-class/harvard,
> you wouldn't be helping any of them in the first place.
>
> I've nothing against the homeless - i've helped enough of them and talked
> to them as well - except when they want to abuse me and shout in my ear
> when I'm trying to get to work and they're lying in the street drunk. I
> don't mind some money being spent on giving them shelter (though you
> should understand that I'm working my arse off in London and can barely
> afford a bedsit, and nobody's piping up on behalf of the deserving worker
> that finds himself outside the big unionized 'key worker' housing schemes)
> but I wouldn't want to live next door to it and I would argue that people
> should be moved on from it if they're just going to carry on as they were
> being a public nuisance. Most liberal/left legislators would be all for
> it, but would contrive to live far from such a building. You, mad with a
> thirst for righteousness, wouldn't be happy unless you lived on top of it
> (sorry, in a bunker underneath), but you cannot be surprised if the
> orderly and law abiding want to avoid the company of sociopaths.
>
>
>
>> Which brings up one of my earlier questions: since the denial of shelter
>> is so widely considered a therapeutic incentive to treatment for
>> addiction, why not evict all housed people who have untreated addictions
>> until they comply with treatment?
>
> Because their behaviour hasn't landed them in the streets, where, you
> surely agree, it becomes a public problem. You won't accept this because,
> as we;ve said, you go to some lengths to avoid thinking about how people
> end on the street in the first place. Your insatiable thirst for
> righteousness freezes an intellect which otherwise seems to be very
> active.
>
> If sleeping in doorways is such a
>> benefit to the poor, why should it be denied to everyone else?
>>
>> /M
>
> 'Inside the head of every revolutionary there is a policeman.'
>
> You remind me of Hitchens Minor, who accused me in an email row about
> censoring the word nigger - he wanted it censored from old films on TV -
> of wanting to *insert* swear words in the works of authors who didn't use
> them. It's funny how mad lefties and mad lefties who've swung completely
> to the opposite, have the same wonky hysterical logic.
>
> ROBBIE
>
Ah; the usual. Silence. It's supposed to mean contempt, isn't it? But why
don't you just answer the questions?
ROBBIE
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
