From: hjkhjkhd@hhhh.com   
      
   "Martha Bridegam"  wrote in message   
   news:hMu4i.1625$u56.1088@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...   
   > ROBBIE wrote:   
   >> "ROBBIE"  wrote in message   
   >> news:q6Sdnd6w1-P3n83bnZ2dnUVZ8v2vnZ2d@bt.com...   
   >>> "Martha Bridegam"  wrote in message   
   >>> news:_HK3i.21299$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   
   >   
   > You first: what's your position on the ice cube suggestion?   
   >   
   > /M   
      
   Could you ask it again in plain English and I'd be pleased to answer? I saw   
   something about ice cubes but your joke/allusion has gone over my head.   
      
   ROBBIE   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)