From: hjkhjkhd@hhhh.com
"Martha Bridegam" wrote in message
news:CLD6i.11655$rO7.9975@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
> ROBBIE wrote:
>> "Martha Bridegam" wrote in message
>> news:hMu4i.1625$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
>
> If the hardships of sleeping outdoors are such a powerfully therapeutic
> inducement to seek treatment for addiction or mental illness, and if the
> threat of such hardships is such a marvelous way to make residents of
> shelters follow instructions for Their Own Good, then is it quite fair
> that sleeping outdoors is more pleasant in summer than in winter?
> Shouldn't sleeping outdoors always be made chilly and unpleasant -- even
> artificially if necessary?
*I* wasn't being facetious but well well well...
>
> Of course the real point is, the U.S. and UK both refuse to admit that
> competent people are ever left destitute.
I didn't say that. I said that you put on smeary specs to examine the end of
the problem that you're sympathetic to.
Some way is always found to
> disparage very poor people's level of competence. It's so everyone else
> can think "There but for my own greater sanity and self-discipline..."
Well, maybe not everyone, but many, very many. It's obvious.
> as opposed to "There but for the grace of God..."
>
Wooh, where's that hard, unblinking, eye for truth you like to think you
have? Much more of this and you'll kneeling towards Rome...
ROBBIE
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
