This just describes the problem a second time. How would someone in those positions not live with addictive / unhealthy stress? They'd have to be inhuman not to.

Their problem is material resources, not some reddit theory about the pattern of thought they experience when without security, wealth, etc.

If you own a store on a military base, and the military leaves, so you get robbed, is the problem the patterns of your thought? Maybe build a store in another place with security and a market

That why most research happens in stages.Trying to do it all in a single study sacrifices experimental control and statistical power.

You've not been able to quote him saying what you claim he says, more than once now, so I'll just take this as your admission of being a liar.

I don't believe Kraken feels social programs and spending are realcapitalism.

Stop trying to shift the goal-posts.

You tried to put words in Kraken's mouth and say that he "reject[ed] the idea of prioritizing within-nation spending over foreign support".

I've asked you to show where he said this and you can't; even now, you're trying to shift the goal-posts.

You lied.

Nah.

But at least you're doing whatever this silliness is supposed to be

No silliness, just calling you are what you are; a liar, as shown by your inability to produce a single quote showing that what you claimed about Kraken to be true.

If heckling is your thing, I won't stop ya

That is a terribly over-simplified view. For the VAST majority of homeless people their problems run much deeper than just “material resources”. Give a mentally ill meth addict a bunch of resources and what do you think will happen? That’s a big reason participants in the study couldn’t be addicts, because they would risk ending up with a bunch of dead junkies. They also made sure the recipients weren’t mentally ill, and even took it a step farther to count people with “unstable housing” as homeless. So it’s quite possible they weren’t legit “living on the streets” people, but rather people bouncing around to different places as they try to get back on their feet. Taking those people and teaching them about financial responsibility then giving them a chunk of cash is much MUCH different than finding your average homeless person and giving them money.

Agreed.

One demographic and strategy at a time makes sense to me.

Sure. Picking the lowest hanging fruit to help those people from sliding into full blown homelessness seems like a good place to start. Dealing with the addictions and mental illness issues will prove to be much more difficult. And I’d say it starts at home, so if we aren’t going to try to prioritize nuclear families and unified communities it likely won’t get better. Not saying it’s that easy, but that’s a huge factor.

Yep. A program of research.

I dunno if social conservatism is the answer, but maybe.

You can’t win because the fascist, the Marxist, and socialists all make up their own definitions. For instance, capitalism is the private ownership AND control over the means of production. Marxists believe that as long as their is private ownership, regardless of the control over the means of production, it’s still capitalism. Fascism, economically speaking, is control over the means of production, while making the state and politics agenda number one, for economic success. Marx would have considered Hitler a capitalist in the economic sphere. Socialism is the redistribution of wealth and goods and services, but they can use fascism or Marxism to accomplish that goal. In other words, Marxists think fascism is only racism, and ignore the economic part of it, because otherwise, it wouldn’t line up with their ideology.

The Marxist-Leninist theory is that capitalism exists until communism is achieved, regardless of how you get there. This is where the Marxists in this thread, like GNCPOV, come in. They believe that, until the state owns a company, its capitalism. in other words, most whites are Marxist-Leninist, where as the black nationalists, or cultural Marxists, are rooted in the 1960s American Marxist revolution. Marxists don’t even agree what Marxism is, and this is the reason why.

Earlier in the thread I asked JLC to define “solution”, and look at his reply. To understand one another, to have a reasonable discussion, terms must be defined and agreed upon. Unfortunately, they all have their own, made up definitions, so a reasonable discussion will never happen.

You said you know the solution.

I asked what it is.

Then you asked me to define it.

I didn’t say it’s THE answer, as there will always be multiple variables and some amount of homelessness. But yes, nuclear families and communal bonds are a huge factor.



https://post.ca.gov/portals/0/post_d...afe_harbor.pdf




➲ 18.4% of all births in the U.S. in 1980 were to unmarried women

➲ 40.6% of all births in the U.S. in 2008 were to unmarried women

In 1960, just 5 million children under 18 lived with only their mother. By 1980 that number had more than doubled. Today, according to the Annie E. Casey Foundation, 19 million children live in single-mother families, up from 17 million in 2000. In some school districts today, including several in New York and Michigan, the majority of families are led by a single mother.

Twenty five million children are growing up without fathers in the home. That’s 40% of the kids in America. As reported by the Center for Children and Families:

➲ 40% of all live births in the US are to single mothers.

➲ 90% of welfare recipients are single mothers.

➲ 70% of gang members, high school dropouts, teen suicides, teen pregnancies and teen substance abusers come from single mother homes.

Statistically, a child in a single-parent household is far more likely to experience violence, commit suicide, continue a cycle of poverty, become drug dependent, commit a crime or perform below his peers in education.

According to the Single Parent Success Foundation, a national nonprofit that encourages educational opportunities for single parents:

➲ 63% of suicides nationwide are individuals from single-parent families.

➲ 75% of children in chemical dependency hospitals are from single-parent families.

➲ More than half of all youths incarcerated in the U.S. lived in one-parent families as a child
Thirty-seven percent of families led by single mothers nationwide live in poverty.

Comparatively, only 6.8% of families with married parents live in poverty, according to data from 2009 compiled by the Heritage Foundation.
Consider these dire statistics from single parent households:*

➲ 63% of youth suicides (Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Bureau of the Census)

➲90% of all homeless and runaway children

➲ 85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders (Source: Center for
Disease Control)

➲ 80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger (Source: Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26, 1978.)

➲ 71% of all high school dropouts (Source: National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools.)

➲ 75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers (Source: Rainbows for All God`s Children.)

➲ 70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions (Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept 1988)

➲ 85% of all youths sitting in prisons (Source: Fulton County Georgia jail populations, Texas Department of Corrections 1992)

did you?

How could I define your solution?

Again, until you define terms and conditions, there is no meaningful discussion. If they are using different terms and conditions than you are, then they will beat you down with nonsense.

If we are moving away from freedom, and the problem is getting worse…

If the policies being implemented are making it worse…

If the private sector has more success and costs less…

Then our solutions are the OPPOSITE of what works.

If by solution, does one mean “zero”, or does it mean “better”? Does it mean “best”?

Zero is impossible. This is why we need to define the word first. Relativity matters; an apples to apples comparison- Capitalism vs Socialism/fascism/communism of similar populations.

Was the problem better or worse before the policies were implemented? if they were worse, than freedom is better, quite possibly the best.

So what is a solution? Helping private organizations better serve their own community, or at least, NOT hindering them through regulations, control, heavy taxes etc.

This helps tell you how brainwashed the youth is. “Government is the only answer!”. Our history of freedom proves that is a lie. Churches, philanthropists, entrepreneurs and businesses all contribute. According to economists and historians, they discovered that the more free a nation is, the more charitable they are. The more taxes, socialism, and control there is, the less and less people help their neighbors. In other words, the more self interested a society as a whole becomes.

You can’t. You can only define is as you know or think of it. If I give a solution, it would be received within the limits of your definition.

I defined it above. It’s the second time I have defined it, but you aren’t reading my replies, or at least, not comprehending it. I guess I need to dumb it down.

You said capitalism is the answer to homelessness.

How? Why?

Did I?

Calling you what are - a liar - isn't heckling; it's just the truth.

It's telling that you can't produce a single quote which would vindicate you of this and keep trying to change the subject.

Seems like it

ok? So what’s the problem?

No problem, just asking how more capitalism solves homelessness.

Define “solution” and “solve”

You said you know what works.

What is that?

What does success look like?

What is what?

What is what works?

A solution.

Is that the answer?