Rick Reuben wrote:

bigc wrote:And PLEASE, can you, for once in your fucking posting history, not make a huge sweeping generalization about people that is wildly inaccurate? For fucks sake, it makes everything else you say look like the paranoid ramblings of a psychotic retard.

Douche. You immediately followed a plea for an end to generalizations with a generalization of your own about my posts.

You wish you could write as well as I can on this issue, or on any issue. I suspect many in this thread share that wish. They can't, so they call names.

The reason why all the liberals are clamoring for me to change my opinion about the Shepard case is this: they know that my interpretation of its relevance to homelessness is the correct one, and they are offended by my airing of it. They hate when the herdthink system cracks a leak.

I appreciate you proving my point.

I'm not asking you to change your opinion, lord knows that's impossible, and I wasn't aware that we were in a writing competition. I hope your 'intellectual' ego needs are met by this message board in some fashion, as they seem to be quite substantial.

The reason we call you names is that you are a grade A asshole.

What's the herdthink here? That an educated, mentally stable white kid with a safety net can manage to overcome the temporary absence of housing? You call it herdthink, we call it reality. Try it sometime instead of engaging in straw men.

Rick Reuben wrote:What are you arguing for?

Just pointing out something that I thought was ironic w/regard to your general political views, which you don't seem to want to argue anymore.

I would suggest taking it to some other thread, but I'm afraid I won't read it there.

Give to the homeless, people.

Rick Reuben wrote:If you don't want his story banned, then shut up and accept the misinterpretations, or dedicate yourself to contradicting them.

I can't control the inevitable misinterpretations. I'm far more concerned with contradicting the author and his misrepresentations of homelessness. Again, nobody is asking that the story be banned.

So, liar:

Finally! This took far too long. I await your forthcoming "idiot" breathlessly. Don't let me down.

Rick Reuben wrote:

bigc wrote:That an educated, mentally stable white kid with a safety net can manage to overcome the temporary absence of housing?

But that's what I'm saying. The hardcore liberal thinkers here can't fit what he did into any definition of homelessness. They're delusional, and their willingness to abandon the facts to create shitty arguments should embarrass them.

Why do you assume anyone wants to fit it into a definition of homelessness? It seems pretty cut and dry, and people are reacting to what the cut and dry facts of his 'experiment' are. It seems like you're the one who's unable to just let the 'experiment' stand as it is; proof that an educated, mentally stable white kid with a safety net can manage to overcome the temporary absence of housing. That's not groundbreaking, inseresting, or indicative of anything we don't already know...so why should we give a fuck?

Rick Reuben wrote:

bigc wrote:Is homelessness the absence of a home, or the absence of immediate ability to have a home?

Homelessness is: relying on another agency or individual for a home if you cannot financially provide one for yourself. Or, for street people, homelessness is living outside of a conventional home, possibly because of finances, possibly because of other circumstances.

So this kid was homeless or not?

Oh, hey:

Rick Reuben wrote:Do you or do you not have a preferred government? If you're not willing to offer yours, then shut the hell up about what faults you see in mine.

I loosely wrote about this in the past, so you should be able to figure that one out, what with your handiness with the search function and all. No capital punishment is a big start.

You're afraid to admit that you crave globalist government, so you'll run away now. Bye bye.

I agree with you where it concerns the importance of localized politics.

Rick Reuben wrote:

bigc wrote:So this kid was homeless or not?

Read my first post to the thread. He designed an experiment that re-created the conditions of homelessness. If I tie a blindfold around my eyes and attempt to cross Western Avenue at the crosswalk, am I not experiencing blindness?

Surely, you aren't suggesting that people who landed in shelters with $25 because they had been evicted or laid off have not similarly gotten back on their feet?

So you're arguiing sematics while everyone else discusses practicla application. I hope you're having fun.

No, I'm not suggesting that, though I see you just chomping at the bit to run off another straw man.

Rick Reuben wrote:So, idiot, you are going to continue to lie and claim that he did not experience a genuine version of homelessness, thus making yourself a useless dishonest source?

FYP.

Rick Reuben wrote:If you start off by criticizing my vision of government, then it is incumbent upon you to present your own views, as a contrast.

No. No, it isn't.

Rick Reuben wrote:

bigc wrote:So you're arguiing sematics while everyone else discusses practicla application.

I'm the one sticking to the facts of this case. The robots are the ones telling us all what Shepard didn't do- who cares what he didn't do? Address what he did: Went to a shelter with $25, never cheated, worked his way out. Sorry if you're too ignorant to recognize that as a common and plausible escape route from homelessness.

Robots? Who's a robot?

We're going in circles. We all know what he did. You seem to htink it's indicative of something greater than what he did, or applicable to people who do not share the context of his situation, which you limit to suit your version so you can rant and rave as usual.

It's clear that this kid proved close to nothing that we don't already know, and that you just want to argue abotu nothing, commit horrendous fallacies, and generally embarrass yourself.