• Don’t Make Housing for the Poor Too Cozy, Carson Warns
    43 replies, posted
[quote] COLUMBUS, Ohio — Ben Carson does not like the creature comforts, at least not for low-income Americans reliant on the government for a helping hand. As he toured facilities for the poor in Ohio last week, Mr. Carson, the neurosurgeon-turned-housing secretary, joked that a relatively well-appointed apartment complex for veterans lacked “only pool tables.” He inquired at one stop whether animals were allowed. At yet another, he nodded, plainly happy, as officials explained how they had stacked dozens of bunk beds inside a homeless shelter and purposefully did not provide televisions. Compassion, Mr. Carson explained in an interview, means not giving people “a comfortable setting that would make somebody want to say: ‘I’ll just stay here. They will take care of me.’” When Mr. Carson assumed the helm of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, he had no government experience, no political experience beyond a failed bid for the Republican presidential nomination and no burning desire to run a major federal bureaucracy. But his views on poverty alleviation were tough-minded and well-known, informed by his childhood in Detroit and his own bootstraps journey from Motor City urban grit to the operating theater of Johns Hopkins University.[/quote] [url]https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/03/us/politics/ben-carson-hud-poverty-plans.html[/url] lol
Guess what happens when someone with no self awareness gets in charge
This guy would probably have an aneurysm if he saw "the luxury" of some scandinavian prisons. [t]http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/5482155969beddd00e8b4567/why-norways-prison-system-is-so-successful.jpg[/t]
Carson wants us to store the poor people in the Pyramids like the ancient Egyptians did.
Well, perhaps we should spruce up such housing just to spite this glitchy, corrupt little creature? Preferably with furniture made from its bones?
[QUOTE=snookypookums;52183735]This guy would probably have an aneurysm if he saw "the luxury" of some scandinavian prisons. [t]http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/5482155969beddd00e8b4567/why-norways-prison-system-is-so-successful.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] This looks cozier than my apartment.
[QUOTE=ironman17;52183751]Well, perhaps we should spruce up such housing just to spite this glitchy, corrupt little creature? Preferably with furniture made from its bones?[/QUOTE] You'd need to find bones first; The only thing holding this wormy creature upright is the starch in his clothes. :v: If you treat the homeless with respect and dignity that you would afford another human being in better circumstances, you're already on a better road to helping them work past their differences. This is one of the fundamental things I've always liked about the [I]langar[/I] from the Sikhs; they do not treat you with sympathy, they treat you with respect and do not pass judgement on your plight. [editline]4th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Xanadu;52183780]This looks cozier than my apartment.[/QUOTE] The real scandal is probably that it was all IKEA furniture and assembly for each cell probably had two missing screws and a wrong sized allen key. :v:
What is with the GOP and its insistence on hardline classism? Poor people can't have good homes, poor people can't have good meals, poor people can't vote. Modern day counts and dukes.
He's essentially saying that if you give too much for free they won't feel compelled to work their way up from my understanding. The title says poor but the article itself makes it clear they're talking about homeless shelters, not people scraping by in low-income apartments/trailer parks. [editline]3rd May 2017[/editline] [quote]At yet another, he nodded, plainly happy, as officials explained how they had stacked dozens of bunk beds inside a homeless shelter and purposefully did not provide televisions. Compassion, Mr. Carson explained in an interview, means not giving people “a comfortable setting that would make somebody want to say: ‘I’ll just stay here. They will take care of me.’”[/quote]
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;52183925]He's essentially saying that if you give too much for free they won't feel compelled to work their way up from my understanding. The title says poor but the article itself makes it clear they're talking about homeless shelters, not people scraping by in low-income apartments/trailer parks. [editline]3rd May 2017[/editline][/QUOTE] Yeah I read that bit It just doesn't really make sense to me.
"You can't [I]not[/I] have spikes on the floors they sleep on, otherwise they'll keep coming back, because 'why not just keep sleeping here?'"
How could anyone honestly believe that poor people enjoy being poor?
I think they're talking about "content with" rather than enjoy
[QUOTE=reedbo;52184206]How could anyone honestly believe that poor people enjoy being poor?[/QUOTE] That's a strawman. It has nothing to do with liking being poor and everything to do with not making the perceived opportunity cost of being homeless less than the perceived opportunity cost of putting in the very hard physical and emotional work for the alternative. The difference between the political sides is where that line is.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52184127]Yeah I read that bit It just doesn't really make sense to me.[/QUOTE] Population of dependency. Basically, you create a problem where people are so reliant on the fix, that the fix eventually becomes another creature of habit.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52184246]That's a strawman. It has nothing to do with liking being poor and everything to do with not making the perceived opportunity cost of being homeless less than the perceived opportunity cost of putting in the very hard physical and emotional work for the alternative. The difference between the political sides is where that line is.[/QUOTE] It's not really a strawman. The belief that a certain level of living standards (notice we're not talking about paid vacations here, just having a comfortable bed to sleep on) is going to convince poor people who are able to work to not work is based on the core assumption that a person who is poor will choose to continue being poor and therefore lack any of the advantages that come with having money simply because they have a comfortable bed. For an individual to hold this belief it is required for them to also hold the assumption and massive generalisation that poor people enjoy being poor and the only reason they don't work is that they choose not to. It is predicated on an underlying prejudice towards individuals based on their economic status. Also, in a more general sense, you are somewhat incorrectly referring to the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man]straw man fallacy[/url], which is categorized by responding to a falsely constructed argument, while instead seemingly accusing reedbo of reducing the complexity of the argument to something that wasn't the case originally (without responding to it), which is more inline with [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum]reductio ad absurdum[/url]. My pedantry in this case is to highlight that it is important to know exactly which fallacy you are refering to, because if you did it would immediately highlight the flaw in your reasoning which I illustrated in the previous paragraph. Otherwise, you'll just end up calling every view you disagree with a straw man because the assumptions made are different. [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1532324&p=50957043&viewfull=1#post50957043]The best thing to do is to just explain the problem with the other person's argument without referring to a fallacy at all,[/url] [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1532324&p=50957087&viewfull=1#post50957087]if you understand the flaw in their logic it won't be necessary to throw Latin words at them. If you can't explain the flaw in their logic without throwing Latin words at them, it might be possible that you're unable to respond to their argument.[/url]
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;52184337]Population of dependency. Basically, you create a problem where people are so reliant on the fix, that the fix eventually becomes another creature of habit.[/QUOTE] No I get that part of it. I don't get the attitude towards homeless people. There are mooches. That's a fact. Just not an important one. The homeless have to be dealt with, compassionately or otherwise there is a growing problem there that real solutions need to be created for. They're already dependent on help and the government and local hospitals. They already cost a lot of money to deal with. I don't get what drives people to be so disspassionate about it and then. I've dealt with the homeless since I was a kid.
I'm supposed to believe that we might be in danger of housing assistance getting [i]too good,[/i] what a fucking legend.
[QUOTE=Splarg!;52184433]I'm supposed to believe that we might be in danger of housing assistance getting [i]too good,[/i] what a fucking legend.[/QUOTE] Yeah, this seems like a case of 'let's cross that bridge when we get to it'. How about we make shit better for people who need better shit, and then if that shit somehow becomes [I]too good[/I] (what?), we can fix that problem at that time.
Such regressive ideal. Happier people are more productive and more likely to advance in life and society.
[QUOTE=Zyler;52184400]It's not really a strawman. The belief that a certain level of living standards (notice we're not talking about paid vacations here, just having a comfortable bed to sleep on) is going to convince poor people who are able to work to not work is based on the core assumption that a person who is poor will choose to continue being poor and therefore lack any of the advantages that come with having money simply because they have a comfortable bed. For an individual to hold this belief it is required for them to also hold the assumption and massive generalisation that poor people enjoy being poor and the only reason they don't work is that they choose not to. It is predicated on an underlying prejudice towards individuals based on their economic status. Also, in a more general sense, you are somewhat incorrectly referring to the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man"]straw man fallacy[/URL], which is categorized by responding to a falsely constructed argument, while instead seemingly accusing reedbo of reducing the complexity of the argument to something that wasn't the case originally (without responding to it), which is more inline with [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum"]reductio ad absurdum[/URL]. My pedantry in this case is to highlight that it is important to know exactly which fallacy you are refering to, because if you did it would immediately highlight the flaw in your reasoning which I illustrated in the previous paragraph. Otherwise, you'll just end up calling every view you disagree with a straw man because the assumptions made are different. [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1532324&p=50957043&viewfull=1#post50957043"]The best thing to do is to just explain the problem with the other person's argument without referring to a fallacy at all,[/URL] [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1532324&p=50957087&viewfull=1#post50957087"]if you understand the flaw in their logic it won't be necessary to throw Latin words at them. If you can't explain the flaw in their logic without throwing Latin words at them, it might be possible that you're unable to respond to their argument.[/URL][/QUOTE] Yes, it is a strawman. He said that Carson thinks people like being poor when that has nothing to do with the argument. It makes the argument much easier to dismiss and attack instead of dealing with the real issues involved. Let me give an analogy: Do fat people like being fat? Generally, no, they don't. In fact, many absolutely hate being fat. Yet, we see that lots of people fail to lose weight and stay fat. Why is that? I would argue that the perceived opportunity cost of losing weight (working out, losing time to do what you want, not eating food like you're used to, etc.) is higher than the perceived opportunity cost of staying fat. As soon as those switch, the person in question will start doing what's necessary to lose weight. In the same way, a homeless person may hate being poor, but that doesn't mean they may also be unwilling to put in the physical and emotional work of getting out of their situation. [editline]4th May 2017[/editline] "Liking" these things is irrelevant.
[QUOTE=snookypookums;52183735]This guy would probably have an aneurysm if he saw "the luxury" of some scandinavian prisons. [t]http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/5482155969beddd00e8b4567/why-norways-prison-system-is-so-successful.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] Fuck, that looks nicer than many college dorms in the US, let alone prisons!
[QUOTE=snookypookums;52183785]You'd need to find bones first; The only thing holding this wormy creature upright is the starch in his clothes. :v: If you treat the homeless with respect and dignity that you would afford another human being in better circumstances, you're already on a better road to helping them work past their differences. This is one of the fundamental things I've always liked about the [I]langar[/I] from the Sikhs; they do not treat you with sympathy, they treat you with respect and do not pass judgement on your plight. [editline]4th May 2017[/editline] The real scandal is probably that it was all IKEA furniture and assembly for each cell probably had two missing screws and a wrong sized allen key. :v:[/QUOTE] And each prisoner has to assemble his cell's furniture.
Reminds me of some people I used to work with. They would insist that people living on the streets were making loads of money that way and just chose to live like that. There's a special kind of bubble that these people live in, where their own lucky circumstances prevent them from ever perceiving the real threat of such hardships, so they misinterpret people trying to survive as some sort of detestable parasites. Ask anyone if they would like to live in the circumstances described in the article, indefinitely, with no ambitions for anything better. Nobody would agree, but people who hate the poor don't think of them as being the same as themselves. Right wing politics is in a simple way founded on the belief that you are special, and in some way, better than other people. When people take that to heart, they start seeing other people's misfortune as being: A: Something that would never happen to them and B: 100% the outcome of said person's decisions So you get people who have no empathy for the poor and who also believe that the poor choose to be poor because "bootstraps/just get yourself a gmod server"
[QUOTE=sgman91;52185500]Yes, it is a strawman. He said that Carson thinks people like being poor when that has nothing to do with the argument. It makes the argument much easier to dismiss and attack instead of dealing with the real issues involved. Let me give an analogy: Do fat people like being fat? Generally, no, they don't. In fact, many absolutely hate being fat. Yet, we see that lots of people fail to lose weight and stay fat. Why is that? I would argue that the perceived opportunity cost of losing weight (working out, losing time to do what you want, not eating food like you're used to, etc.) is higher than the perceived opportunity cost of staying fat. As soon as those switch, the person in question will start doing what's necessary to lose weight. In the same way, a homeless person may hate being poor, but that doesn't mean they may also be unwilling to put in the physical and emotional work of getting out of their situation. [editline]4th May 2017[/editline] "Liking" these things is irrelevant.[/QUOTE] Yeah, you think that. But you're wrong though. Your entire mindset about this whole concept is inaccurate at it's very core foundation. Your thinking is faulty at such a fundamental level that my own percieved opportunity cost for going through and explaining even a fraction of how wrong you are is way too high for me to bother, especially considering you are almost certainly going to ignore it as usual.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52185500]Yes, it is a strawman. He said that Carson thinks people like being poor when that has nothing to do with the argument. It makes the argument much easier to dismiss and attack instead of dealing with the real issues involved. Let me give an analogy: Do fat people like being fat? Generally, no, they don't. In fact, many absolutely hate being fat. Yet, we see that lots of people fail to lose weight and stay fat. Why is that? I would argue that the perceived opportunity cost of losing weight (working out, losing time to do what you want, not eating food like you're used to, etc.) is higher than the perceived opportunity cost of staying fat. As soon as those switch, the person in question will start doing what's necessary to lose weight. In the same way, a homeless person may hate being poor, but that doesn't mean they may also be unwilling to put in the physical and emotional work of getting out of their situation. [editline]4th May 2017[/editline] "Liking" these things is irrelevant.[/QUOTE] Would you intentionally make things more difficult for fat people to encourage them to lose weight?
[QUOTE=elowin;52186097]Yeah, you think that. But you're wrong though. Your entire mindset about this whole concept is inaccurate at it's very core foundation. Your thinking is faulty at such a fundamental level that my own percieved opportunity cost for going through and explaining even a fraction of how wrong you are is way too high for me to bother, especially considering you are almost certainly going to ignore it as usual.[/QUOTE] If you have no intention of contributing, then why respond at all? Did you just REALLY want people to know how high of a horse you're sitting on? [editline]4th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Splarg!;52186109]Would you intentionally make things more difficult for fat people to encourage them to lose weight?[/QUOTE] Firstly, there's a difference between not giving more comforts and making something more difficult. No one is advocating putting bumps under the bed so that no one can lie down without being in pain. Secondly, I'm not paying for fat people to be fat. If I were, then I would almost certainly not buy them all the food they want.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52185500]Yes, it is a strawman. He said that Carson thinks people like being poor when that has nothing to do with the argument. It makes the argument much easier to dismiss and attack instead of dealing with the real issues involved. Let me give an analogy: Do fat people like being fat? Generally, no, they don't. In fact, many absolutely hate being fat. Yet, we see that lots of people fail to lose weight and stay fat. Why is that? I would argue that the perceived opportunity cost of losing weight (working out, losing time to do what you want, not eating food like you're used to, etc.) is higher than the perceived opportunity cost of staying fat. As soon as those switch, the person in question will start doing what's necessary to lose weight. In the same way, a homeless person may hate being poor, but that doesn't mean they may also be unwilling to put in the physical and emotional work of getting out of their situation. [editline]4th May 2017[/editline] "Liking" these things is irrelevant.[/QUOTE] fat people don't really think in terms of opportunity cost, that presupposes people to be rational a large part of the obesity crisis is down to how cheap food has gotten, people not realising how much (and what) they are eating, a poor judgement of how much exercise they get, etc luck plays a part as well, and in the short-medium term (i.e human lifespans), the great bulk of the difference between rich and successful people and the poor and failed ones is luck and random chance for the most part
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52186296]fat people don't really think in terms of opportunity cost, that presupposes people to be rational a large part of the obesity crisis is down to how cheap food has gotten, people not realising how much (and what) they are eating, a poor judgement of how much exercise they get, etc luck plays a part as well, and in the short-medium term (i.e human lifespans), the great bulk of the difference between rich and successful people and the poor and failed ones is luck and random chance for the most part[/QUOTE] I agree that people often don't accurately know the true opportunity costs involved in their decision making. That's why I said perceived opportunity cost as opposed to actual opportunity cost. I do factually disagree that most fat people are fat based on ignorance. They know that they will lose weight if they eat less food.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52186344]I agree that people often don't accurately know the true opportunity costs involved in their decision making. That's why I said perceived opportunity cost as opposed to actual opportunity cost. I do factually disagree that most fat people are fat based on ignorance. They know that they will lose weight if they eat less food.[/QUOTE] it's more ignorance of what they're actually eating. they still can overeat, even while thinking they are actually eating less (plus the kinds of foods and the frequency and times of when you eat having an impact too).
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.