Easy answer is , they don't
Though that's just the one admitting to it.
A lightly more nuanced answer is , it probably depends, there's likely to be some inference made between age ranges but my guess is that it'd be sub-par given that it sometimes struggles with reproducing images it has a tonne of actual data for.
"anonymous" downvotes aren't a good replacement for an actual response, but you do you.
and I’m saying it's not a common occurrence, intentional or not.
Guns aren't common enough in the UK for "they've got a gun" to be a go-to for the police.
"They've got a knife" or "They’ve got a sign the ruling class don't want people to see" are more likely.
As another poster pointed out, it has happened, but it's by no means the norm.
Sure, that seems about right and the link is interesting.
I was just saying it's not a common excuse for cops in the UK (right now).
The UK isn't the US (at least in this context) almost nobody has guns.
In very limited situations the police can, but it's not the norm.
Don't get me wrong, ACAB, they just don't generally use guns a as a pretext, perhaps a knife, or perhaps there is more than an arbitrary number of people grouped together so they can claim an 'illegal' protest.
A Life of Crime
You didn’t refute how I explained your interpretation of their sentence, even said it would have made more sense if structured like that. I pointed out that this interpretation requires them to contradict themself. You said it’s right there in their reply. If “it” isn’t the contradiction, then what is “it? What is your interpretation of what they said? Did they contradict themself?
I didn't realise i was supposed to be refuting it, but here it is:
“I can [seriously say with a straight face that the solution to homelessness is something other than providing free housing]. Providing free housing solves the problem, but a more comprehensive solution is to provide free housing and assistance.”
Should be
“I can [seriously say with a straight face that the solution to homelessness is something other than providing free housing]. Providing free housing solves some of the problem, but a more comprehensive solution is to provide free housing and assistance.”
The second half of the reply is modifier to the first (i previously said addition/clarification, modifier is better)
Basically my point is: you are arguing that their message has a contradiction in it. You are arguing that they both stated that they believe or otherwise “can say with a straight face” that a housing only solution does not solve the homelessness problem, and that they believe it can solve the housing solution but not as well as adding assistance. That is a contradiction.
I'm not, and i quote:
If they were two completely separate statements made at different times i might also consider them to be at odds (it would probably depend on the context) but as they are contiguous I’m reading it as a statement followed by a clarification.
You are ignoring their use of the words ‘combination’ and ‘and’, interpreting their statement as an ‘or’ logically where ‘housing only’ OR ‘housing only with assistance works’. They literally said assistance and housing, with emphasis on and. You turned that and into an or by conflating their reasoning for their position as a clarification of what they meant.
Not really.
Though i see what you mean about it not matching exactly what was said.
I'm counting the refutation of the original Housing Only premise as a partial argument for the implication of a Housing + [1..*]
<things>
solution.Partly taking in to account the variety of additional things suggested as implying an etc. rather than things being a finite list because the first part and second part have different numbers of additional things listed.
I can see how that might just be my specific interpretation though.
And their hypothesis, argument, or logical statement is: Housing AND assistance is what will solve homelessness.
I think what i've done here is read "assistance" as an undefined length list of additional things including the ones specified, rather than just the defined list provided.
My bad.
Assumptions aren’t a bad thing, just don’t assume bad things.
I would take all assumptions to be neutral until proven, if i start applying morality to assumptions it might interfere with my ability to verify those assumptions. That goes for both "good" and "bad".
A Life of Crime
As i said in my previously replies , there was no assumption of contradiction.
The two statements in that reply add up to a different position that if you just take the first statement on it's own.
Not a contradiction, an addition/clarification.
But this is the most salient point:
Many people were pushing for a housing only being a suboptimal solution
No-one at any point was pushing for a housing-only solution (after that first reply of course, which for some reason has a lot of votes)
Any argument based on someone else having done so, will be flawed.
A Life of Crime
Your argument ignores something significant:
I'm not ignoring that part of the statement I’m taking it in the context of the whole reply.
In what way does it make sense to assume that someone would immediately contradict themself?
There is no assumption on my part, it's in the reply.
If they were two completely separate statements made at different times i might also consider them to be at odds (it would probably depend on the context) but as they are contiguous I’m reading it as a statement followed by a clarification.
I agree they probably would have been better understood by merging the two together.
I appreciate your emotional disconnectedness from this debate, by the way. While my initial comment was meant to be tongue in cheek, this has been a good exercise in reading between the lines of written words. However silly and benign this has become lol
Yeah, between the lines took me a really long time to get reasonable at, these interactions help me get better at working through my understanding(or lack thereof)
A Life of Crime
So you’re telling me that this first reply does not state “I can tell you with a straight face that the solution homeless is something other than providing houses. The solution is to provide houses AND assistance”
If you're going to use a quote as a supporting argument at least include the whole quote or it seems like you're purposely missing out the parts that don't support your argument.
the whole reply is:
I can: the solution to homelessness is a combination of mental health ed in schools, free & non-judgemental mental health support (incl. medication), free addiction recovery programs, free food, job & community support, and free housing.
If you just provide free housing, there will be a significant proportion of people who would not be able to fully benefit from it due to mental health issues, addictions, and lack of purpose in life.
The second part adds context to the first, which changes it from a
"The solution is to provide houses AND assistance”
to a
"A more comprehensive (though not complete) solution is to provide houses AND assistance”
Or you’re telling me that “The solution is to provide houses AND assistance” means “providing a house without providing assistance solves the problem” ETA: which then implies that this reply states “I can tell you with a straight that the solution to homelessness is something other than providing houses. Providing houses is sufficient.”
See above
Granted, I did say “not enough” I should have clearly stated that “not enough” is equivalent to “not at all”. Keep in mind this is a generalized statement, so in order for it to be true it must be true across the entire domain.
Somewhat agreed, though that’s is dependant on the criteria for true, but let's go with this for now.
Our domain is homeless people, therefore if adequately helping some but not all homeless people is accomplished then “solving the homeless problem” has not been accomplished; the only thing that accomplishes this goal is to put every person in a home, and the second argument implies that the first one will inevitably cause some of those who do not receive mental health assistance to go homeless again therefore failing to put every person in a home.
Let me break this one down:
You're conflating “solving the homeless problem” and "put every person in a home"
That first argument was never provided as you've written it, nobody was arguing a housing-only solution as a complete solution.
If the first argument is true, that putting people into homes solves the homeless problem, then it is also true that putting people into homes and adequately assisting them also solves the homeless problem. The third argument finally states that the second is false because putting people into homes without help is adequate, as they are in a home. This fails to satisfy the predicate of the second argument, making it an invalid counterpoint. If the predicate is not true, the argument cannot be evaluated therefore the counterpoint is invalid. However, if the predicate of the third argument is true then the second argument is invalid. Hence, I asked for sources.
Putting aside that , again, i wasn't arguing any of those actual points (though i can engage on that if you want to start a separate thread)
That's a load bearing initial if and it's load is resting on a specific interpretation of "solves the homeless problem"
I'm not arguing your algebraic logic here, at a glance it seems fine.
I'm arguing your interpretation of the context.
No one was arguing that housing is the full solution in and of itself, so asking for sources to prove a position not taken doesn't make sense.
(there was one person who seems to be confusedly arguing for housing+ against someone who was also arguing housing+, for some reason)
As i said, boolean algebra only works if the values are correct to start with.
A Life of Crime
This where we disagree and the communication broke down.
It seems we do disagree because even in this reply you provide no justification for assigning a must to an argument that is provided as a should.
The original logical argument is that the solution to homelessness is to provide houses.
Agreed.
Though technically™, and for a very literal definition of homelessness, that is correct.
The arguments that followed look like they are providing counterarguments using a less literal definition, like "modern day homelessness and the causes thereof"
The counterpoint is that providing houses is not enough of a solution
Agreed, emphasis on the not enough, meaning, still partially enough.
and that in order to actually solve the problems that homeless people face, they must also receive the other assistances listed.
This is where our interpretations differ.
I'm reading this as :
and that in order to solve more of the problems that homeless people face, they should
mustalso receive the other assistances listed.
They were providing a possible suggestion to increase the effectiveness of the solution, that's not a must that's a should also
Less of a "It won't work at all without this" vs "yeah, ok, but we should also do this as well"
I'll concede it is a very strong should but it's not close enough to a must to come to "So, if giving both mental health assistance as well as housing assistance is antithetical to housing-first research" as a conclusion.
ETA: Actually, if you’re familiar with Boolean algebra.....
I am familiar with it, boolean algebra doesn't help if the values you are using are faulty.
At this point, I’ll stress I’m not arguing for or against any of the points raised in the actual discussion, my original reply consisted of: "housing-first” doesn’t mean “housing only"
The only thing i've been doing is taking the examples you've provided (and in the original case, the request you made) and pointed out where they seem to rely on faulty interpretations or information not provided.
A Life of Crime
Which portion am I interpreting incorrectly?
The portion contained in the reply you were responding to.
You were asking for sources in response to a specific reply, sources that included only housing and not accompanying mental health support.
i was just saying that the reply you responded to mentioned "housing-first" not "housing-only", so it seemed like you were asking for sources for something that was never mentioned ( in that reply ).
But i'll respond to your reply , point by point.
First reply states that mental health assistance must accompany housing assistance 1.2;
It does not, it posits that mental health support will help a greater proportion of people, there is no must in there.
Next reply states that this goes against the findings of a housing-first approach 2.1:
So i'll concede that this person does seem a bit confused, given that they seem to be arguing the same point as the person they were responding to in what seems to be a fairly hostile manner.
But they still seem to be championing a housing-first approach.
Their next statement makes little sense to me 2.2:
Because the initial reply said to give both, not one or the other 1.1:
Those two statements aren't mutually exclusive.
One is a proposed solution, the other is a somewhat pointless statement, but it's not contradictory.
So, if giving both mental health assistance as well as housing assistance is antithetical to housing-first research, then there must be a study which shows that mental health assistance is either unnecessary or detrimental.
I'm not sure how you're getting from "I think these two things would solve the problem " to "Only thing one is required, thing two is useless and possibly detrimental to the goal".
ETA: If they’re arguing for the same thing, then why did the second person imply that the first one was wrong?
Confusion or misunderstanding probably.
A Life of Crime
Not me you're replying to, but I assume "housing-first" doesn't mean "housing only"
I imagine it's from all the times authority figures from religious organisations that are so zealously espousing "think of the children" have ended up being the very thing they are supposedly fighting against.
I can't speak to the lightheartedness of the intent of the author, but I can say that I personally understand the structure of the humour at play.
Plenty of times a Church has reported it's leaders who were abusing their position and co-operated with law enforcement.
And plenty of times they've done the exact opposite, enough that is is part of the cultural Zeitgeist of multiple nations that religious authority figures have been abusing their power and getting away with it for centuries.
My church's policy is that you report it to the police first.
I mean this genuinely and not as an attack.
I'm not sure how to address that level of naïveté but i will explain it as best I can.
Firstly, I can't imagine there is a single policy written anywhere that states "hide the child abuse from the police" as the official position.
Secondly, I'd wager good money that all the religious institutions and staff at all those places would swear up and down that the policy was to report it to the police and it was a few "bad actors" in an otherwise fundamentally good organisation.
The exception possibly being those very insular cults where the abuses are part of the actual doctrine, in those cases they'd admit to it because they don't see themselves as having some something wrong based on their beliefs.
There are numerous historic and ongoing cases about this, it's not difficult to find.
Even if you personally (or even all the people you know) are 100% following this guideline, it's provably true that that isn't always the case.
"But the rules say we should report them" isn't strong position to defend any size of organised religion in the face of the sheer number of accusations, arrests and investigations to the contrary.
As I said, and I mean it, this isn't an attack on you or yours. You could be absolutely correct about your circle, and I have no issues with individual faith (as long as its not forced upon others).
The issue I have is with trying to defend organised religion as a whole using small anecdotal data as a basis.
Honestly, I want you to be right but "trust me bro" isn't a good argument and you need good arguments, because weak arguments are worse than no arguments at all.
I'm not saying there is an issue. My issue is that the comic is trying to make out that teachers don't abuse.
That's certainly one of the takes of all time.
I'm fairly certain all the comic is implying is that the person talking about pushing for youth pastors in school secretly has csam on their computer.
But im legitimately interested in how you got that take, just because I don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there.
I don't see how a pastor who has passed the same necessary background checks as a teacher (this is required in the UK) is any more of a risk than the secular teachers.
This I agree with in principal, though I would also add that the church (organised religion in general, really) has reputation for protecting it's members for a reason.
I would also add that the equal checks standard isn't in every country.
Assuming the odds are the same for both to be a perpetrator, one of those is anecdotally ( possibly statistically ) more likely to receive protection.
That's a very narrow slice of a supply chain to be using it as a basis for conclusions like that.
I don't disagree that the "shortage" is artificial, i'm just saying that your local store having stock and raising prices isn't a good basis for determining overall supply chain health.
Like looking out your window and seeing rain, so obviously it must be raining everywhere.
Not necessarily, they have been known to shut down accounts they think are trying to evade a ban.
Not sure how sophisticated it is, but it does exist.
What do mean by "cognitive empathy"?
Firstly, i said it "sounds like that", not "this is what they meant", very different things.
Secondly, what exactly is it you think happens when some of these false positives occur ?
I suspect the downvotes are because it sounds like this :
Measures of intelligence are all iffy at best, but I’m pretty sure "being better at raw math" isn't a good one in isolation, especially seeing as that has been the case for a very long time.
CPU's and GPU's are basically just doing really fast math repeatedly.
That aside i'd, challenge you to find a universally accepted definition of "human intelligence" that works as a benchmark we can also use to measure machine intelligence.
afaik, we're still murky on whether or not we are just really efficient specialised computers working with electric meat instead of electric stone.
The term normally used when talking about MI that is similar enough to human intelligence is AGI and even then, there's not consensus on what that actually means.