kitnaht @ kitnaht @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

980

Joined

1 yr. ago

The ol' we can't save everyone so why save anyone argument

It's obvious reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. You must have missed the point where I said housing should first go to people without these deficits. You know...like 6 posts ago...

You've sat there and put words in my mouth, made strawman arguments, ad hominem attacks against me...

Do you know how to debate a point at all? Because you're failing at every step of the way...

Then it's clear you're not actually reading any of the conversation here. Maybe go back and read the topic at hand, come back when you've got a good grasp on it.

This topic isn't about housing, it's about housing specifically for the maladapted, psychotic, drug addicts, etc. Many here are arguing that giving them a house would make them ALL BETTER and turn them into functioning, productive members of society...

What are you talking about? This is a post about the homeless littering the streets, not any of the bullshit you espouse here. And I'm not arguing for any of the shit you listed either. So your entire argument is a strawman, full stop.

I don't gotta take ANY time because you're all off in left field talking about something else OTHER than the conversation we're having ENTIRELY.

You've lost sight of what this conversation was about, and have gone off on some wild-ass rant about all the other things you're mad about. Maybe go back about 4-6 posts and RE-READ, with an attention to understanding what we're talking about instead of reading with the intention of rebuttal and then rejoin the conversation. I get that you're mad about what's happening to the world right now, we all are. We don't need to be giving "homeless" (read: Drug Addicts, Severely Mentally ill, People who are mal-adapted to society) housing. We need to be getting them medical care, locking them up in asylums to keep them out of the general population without treating them like criminals (though many of them are), and getting them psychological help.

You've all missed the forest for the trees here, and it's sad because you only argue it because Musk said something and you HAVE to disagree with it. Doesn't matter what it is, you MUST, because instead of looking at what he's saying, all you care about is making sure that you disagree with him. You can disagree with him as a person, and he can still be right occasionally (a broken clock is right twice a day). In this case, he's right. But your solution (giving them housing) is short-sighted, immature, naive and has had no long-term thought put into it at all.

Go live in a place with a homeless population. Go try and help them. Many aren't capable of being helped. And the only people who think like you do, are people who haven't experienced it.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"

This phrase relates to the active resistance of people doing evil things. Holy crap you can't even get your retort to make any sense.

https://www.euronews.com/2023/03/16/why-are-so-many-young-finns-dying-from-drug-abuse

Yeah, sure looks like you're doing GREAT. You only have the highest deaths from drugs under age 25 among your population, you can start the "We're #1!" chant now...I guess...

Only Sweden and Ireland pass you in the overall drug deaths per population. You SURE are proud!

How does telling you the truth about the homeless population benefit me in any way, shape, or form?

You haven't passed the bar to call me "selfish". Sure, I might be an asshole, but this isn't one of those times either. The reality is that we can't help everyone, and some people aren't saveable. You can't point to Sweden or Finland as answers either, because they have the highest per-capita drug deaths of other euro nations.

The first step is to have a little dose of reality. The world isn't sunshine and lollipops, and the proposed solutions just end up creating slum-housing and spreading the problem around. I've seen it put into effect before with horrible outcomes. The path to hell is paved with good intentions and all...

That isn't how genetics work and it isn't how intelligence works.

On a simplified level, it absolutely is. If having more kids gives an evolutionary advantage, and being unintelligent is part of that caste, then absolutely the children will be born with a lower capacity for intelligence.

Look at Huskeys vs other dogs. Massive, MASSIVE difference in personality, intelligence, energy, etc.

And they aren't a different species either - it takes fractions of a % of difference in DNA to produce huge swings in things like intelligence.

If we share something like 90% of our DNA with monkeys, it's not going to take an entire speciation to measure intelligence differences. This is a lie told by people who pretend to be scientists, but are more interested in the moral implications of confirming than they are truth and facts. Yes, telling people you can control the genetic population of the species to push for certain outcomes within the species in a dangerous thing. We get that. But that is the truth of the matter, not some fairy-tale that we're all kumbyah and that every genetically distinct population doesn't have advantages and disadvantages (of which there are hundreds or thousands of distinct genetic populations within the h. sapien species; If you're a pacific islander, a DNA test can tell you exactly what island you originate from).

Sure, on an individual level - people as single data-points can fall upon that distribution, but you absolutely can shift that distribution up or down.

Granted, doing genetic control like this comes with its own incredibly dangerous set of consequences such as amplification of mutant genome, because you would be controlling for 1 trait, but missing the other millions of traits/genetic markers that you need to keep diverse in order to keep the human body working. -- Again, using dogs as a reference here, how most dalmations have hearing problems or are completely deaf because when their line was bred, they were controlling for the patterning, not other genetic defects.

If we bred for it, we could make it happen. That's the point.

Also, it isn't unscientific. They've done it in rat/mouse studies. Look up mouse utopia. We aren't immune to social collapse. As a species we aren't that smart to begin with. It's our social structure, public schooling, etc that allow us to advance early age and maintain the higher order thought that our society continues to have. When shit goes sideways, kids don't have public schools any more, etc -- you'll see how stupid genetically, we all are.

I have friends, who are legitimately "mentally stunted" because they weren't taught language due to a neglective environment.

It's spending years in complete isolation, being constantly ignored by everyone around you and having no one to talk to that makes you act like this.

I mean, yeah - it's that AND the meth.

Wouldn't these people become tax payers? Employees contributing to society? Become future homebuyers and start a family?

The very smallest of small percent of them would. Most drug addicts never make it out of poverty because they've done something to also give them a criminal record and typically can't hold down a job.

What do you want to do, give them a house? -- because we closed down all the asylums. That's where we used to house them. I'd rather give mentally healthy people the houses.

TV shows almost look like OW MY BALLS today; with newer smart TVs injecting ads into content that isn't even theirs.

We've got a president doing McDonalds buffets for events, suggesting people "inject light" into their veins for medical intervention, wanting to rename greenland to "Red White and Blueland"...

Nah. That shit hits far too close to home.

And if other animals can be bred for specific traits, so can humans. We're not special in any way regarding that. Rejecting that because of how it was incorrectly used to justify horrible things in the past is flat out unscientific.

Gender Fluid? You mean like the kind you clean up with a mop and bucket?

Idiocracy. We're basically dumping brawndo on the plants as we speak...

I've only ever done those speeds on a VERY clear interstate highway with little to no traffic, in my dumbass teenage years - honestly it's a miracle I didn't get myself killed; looking back it was absolutely irresponsible, but damn it was fun :D

That's about 40mph faster than I've ever driven, and even in a sports car it gets squirrely VERY fast at those speeds. Holy shit.

Venezuela has tons of billionaires I bet. It's not about the number, it's about the inequality at the tippy top.

Honestly, I say anyone who listens to any kind of broadcast-anything at this point is an unfortunate part of the system.

Even your typical "left leaning" news conglomerates have failed to report and make people as outraged as they should be. Nobody understands the depth of the situation we're in, except - it seems - academics, and people who are paying attention to multiple non-US sources.