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.

The game has been explained and being prosocial is pretty much in your bones, so we also got help from the get go. Do you want a book that mentions MySpace and ketamine? The base is there, things can follow or not, not everything needed to be said nor could they have been without being massively confusing for anyone listening to the message presently. People who transgress greatly (all the pedos in American politics, for instance) do it not out of ignorance but because they simply don’t care. Out of ignorance you might do something small, not rape or murder. It’s not that the text wasn’t available, it’s not that they haven’t heard what they should do or not do forever, this is evidenced by the way people who transgress greatly do it discreetly. They know, they just don’t care. How to make people care? Actually believing in God’s judgment is a way, believing in a non-negotiable encounter in which all your deeds are weighed and we all get what we deserve (and no confession or whatever religious trick could help you escape it). Idk other ways (no, recognising people die when they’re killed or suffer when they’re raped is not enough, else Kissinger and company would’ve been moral, lol, the is-ought problem remains a thing), and by default some will care more than others.

The game has been explained poorly, and your reply lists a bunch of scenarios that aren't nearly as cut and dry as you make them out to be.

And you only reinforce my point about the only official "guide" we have being a book written and maintained by shitty people over thousands of years not being a convincing argument for an omnipotent, omniscient deity.

Again with the "my morality is the only morality".

You want an objective fact?

Spoken and written language (on paper at least) is a poor medium for long term (hundreds of years) accurate transmission of data.

There are chronological shifts in meaning and usage, geographic differences, without even mentioning translation between entirely different languages.

There are words and concepts that exist in some languages and not in others.

The quintessential example of this is the game "telephone".

The explanation of "the game" we have right now is thousands of years of these small shifts deep in changes.

Even if it "were" 100% accurate it's till open to linguistic and cultural interpretation.

There are/were times and places when killing certain groups of people wasn't considered murder, because they weren't considered people, and people of religion who were perfectly fine with it because someone they had faith in said "god said it's cool, so don’t worry". Not unlike you are now.

Before you come back with "i never said killing certain people was fine", you know that isn't what i meant, I’m (still) talking about that "my morality is the only morality" surety you've been using to pretend nuance doesn't exist.

"Murder" as a word means different things to different cultures at different times.

Same for adultery, stealing/theft, love, neighbour.

And on people justifying atrocities with their beliefs… I mean, sure, if you’re a Paulian Trinitarian who believes belief and acts are fundamentally disconnected, and striving to be moral is not as important as “grace” and “understanding Jesus (a man) is God”. Basically, if you take the tenets of Roman Catholicism and any offshoot seriously (and not, let’s say, the TC and the Sermon on the Mount), I can see how one could say A and do B and still pretend they’re more A than B. Only someone mentally off would think “oh but they said they were religious and believed in God” and take it seriously, lol. Come on, now, by their fruits you’ll recognise them. But how do you justify atrocities as a Mosaic monotheist, for instance? How do you go on a Crusade, so not a defensive war but you’re moving thousands of kms to murder and pillage? How? You can either go on a Crusade and not believe in God’s laws and His judgement or you don’t go but do believe, they cannot both coexist… because you know all of this is a one way ticket to hell and you’d have to be a maniac to understand hell as the most terrible thing ever and still choose to jump into it through your actions!

Absolute tripe, the crusades, the witch burnings, holy wars of all denominations, ethnic cleansings, the missionaries, fundamentalist paramilitaries, christofascists, honour killings, child brides, zealotry in general.

The long long history of child abuse in organised religions and the covering up of said abuse.

A lot of those were/are being undertaken by the leading authorities in whatever cult was/is in power at the time, individual fundamentalism and zealotry aside.

You can't sanely claim the texts are clear and in the same breath say "but those thousands/millions of nutjobs obviously didn't read it properly", that's mental gymnastics of a level only spoken in hushed whispers by the firelight.

I mean you can/are but you probably shouldn't, i know i'm not taking you seriously, maybe i'm the minority here.

Though i will say the lol's do make for a convincing rebuttal.

You can "no true scotsman" as much as you like but it's not a convincing argument.

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)

Viewpoints haven’t been proposed, at least not any I’d disagree with or that go outside of the framework of Mosaic laws, for example. Only additions (“why no rape? Include no raping!”) that make sense and follow from/do not leave the same virtuous paradigm.

Is that in response to something said or just a statement ?

And saying that a death caused by self defense is not the same as violently going outside starting shit/killing people are not similar things just because someone died and that you’d have to be in a coma not to realize it is a pretty lukewarm take, lol.

So....“Only people in a coma wouldn’t come to the same exact interpretation as i have”

That aside, you're response to that reply was essentially:

• an agreement that it's open to interpretation
• you agreeing that your interpretation is similar to theirs

then proceeding to claim that western imperialism is because people don’t have the exact same interpretation as you.

Then for some reason pretending they were arguing against their own interpretation because they don't like the vagueness of the original.

And finally, saying some things are A and others are B, that truth exists regardless of our ability to get to it, and that not everything can change on the basis of our whims (right and wrong in every situation, for example, but it’s beyond morality) is just an epistemological stance.

An epistemological stance that conveniently doesn't require you to actually engage with any argument you don't want to "because it just is".

Nothing about faith, or religion, just how you see the world.

"Some things just are" is one of the the very definitions of faith (firm belief in something for which there is no proof)

And the Qur’an? You mentioned wanting something solid, something extensive and well written and I know that, besides the fact that I’m lazy and easily distracted and will probably never write anything, even if I did write something of quality on the topic, it would not be better than the Qur’an. I can’t even write to the level of Ecclesiastes and that’s just Solomon speaking from lived and analysed experience! That’s another book recommendation, btw, it’s in the Bible.

Ah, i see, yeah, no.

If it can be taken and used to justify atrocities, it's not solid enough.

All the current religious texts have the same problem i described before.

If i'm going to follow the rules from an omniscient, omnipotent deity on how not to end up in an eternal suffering made specifically as punishment for not following said rules, that shit needs to be ironclad.

Otherwise that's just someone setting up their own torture-based reality drama series with the deck stacked against us.

Why does it even need to be in writing, there are clearer ways to signal an imminent fuckup if you are all powerful.

You can also save your "but free will" argument as well, i'm not saying don't let us do stupid shit, I’m saying use the infinite power and understanding to devise as way to absolutely certain we understand the game being played.

A three thousand year game of textual telephone with malicious actors inbetween, is not that.

Fuck-it, an indestructible book(even a pamphlet) everyone has their own copy of that can't be lost or stolen would do it.

If it can't be codified like that then it's guidelines that are open to interpretation and i'm good with figuring that shit out myself.

But I’m not saying anything wild, or at least I don’t think so, you’d have to point it out to me.

I would consider "Only people in a coma wouldn't come to the same exact interpretation as i have" to be fairly non-standard.

Not wild exactly, but certainly subjectively arrogant.

“God will judge us all for our actions so be a righteous and virtuous boy/girl, a good slave of the Divine, to whom we all owe everything to”

That's a supremely weak foundation for actual conversation, not only is it couching your own interpretation as fact it's also one of the strongest reasons you might not be considered to be conversing in good faith.

It amounts to:

"I believe we all owe god everything so you must follow along with my personal interpretation of what they are expecting, because i say god says it must be so"

If your reasoning boils down to "because god said so" that's not a conversation, that's a dictate because you can't reason with someone who's only basis is faith.

To me, that's almost the exact reason organised religion is the greatest impediment to personal faith and/or worship.

Because when you take that attitude and scale it up, organised religion is the result and it leaves no room for anything else.

Btw, unironically, and remembering that whatever Western anti-islamic, racist take was pushed to get support for the Western/American wars in the Middle East, my best advice to you is to read the Qur’an. For real for real. “Qur’an: a Monotheist Translation” is a freely available app. And don’t forget that God is just Allah in English!

I'm not sure how that is related to anything being said, but genuinely, to what end?

All of the organised religions (cults over a certain size) have done heinous shit over the years, in conjunction with nations, empires, tribes etc.

Same as with basically all of the nations that have existed, using othering(religion being a top contender in that list) to justify whatever bullshit they want to do.

start believing in objective reality and ethics

Isn't going to work if all of the surrounding statements from you are based in faith.

some things just are or aren’t

or "it is, because i/god said so"

Isn't a basis for arguing objectivity, it's hiding behind faith as a means to not have to actually engage.

Your whole conversation history in this thread has been variations on "My interpretation is correct/the baseline moral standard you should all be adhering to should be the same as mine/I’m surprised you don't understand/i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith don't understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correct"

That's not a good faith conversation, that's a repetitive statement.

Actually , before we get on to the original response, which, while somewhat sarcastic is a legitimate offer.

I do have an actual question, are you , as an individual allowed to claim that your interpretation is the correct one?

Like in a religious sense, wouldn't claiming to be the only one with the real understanding of god's intentions be some kind of blasphemy ( sort of like claiming you're a prophet ).

Now, on to the actual response.

It sounds like you have the inside track on the correct interpretation of the sentences.

It's clear we are all struggling with coming to the correct conclusions with the information available, why don't you save us all the trouble of trying to figure out what was actually meant and publish a book with very clear, step by step definitions.

I, legitimately, would benefit from being able to reference something that could 100% keep me out of the bad place.

The existing texts are generically vague, linguistically shifting, contextually contradictory and subjective in many ways.

Not to mention thousands of years old and filtered through many many generations of truly shitty organisational power structures that changed them suit their own desires for power or control.

A genuine guide that covers all the contextual and subjective nuances would be a literal godsend.

Send me a link when you've published, I’ll even pre-order (well, I’ll probably look at the reviews first, I’m not an idiot)

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 ~~must~~ also 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.

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.

I could be wrong but I've only ever heard it used to refer to black people (not all poc's) acting violent or loudly.

Wikipedia agrees with me.

Like how they imagine a chimpanzee would act, I assume.

Im not expecting great depth of thought from people using this phrase knowing it's origin.

I understand that some LLM's have this capability.

I thought you were comparing two similar things, like Gemini was integrated with another social media platform somewhere providing the same, easily accessible, integrated means of creating these kinds of images.

Seems that it's just vague whattaboutism on your part.

From what i saw gemini also did it.

Citation?

TL;DR;

Your reply doesn't make sense because it seems you didn't understand what was said. (intentionally or unintentionally)

Ah, so you just picked a subject that was gun related but not actually related to the reply, to be angry about.

That could still be you missing the point accidentally i suppose.

OK, how about i lay out what was said, and you can see how your reply doesn't relate to it at all.

This is the exact moment the 2nd amendment was meant for. Now behold ! Literally 0 of the 2nd amendment guys will do anything about it…

Translation:

The 2nd amendment people are loud about protecting their right to guns, a large part of which is the need for said guns to be available in the case of a corrupt government arising that would require armed resistance, a "well regulated militia" , so to speak.

And yet here we are with the government shooting civilians in the streets and the 2nd amendment people are nowhere to be seen.

So, let check you reply for relevance against the original statement:

2nd amendment isn’t just for the 2nd amendment guys. Attacking gun rights when the left will likely need them in the coming years is short sighted.

Nobody was attacking gun rights.

To attempt satire by saying that a right wing facist advocating for gun rights, is also expected to advocate for my rights is weakness in the face of aggression.

Nobody mentioned fascists or requiring anyone to advocate for anyone else's rights.

The right doesn’t laugh at the satire, they laugh at you.

I'm not sure how this relates to either the original message you responded to, or your reply to it.

I will say however that a basic level of reading comprehension and good faith (the latter more than the former) would be required before i personally cared about someone's opinion of me, laughter included.

You undermine your own defense with others on the left.

As we've established above, this is also unrelated.

Also, "anybody who doesn't agree with me is a lefty" is a weak foundation for both conversation and understanding.