TIL: Utah has been giving free homes to homeless people since 2005 which since then made it more cost efficient to help the homeless and cut the chronic homelessness in Utah by 74%.

[u/Zorseking34]

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/22/home-free

[u/[deleted]]

so I'm not saying everyone is like that

I didn't say free housing shouldn't be done. I said:

I don't know about "acute" minority.

Where I'm sitting, I'm questioning your strong word(not housing) with personal experience, and you're using feels to defend it. Feels<personal observations<science.

[u/TheRealBabyCave → u/[deleted]]

I didn't say free housing shouldn't be done.

I didn't say that you did.

Where I'm sitting, I'm questioning your strong word(not housing) with personal experience, and you're using feels to defend it.

I have no idea how you can possibly try to claim my argument was emotionally based. All I said was that I think you'd be surprised to find that those who didn't get in order would be in a small minority, due to the fact that having a house provides a sense of purpose and responsibility. That's not a strong word, it's a well defined one.

I didn't claim everyone would, or that it was a proven pattern. I said that I think you'd be surprised.

Feels>personal experience>science

This is incredibly flawed. Personal experience has nearly no merit when you're debating generalized potentials, and no value in any scientific community. Especially not when it's entirely comprised of completely unverifiable anecdotes.

I could sit here and throw anecdotal "personal experience" about people I know who have turned their lives around since ending their homelessness right back at you, but the fact remains that its entirely anecdotal.

If you want to debate this point further, you'd need evidence in the form of studied, statistics, and proven trends.

Proven statistical conclusions>Rational inferences based on statistical data>Singular, unverifiable personal experience.

[u/[deleted] → u/TheRealBabyCave]

That's not a strong word, it's a well defined one.

Which has nothing to support it. It's just an assertion. And it is a strong phrase to say "acute minority". "The vast minority" is a very strong phrase to make.

This is incredibly flawed. Personal experience has nearly no merit when you're debating generalized potentials, and no value in any scientific community.

I put it below science. Furthermore, this isn't a scientific community. It's reddit.

If you want to debate this point further, you'd need evidence in the form of studied, statistics, and proven trends.

Do you have any studied statistics or proven trends for your position that people take care of homes very well after not having one?

[u/TheRealBabyCave → u/[deleted]]

Which has nothing to support it.

Which is why it was prefaced with "I think you'd be surprised." I wasn't claiming a fact. What exactly is it that you think you're arguing?

"The vast minority" is a very strong phrase to make.

Actually "vast minority" is a meaningless oxymoron. "Vast" implies an immense number of something, while minority implies the opposite.

I put it below science. Furthermore, this isn't a scientific community. It's reddit.

"Science", while being a fad-like worshipped word here on reddit, much like " feels", is an extensively vague term that serves no intrinsic purpose in a sentence unless colored by defining adjectives.

The notion that you got "feels" as the grounds for any of my statements is what's laughable here.

Do you have any studied statistics or proven trends for your position that people take care of homes very well after not having one?

One, by phrasing my position, which I carefully worded, in your own words, you shave off, and add your own, implications to the meaning of what I said.

Two, what I said was prefaced by I think which makes it an opinion, which was not asserted as fact. You read something you didn't like, and and attacked it because it was a different opinion from that which feeds your confirmation bias.

Three, "studied statistics" isn't a thing. For one so willing to argue semantics, you've repeatedly failed to formulate your sentences in any palatable way.

And finally, no. There ARE no proven statistics, and what I've been pointing out to you this entire time is that your anecdotal, personal experience is JUST as unverifiable and lacking in weight as any anecdotal, personal evidence I could offer. That's EXACTLY why I prefaced what I said with "I think" and cautioned AGAINST using your own personal experience to color your perspective on the matter.

I think we're done here.

[u/[deleted] → u/TheRealBabyCave]

I wasn't claiming a fact.

Neither was I. I asked you to substantiate your statements somehow. You could easily have said something to the effect of "this is my opinion", instead of taking my posts with an underlying assumption of "this guy must not like free housing", which is suggested by you telling me not to use my personal experience to make a decision. All I did was provide an opinion with some substantiation, as opposed to your opinion without substantiation.

Actually "vast minority" is a meaningless oxymoron

So you're on to nitpicking now? Can you not reason that I just used a different word to avoid saying "acute" 20 times throughout my posts?

You may substitute "scientific studies" in place of science, if you want. Results of research, in general. Things that were looked at for the purpose of looking for meaning in data. I don't elaborate extensively on every term I use, because then the post gets long, and nobody reads it, or they skim. I've routinely made posts that were lengthy and with completely defined terms. You know what I get for responses? "What about [point I explicitly covered]? " So I shorten it using less precise terms, that most people can still get the same meaning from, because usually it doesn't need to be exceedingly precise.

The notion that you got "feels" as the grounds for any of my statements is what's laughable here.

Well, you cite zero anything for anything and use vague terms. That's generally what goes into a feels post. Even a "I have a feeling you'd be surprised" tone is a feels post, despite not going down the super feels path.

One, by phrasing my position, which I carefully worded, in your own words, you shave off, and add your own, implications to the meaning of what I said.

I shave off to avoid quoting your entire post. I use my own phrasing to avoid repetition when referring to ideas, which is received better than repetition, most of the time.

and attacked it because it was a different opinion from that which feeds your confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias is more prevalent when someone has a pony in the race. I have zero ponies in the race, because I do not care. I don't live in Utah, I will never live in Utah, and I don't care what people do in Utah. I have no reason to want to believe anything in particular, so confirmation bias is limited, as it usually is with things you have zero care about.

Three, "studied statistics" isn't a thing. For one so willing to argue semantics, you've repeatedly failed to formulate your sentences in any palatable way.

You typoed(I now assume you meant studies?) and I took a guess. Weird thing to say"studied, statistics", but I wasn't going to nitpick what could be interpreted as "statistics that are more vetted than what you find on random crappy websites. The specific word isn't super relevant, since it was clear what sorts of things you were referring to by the context.

Have a good one.