You don’t know how peer reviewed science works, and aren’t worth talking to.

The fact that you think that providing housing doesn’t work, when we have multiple countries worldwide that prove it does, just goes to show that you are a selfish bigot that doesn’t want to solve the problem.

ok here’s my argument: most homeless people aren’t like you describe, these kinds of programs benefit the vast majority and the tolerance of failure lies within expected bounds to believe the program is an overwhelming success (as evinced by the links above).

Although I fail to see how that couldn’t have just been taken as read by any sensible reader.

We’re not talking about beggars we’re talking about the homeless. it’s ironic to change topic while accusing me of logical fallacies.

I’m sorry you’re not interested in how these ideas have actually been implemented and the level of success they show, but to me that’s the only interesting part. It’s all well and good saying “this solution will/won’t work” but it’s, to me at least, only the testing that matters.

As I just asked someone else: do you really believe that a single failure in a system means the whole thing isn’t worth it? the example I used above is penicillin. As at least one person is allergic, and at least one person experiences no effect: does that mean that penicillin is considered ineffectual to bacterial infections? That seems silly to me, which is why I ask what your threshold for success is here.

You: you need to provide sources

Also you: I’m right, I don’t need sources, you’re moving the goalposts, ignore the fact that I have moved the goalposts.

Fuck you, and your bad faith bullshit.