Hah ha. You just admitted that Shepard's college degree, resume, and references have no significance in the world of the day labor cattle call. And neither does his white skin.

Only if you're of the opinion that education only serves one as a piece of paper. Yes, I did not have to give my resume. Yes, being educated made a difference. By your reasoning, someone wiht a 5 IQ would have the same shot in day labor as someone with a 140. And simply stating that white skin makes no difference doesn't make it so, htough I am aware that you're not interested in talking about reality, only the fantasy world you create.

Gonna quit lying about it now? And if you are, are you ready to answer the real questions:

What am I lying about?

Is work a path out of homelessness?

Every single person on this thread has essentially said that it can be. I have explicitly said so.

I'm starting to think you're just not very bright.

Waste of time.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Cranius wrote: the findings are the 'study' are specious

Can anyone work their way out of homelessness? Liberal robots really struggle with acknowledging that work is an escape from homelessness for anyone, Shepard or 'real', as their laughable outrage at Shepard has shown throughout this thread. Because if the liberal robots acknowledge that, then they have to answer this question: why are you so unwilling to ask the homeless to go to work, if you admit that work improves their lives?

Maybe Cranius will claim that anyone who has worked their way out of homelessness has proven that they never were 'real' homeless in the first place. Possibly, in every success story, the liberals will find some reason to disqualify the successful from the category of 'real homeless'.

Look at you...you're taking an isolated case and making it universal. Another fallacy...you're on a roll!

bigc wrote:I worked day labor during breaks and one summer in college because I needed the flexibility, and the pay was better than I could get at the telemarketing and crappy food service jobs that existed in Athens for college kids in the summer. Since I was willing to get up at 5 AM (I thought I was so tough...ROLLINS!) and work my ass off until 5 or 6 PM, and was physcially capable, the day laboring worked out well for me...cash in hand, flexible non-committal hours and not much in the way of applications, drug tests and other lame formalities. I was acutely aware that I was treated differently because there was a (correct) assumption that day laboring was by choice and temporary.

Very similiar to my experience.

My current job isn't exactly high flying, but I can still say that I get favorable treatment due to my educational background. ie. I got a bunch of paid vacation days over Christmas, I get preferential shifts.

Another thing I should add is how awesome labour centre/temp firms are to you if you're graduate/in education. I was unemployed for a few months in 2005, and I got great help from employment and recruitment workers. The focus was long term, i.e. work in a warehouse, it'll show people skills or work with inbound calls not outbound, it'll show how you can deal with problems. One guy I called kept me on the 'phone for nearly 35 minutes windbagging about how I could get a good career if I played my cards right.

There was an understanding that I really wanted a high paying clerical job and I was trying to get there as quickly as possible, or at least fill in time between university courses.

I doubt if a 40 year old alcoholic goes for a production job, the recruitment guy will tell him "Kid, don't take this job, wait for something in a postroom or warehouse, you'd be able to work your way up to doing timesheets and team management".

Apparently, physical attacks on the homeless are on the rise.

I was attacked in the street once. I managed to get away without harm. Was I a testament to the ability of homeless people to avoid street violence?

Well, at the time, I was in good physical shape, I was able to run faster than my assailants, and I wasn't sleeping in a box on the ground when the attack began.

I think this analogy is fitting.

Rick Rebuen wrote:Can anyone work their way out of homelessness? Liberal robots really struggle with acknowledging that work is an escape from homelessness for anyone, Shepard or 'real', as their laughable outrage at Shepard has shown throughout this thread. Because if the liberal robots acknowledge that, then they have to answer this question: why are you so unwilling to ask the homeless to go to work, if you admit that work improves their lives?

Of course work is a path out of homelessness. As a modern cocktail party liberal robot, let me be clear: the help we're talking about in this thread is geared toward getting the homeless off the street and into a job.

For a pretend-homeless cock like Adam Shepard, the path from homelessness to a job to relative self-sufficiency is pretty straightforward. He already has his health, an education and a firm grasp of the realities of seeking and maintaining employment.

For the chronically homeless, the path is more complicated. It starts with basic needs: food, shelter and safety. From there it might involve recovery from disease, addiction or mental illness, or all three. It will likely require education and job training, even basic literacy. It involves arrangements for transitional housing, child care, transportation, the whole deal.

All of these programs cost money. None of them is a profit center, and so will always be undesirable investments for the private sector. The demand is too great for charity alone to make a dent.

Yet all of these programs are frequently cut, minimized or defunded entirely by right-wing cocks who are convinced that the only help the homeless need is a swift kick in the ass. These would be the same "get a job" right-wing cocks, to whom Shepard is directly appealing with his phony experiment. This is the source of our collective disgust.

Cranius wrote:

Earwicker wrote:A twat has been a twat and as a result a lot of people seem to have stopped thinking clearly.

There's loads of clear, concise, focused and well-presented argument here. Take issue with their conclusions, by all means. But to characterise it as unclear thinking, makes it seem as if you aren't up to the task of rebuttal.

You missed the bit where I said that the thing people seem unclear about is where this fella simulated homelessness and pulled himself out of it.
He did do that.
People here seem to have suggested that he didn't do that.
And where I read up to folks were still saying he didn't (I skipped several pages of what seemed to be the same thing being said over and over)

Cranius wrote:If you google, you'll see his agenda (if it's not blatant enough already) laid out for you, enunciated for all to see. He has has an intent and will to find, what is already for him, a forgone conclusion. So the findings are the 'study' are specious, as has already endlessly been reiterated.

I agree, that's why I said above that I'm surprised people are still going on about him. You are labouring under the misapprehension that I think this fella is right in thinking that all homeless just need to help themselves.

I don't.

Though I am willing to face the fact that some do.

By and large I feel no need to rebut anything.

Have an argument with yourself in that case.

Which is ultimately what arguing with people on the internet is.