Let me ask you something...

If the government invested in installing increased mental health and life skills classes in highschools, make it requirement every semester... would it have an appreciable decrease on future poverty rates?



If you answer yes, then your position on the applicability of my perspective on all those people you've helped is without merit.

that question isn't about your initial point at all. its not at all relevant to anything we have talked about.

no one is disputing the idea that mental health issues can lead to poverty and homelessness. of course liberal policies of increases in funding and access to mental health and physical healthcare would reduce poverty and homelessness.

you and whoever else started this dumb derail saying if poor people "behaved" better they wouldn't be poor anymore and talked about welfare fraud..

now you're trying to backtrack and attempt to make your argument slightly more sensical, but this isn't remotely what we were discussing earlier

Poverty and homelessness are their own mental health issues that can't be cured with only counseling.

ya I mean thats kind of the point. millenials are forced to work harder and take on a multitude of ventures to make ends meet. boomers were just given a great job without even graduating HS and could buy a house with a button an penny.

poor people need to pay money just to cash their pay checks.

I know what fixes poverty and homelessness

So, the answer to life skills question, ignoring the mental health issues, is it will not impact poverty levels, because behavior is not the issue. Cool. I disagree. (And I call bullshit on mental health issues not being prevalent with your clients)


Love your alternated phrasing "behavior is the cause/issue, and you alter it to say 'behaved better'.....

Typical boomer

I don't get how people don't realize this. Millennials get ****ed up the ass so hard in so many ways it's ridiculous.

I understand that it can be hard to look past one’s own role or passive participation in a particular group, ie “not all men”, “not all white people”, “all lives matter”, and now “not all boomers” etc, but here’s the thing: If you feel the need in these instances to point out the exceptions, then you aren’t the exception.

Stop gaslighting marginalized groups and centering your own egos in discourse about the oppression other people face.

Hmmm...not one rebuttal in this post.

I'm one of the lucky ones and will be able to get what I want in the future. I just feel sad for all my peers who will have a hard time even thou they worked harder than their parents. It's just a sad state of affairs.

What makes things worse are my peers in similar positions as myself who just blame everyone below them as if they were the only ones who worked hard.

Why is it so hard for boomers just to admit that they had it easier and made it harder for everyone else?

I have no idea what you’re trying to say. You’ve changed the argument so many times now I don’t even know what your point is. No where did I say mental health was prevalent, that simply isn’t what you were initially arguing. If you came in here with a reasonable increased funding for mental health would help homeless people no one would have batted an eye because that’s obvious. However it’s also directly against conservative bootstrap ideology..

Behavior isn’t the cause/issue. “Welfare queens” aren’t the cause/issue. Those claims that you made are false in the large majority of cases outside of your sample size of 1 plus some people you may/may not have information on.

Finally someone said it.

can't even take a simple joke

senile old people at it again

It just occurred to that the word boomer while technically referring to baby boomers, also unknowingly ascribes to them the economic state from which they benefited, the 'Boom' corresponding with and experienced through gradual Quantitative Easing. This next generation with be the baby busters....jkjk

Retorting to someone OK boomer can be funny at times but it is kinda disrespectful imo and overused

If I could trust that you would acknowledge you made some mistakes when reading my post, I'd lay it out of for you. The gist is, you only responded to selective bits, ignored others, and modified a bit. Like your previous post focusing on mental health, ignoring the other component I listed. Then I bring it up, and you are like, "what are you talking about". However, you are going to insist I'm the one talking sideways, so we should just let it end.


----------

You spent a day telling me my experience was not indicative of the population at large....then say this:



I'm not the one talking sideways.


-------------


Then you talk about how it's not behavior that keeps people in poverty, which is just absurd. It's just wrong (with the exception of disabled folks, old people, and children).


You seem to think pointing to behavior that leads to poverty is some sort of moral judgement. For instance, when symptoms of schizophrenia manifest via behavior, it's not "behaving badly," as your edited version of my statement indicated. You have to be beyond ignorant not to think those behaviors lead to bad outcomes for the person.

Same thing with life skills. Having sex while you are a teen, even if it's unprotected, is not "behaving badly", but it is behavior that can put you behind the eight ball when it comes to a persons future financial positioning. This is an example of one behavior, there are tons more such as buying cars, buying phones, credit cards, living arrangements....(unwilling to live in a poor neighborhood, which started this) there is a significant list. Since we know poverty is a cycle, chances are kids are never taught behaviors from parents that will lead to financial success, and they will rely on what they've seen, and repeat it, generally.


Maybe if you did not warp what I said, you would not be so confused right now, but lefties will argue themselves into pretzels to avoid acknowledging behavior is the issue. You really think I believe your all your clients made life decisions that should lead to financial success, and they are just getting held down by what ever -ism, billionaire, or boomer? Nonsense. Every single person, with the exception of disabled folks that were in the shelters with me, made bad decisions....those decisions were preceded by a laundry list of issues they experienced, mental illness, emotional trauma which always leads to some sort of disorder that leads to behavior that's not conducive for financial success, or no parents, or bad parents, or good parents but were not equipped with the skills to make good decisions, etc etc. I do not believe your experience is different than the multiple different shelters/programs I was a part of.

I'm not quite a boomer but I get what you're saying. But it's not that they're worse people, many had it pretty good and enjoyed it like anyone else would of any place or time.

But I think people tend to be focused a) too much on those who had it best and b) too little on the good things developed since then. Many boomers had it awful and I think anyone given the option of being born as a random person growing up now or back then (even in the 1st world) would be making a very bad mistake to choose back then.

I didn’t confuse anything. You said something that was incorrect and prejudiced and instead of understanding and realizing that, you’ve doubled and tripled down and tried to expand your argument to include certain things that aren’t factually incorrect to look better.

We can stop talking about it now if you’d prefer. Your experience is your experience. It certainly isn’t the standard, nor is it the rule, nor is it particularly persuasive as an argument for proof of anything let alone what you’re trying to prove.

It’s simply bad logic. I’m sorry it got pointed out to you by multiple people.

Tell us more about how yours is, though.


You just invalidated the basis of your rebuttal, both from a logical perspective, and an experience perspective.

I don’t even know how to respond to that. I guess you win. Your arguments have become so nonsensical that I withdraw.

You win the ben Shapiro debate awards.

Your experience is your experience. It certainly isn’t the standard, nor is it the rule, nor is it particularly persuasive as an argument for proof of anything let alone what you’re trying to prove.

I'm not taking credit for a win, when the opponent beat themselves.

And in case someone did not figure it out, slighted is full of ****....if he worked thousands of cases, he could not possible get intimately familiar enough with peoples life situation to really make a determination. So, he either worked "thousands of cases", and did not know them, or he worked a few and got to know the people he was helping. Maybe he meant hundreds.

My experiences is somewhere around 4,000 people. Yours is you.

If you can’t understand the difference between these there is no hope for you dude.

To think me saying your experience is only your experience is equivalent to you trying to gotcha me for only talking to thousands of people is hilariously awful.

I understand the difference. You think your experience is relevant to the issue and causes of poverty, and mine is not (or extremely more relevant). Right?