Do you also suffer from poor reading comprehension skills? I ask because my comment is nuanced. I wrote I have "little empathy" for a type of person displaying a set of behavioral characteristics. I also wrote I empathize with other cases. Yet, you read into my post a claim against all homeless people.

Re the rest of your comment. Spare me the rhetorical flourish. My family is fine. I am a responsible adult who makes good life choices. We were born and raised in third world poverty then US urban ghettos but pulled ourselves out of all that. Imagine that.

It’s awesome but it’s not any additional homes lol, they are knocking down existing town houses and just constructing new ones

Try googling “Newport Housing Authority Park Holm Phase IV”

Yeah, I would be happy with tax dollars going to accomodate people in need. We seem to share that sentiment, but I know for a fact others will reject it.

Per my initial comment: I disagree with you. My initial post was not disrespectful.

Please reread it. I wrote," I have little empathy for people who make poor life choices then continue to make them then seek others to foot the bill."

That statement is qualified. It has nuance since it refers to a person displaying a specific set of behavioral characteristics. OP painted homeless people with a broad brush, but I did not.

Now, reread my post then reevaluate yours. You claim mine sounds like a jerk based on something I didn't even say. That is ironic. Think about it.

>I think it sounds like a good idea that everyone should have housing. It just appears unrealistic. Real world conditions complicate a scenario where society makes that idea a reality. For instance, Is there a law that guarantees it? Who foots the bill?

The bill would be footed by taxpayer dollars. The accommodations would be the bare minimum (shared rooms, hallway bathrooms, etc. Think of a college dorm). There is no law, but there should be. They should be available to everyone, no matter their means.

In the modern US we have more than enough tech and wealth to do this bare minimum. Along with free healthcare and education. And if we can get people into jobs where they're needed in the process then the system may just end up paying for itself.

>Respect is earned.

True, but there is also a baseline amount of respect that all people deserve from the start. When you start off your comment by stating that you have no empathy for the homeless, you have already shown yourself to be disrespectful and have waived your right to respectful discourse in the process. Think for it this way: replace 'the homeless' with 'disabled veterans' and tell me you don't sound like kind of a jerk in your first comment (keep in mind, vets chose to join the military).

We are a country that judges success by the bottom line. How much profit we generate. It only helps our numbers to slaughter the poor.

Look at countries that grade themselves on quality of life. We could have that, but most Americans will bitch about taxes before improving the country for anyone but themselves. That's unfettered capitalism and it blows. I believe there is a better way, and I'm not even saying socialism per se, but it won't happen here as long as there are ultra-rich people and poor people who worship them. The system is currently working as intended.

Anyway, sorry this isn't Providence-specific but most states aren't doing any better.

There is plenty of help available for those who want it. All these people do is wallow in squalor and abuse drugs and alcohol. Take a stroll along the bike path by the Seekonk River sometime. The area was cleaned up beautifully this summer by many hard working volunteers and within just a couple of months it’s been befouled with refuse again.

It’s time we became less tolerant of public degeneracy like this.

I'm sure people had opinions but I think nearly 7/10 democratic voters not voting for McKee spot volumes and just the low turnout in general.

McKee was about as vulnerable as any primary candidate could be. He just rode a slow wave of indifference past weak competition. If Foulkes had even 10 seconds worth of public policy experience or 1 of the 2 no-chance protest candidates realized the stakes and drops out? I don't think McKee wins.

I think it sounds like a good idea that everyone should have housing. It just appears unrealistic. Real world conditions complicate a scenario where society makes that idea a reality. For instance, Is there a law that guarantees it? Who foots the bill? Also, why provide someone with housing if said person can provide themself?

Respect is earned. You are correct in pointing out the different nuances of homelessness. But, it is also a given that some people made very poor choices-- even some who came from nothing (very rare as that is) did little to nothing to improve their circumstances, some make plenty of mistake even when one is enough, and some can recover but fail to do so.

We can behave proactively by displaying respect and decency, but that does not mean we continue doing so when receiving the opposite. For instance, people across this thread have showed me little respect instead they have attacked me for sharing my perspective with OP. So, I withhold my respect in my interactions with them.

In realworld conditions, a person is not entitled to housing in this country. That might be a sad fact but it is a fact. If it isn't please let me know.

I feel like that’s something we could probably fix though.

I think a lot of it is the harassment some have faced from some homeless people here and there making them look bad as well as the false notion that they're all just lazy and refuse to work. The thing is, that's not entirely untrue. I know some people who complain about the cost of housing yet refuse to consider living with a roommate or simply living outside of the city.

None of this excuses a lack of empathy or the kind of hatred and vitriol directed at the homeless population in this state. Instead, I think a good solution would be to find out which towns need extra help with work and create homeless shelters to give free or extremely cheap housing to people where they're needed (as well as free transit). It wouldn't fix everything, but it could help out a lot of people.

To a degree I agree. I think states should identify which towns are in need of workers and set up homeless shelters there along with free transport. Everyone is entitled to housing in the modern world, but you are not entitled to decide where that housing will be. You can choose to be homeless in the city or go where you're needed. Yes, housing is expensive, but many (not most) people who complain about high rent refuse to live with roommates or think they need to live in the city.

That said, this should still be done with empathy. Not everyone who's out on the streets made poor choices and many are just unlucky. Some came from nothing and never got an opportunity to move up. Some made a single major mistake and can't recover from it. None of these scenarios change that people should be treated with decency and respect.

My experience was "if you don't vote for mckee, another person might get elected and lose to the Republican" and "there's others besides mckee? I don't know or care."

There is not a single person in the state that thought McKee was the only Democrat running. People who've been in comas for years could still name "the CVS lady with all the commercials" if you pressed them.

Hence why McKee barely squeaked out a plurality in a low-turnout primary against a field of 4 flawed candidates who didn't really have great campaigns.

I saw a car on the East Side deliberately run over a homeless man and then drive off. I circled back to find the victim while I was on the phone with 911 and the offending driver had fled the scene. The cop who came to “investigate” literally said “nothing to see here”.

So yeah I would say the people here don’t care. But they sure do like to look like they care.

>Disgusted that so many would prefer that people DIE before the state extends any kind of support.

Are these people in the room with you now?

The recent homelessness crisis was just discussed in this article in The Atlantic. TLDR: high rates of homelessness is caused by the high price of housing. US cities with high rates of poverty, drug use, and mental illness also have the lowest rates of homelessness, so the problem isn’t caused by those. Most homeless people are locals who have been in the area for a long time, so the idea that they moved here because we treat them better is also baseless. Legalizing more types of naturally affordable housing would mostly fix the crisis and help the rest of people struggling with high rent. An apartment block on your street might be an eyesore, but it’s a hell of a lot better than a tent city

That’s awesome, Newport has a massive housing shortage and more people are becoming homeless by the month. Anywhere to find more information on that?

Meetings do not cure addiction regardless of whether you feel they do

I said no such thing. You've been arguing against a strawman.

What I have wrote is that it is a different type of disease than say Alzheimers or schizophrenia, which is a fact.

I have also wrote in posts with others that researchers in medicine have debated whether they should continue categorizing addiction as a brain disease (or disease at all).

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=addiction+is+not+a+brain+disease&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart#d=gs_qabs&t=1670952588039&u=%23p%3DksQ1XshGG6MJ

You have attempted to portray my posts as conveying "feelings." That is nonsensical. My only subjective position was directed at OP--withholding empathy from addicts (I should have been specific about the types of addicts too).

You have conveyed emotionally laden attacks and strawman arguments. Calm down and read more carefully.

There are different kinds of diseases. And the kind I mentioned are worst in every way to addiction.

Of course it's not the same as alzheimers that's why it's called substance abuse disorder and not alzheimers

You said it's not a disease which you've learned through your "empirical observation" aka your feelings

Cancer is a disease. Alzheimers is a disease. Addiction is a disease

Yes, they do. Look it up. Google scholar is your friend.

So, cancer and aids is the same as addiction? Anything categorized as disease is the same? Do you see the error in your reasoning?

Or, let's stick to psychological diseases: are you telling me that alzheimers is the same kind of disease as addiction?

The dsm-5 literally the thing that all healthcare professionals use to define diseases

There's not levels of disease. It is or it isn't. And according to the dsm it's a disease

Now you may feel differently but nobody gives a fuck about your feelings.

About $25 million is going to Newport Housing for the construction of 6 new multi-family townhouses in Newport