“Participants were screened for a low risk of mental health challenges and substance abuse.” That’s the CNN article you linked. So thats at least one of these articles that is absolutely irrelevant to the conversation. Gish galloping is such a terrible debate technique.
It’s not a gish gallop, it’s a demonstration of a wide range of applications and environments has a net positive impact.
My original question was “which studies…?” (note plural) which sets the context for a reply with multiple sources
If you demand that anyone produces one, single study that solves the problem: impossible, regardless of topic, field and context. Nothing is provable by that standard.
Secondly, that one CNN article mentions that it was on a subset of people does not destroy the entire premise.
I am still waiting on counterexample studies, if you think providing several is beyond a reasonable ask, two would be acceptable.
I’m not interested in fucking source wars or arguments of attrition. Of course it’s a Gish gallop posting that much without context. It’s just lazy bullshit.
The point is that’s it’s the mentally ill and the drug addicts are the people who aren’t going to benefit from just chucking money at them. They need real help that goes beyond that.
If you don’t believe that there are people out there that are incredibly difficult to re-home, that is on you! Nobody is even saying it’s the majority of people, but some people cannot cope with living “normally”. They usually have advanced schizophrenia.
Would it blow your mind if I told you that some beggars actually have homes?
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.
“Participants were screened for a low risk of mental health challenges and substance abuse.” That’s the CNN article you linked. So thats at least one of these articles that is absolutely irrelevant to the conversation. Gish galloping is such a terrible debate technique.
It’s not a gish gallop, it’s a demonstration of a wide range of applications and environments has a net positive impact.
My original question was “which studies…?” (note plural) which sets the context for a reply with multiple sources
If you demand that anyone produces one, single study that solves the problem: impossible, regardless of topic, field and context. Nothing is provable by that standard.
Secondly, that one CNN article mentions that it was on a subset of people does not destroy the entire premise.
I am still waiting on counterexample studies, if you think providing several is beyond a reasonable ask, two would be acceptable.
I’m not interested in fucking source wars or arguments of attrition. Of course it’s a Gish gallop posting that much without context. It’s just lazy bullshit.
The point is that’s it’s the mentally ill and the drug addicts are the people who aren’t going to benefit from just chucking money at them. They need real help that goes beyond that.
If you don’t believe that there are people out there that are incredibly difficult to re-home, that is on you! Nobody is even saying it’s the majority of people, but some people cannot cope with living “normally”. They usually have advanced schizophrenia.
Would it blow your mind if I told you that some beggars actually have homes?
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.
A self proclaimed commie accusing me of bad faith arguments. Pretty rich.