Comic Strips

So you’re telling me that this first reply does not state “I can tell you with a straight face that the solution homeless is something other than providing houses. The solution is to provide houses AND assistance”

If you're going to use a quote as a supporting argument at least include the whole quote or it seems like you're purposely missing out the parts that don't support your argument.

the whole reply is:

I can: the solution to homelessness is a combination of mental health ed in schools, free & non-judgemental mental health support (incl. medication), free addiction recovery programs, free food, job & community support, and free housing.

If you just provide free housing, there will be a significant proportion of people who would not be able to fully benefit from it due to mental health issues, addictions, and lack of purpose in life.

The second part adds context to the first, which changes it from a

"The solution is to provide houses AND assistance”

to a

"A more comprehensive (though not complete) solution is to provide houses AND assistance”

Or you’re telling me that “The solution is to provide houses AND assistance” means “providing a house without providing assistance solves the problem” ETA: which then implies that this reply states “I can tell you with a straight that the solution to homelessness is something other than providing houses. Providing houses is sufficient.”

See above

Granted, I did say “not enough” I should have clearly stated that “not enough” is equivalent to “not at all”. Keep in mind this is a generalized statement, so in order for it to be true it must be true across the entire domain.

Somewhat agreed, though that’s is dependant on the criteria for true, but let's go with this for now.

Our domain is homeless people, therefore if adequately helping some but not all homeless people is accomplished then “solving the homeless problem” has not been accomplished; the only thing that accomplishes this goal is to put every person in a home, and the second argument implies that the first one will inevitably cause some of those who do not receive mental health assistance to go homeless again therefore failing to put every person in a home.

Let me break this one down:

1. if adequately helping some but not all homeless people is accomplished then “solving the homeless problem” has not been accomplished; the only thing that accomplishes this goal is to put every person in a home
2. and the second argument implies that the first one will inevitably cause some of those who do not receive mental health assistance to go homeless again therefore failing to put every person in a home.

You're conflating “solving the homeless problem” and "put every person in a home"

That first argument was never provided as you've written it, nobody was arguing a housing-only solution as a complete solution.

If the first argument is true, that putting people into homes solves the homeless problem, then it is also true that putting people into homes and adequately assisting them also solves the homeless problem. The third argument finally states that the second is false because putting people into homes without help is adequate, as they are in a home. This fails to satisfy the predicate of the second argument, making it an invalid counterpoint. If the predicate is not true, the argument cannot be evaluated therefore the counterpoint is invalid. However, if the predicate of the third argument is true then the second argument is invalid. Hence, I asked for sources.

Putting aside that , again, i wasn't arguing any of those actual points (though i can engage on that if you want to start a separate thread)

That's a load bearing initial if and it's load is resting on a specific interpretation of "solves the homeless problem"

I'm not arguing your algebraic logic here, at a glance it seems fine.

I'm arguing your interpretation of the context.

No one was arguing that housing is the full solution in and of itself, so asking for sources to prove a position not taken doesn't make sense.

(there was one person who seems to be confusedly arguing for housing+ against someone who was also arguing housing+, for some reason)

As i said, boolean algebra only works if the values are correct to start with.