Seen it done. A day later, the spray paint was gone.

Yes! I can imagine a Spanish language learner having problems understanding various dialects. I fluently speak a dialect of Mexican Spanish*but often find myself having some trouble understand some Carribean Spanish speakers. And ditto some Spanish speakers from Spain.

*I say a dialect of Mexican Spanish and not Mexican Spanish. There is no single Mexican Spanish. There exists regional variation despite common characteristics.

No, never, forget about it. I buy water from Shaw's.

What a complete steaming mess of crap. I'll tell you what this is about: the government infringing on our rights. This whole peanut allergy thing has gone too far.

Are the feds gonna bust through my door to confiscate all my jars of peanut butter?

And what self-respecting man doesn't enjoy a gun flavored peanutbutter and jelly sammich?

I'm through with these totalitarian peanut allergy gestapo-commie ninjas. If I want a peanutbutter gun and jelly sammich, nobody can say otherwise. If this right isn't in the constitution already then it should be. My body; my choice.

The moderator removed the other poster’s comment, which complicates much of our exchange. I’ll try to address your points below.

I agree that context matters. The poster did state they will not support ANY religion. They described some of the negative consequences of a few well-known religions, which were global examples that included Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. The big three so to speak. Your reply amounts to limiting the discussion to the US. There is no good reason to only consider this country while listing why someone does not support religion.

Now, what complicates any discussion about this topic is ambiguity. I will assume you understand the term Jew can apply to a member of the Jewish faith and/or an ethnic Jew (who might be secular and/or atheist or of another faith such as Buddhism).

I can only speak for myself here. I condemn all acts of discrimination. I condemn the recent propaganda against Jews (religious and secular).

Your second paragraph comes off as a personal attack more than anything. Do you know that person? I don’t. I didn’t find the post evidence of an uneducated person. But, I admit I only read one or two posts. Did you read more? I wonder on what grounds you make your claim.

Antisemitism is one thing; atheism is another.

One can be an atheist without being an antisemite. Have you ever heard of Jerry Coyne? He is Jewish but also a very vocal atheist.

Impact4 is withholding support for ALL religions for very valid reasons.

You are blatantly misrepresenting the post since the poster is condemning Nazis.

Yea, it was a funny scene.

A sample size of two people would be insufficient to discuss speech patterns occurring across millions of speakers. My claim about accents is well-documented among linguists who study languages. The L for R occurs with frequency among Native speakers of languages in China who later in life learn to speak English (please note my initial claim was concerning Mandarin but the link below discusses pronunciation difficulties for Cantonese speakers).

https://www.accent-american.com/2018/11/27/the-top-five-difficulties-chinese-speakers-have-when-pronouncing-american-english/

​

This link below concerns Mandarin speakers learning English (who might pronounce the English L sound as N)

http://www.academypublication.com/issues2/tpls/vol08/11/12.pdf

Have you ever heard adult Mandarin speakers with recent exposure to English? I ask because many will pronounce the "L" sound as "R"

It is a linguistic phenomenon having to do with phonemes (mental sound patterns) and phonetics (sound production).

In daily speech, we refer to that phenomenon as an "accent."

I reject the claim that the depiction was racist.

You just reminded me of the scene from A Christmas Story where the owner of Chop Suey Palace tries to correct his employees' singing, "...not ra ra ra ra ra, la la la la la sing like this..."

80s nostalgia at its finest.

Another racist with a low IQ and nothing substantial to contribute.

Are you religious? I am not. My people live life in harmony with other beings. Your people colonized the lands and tried to destroy my people. Your people forced my people into Christianity by murdering our elders and torturing and raping my people for living as we have for thousands of years.

You are a horrible human being.

I am a very productive person, so I do get exhausted. You’ll be happy to know that I get sufficient rest at night. Isn’t it the same for most responsible and productive people?

My initial comment explicitly states I have “little” empathy for a certain type of person before explicitly stating I do lend empathy towards another type. Please note the key word is “little,” which means some not none. Yet, my clear and concise prose evades your grasp; hence, I have begged you to get someone to help you understand my simple posts.

I'll cite myself below:

"Get a job; get a place to live. If you can't get either in a certain state then you got to move where you can get both. I have little empathy for people who make poor life choices then continue to make them then seek others foot the bill."

In the text above, I do not make a claim against "the homeless." I do not collapse all people without homes as if all their cases were the same. You and others have done that, but not I. I explicitly state I have LITTLE empathy (a better choice of word is compassion) for a person who makes poor life choices, seeks to remain in place, and seeks others to foot their bills--in other words, someone who is able-bodied, employable, unwilling to make better life choices, neglects responsibility but seeks others pay for their daily expenses. That is a specific type of person. Yet, you and the other raging morons on this thread have misconstrued an explicit statement about a particular type of person to mean "the homeless."

If local or federal authorities provide shelters for people in need, these refuges are funded with tax dollars. All people who pay taxes contribute. I include myself among those millions of people.

You appear to misconstrue my comments as ones that seek to deny any and all funding for all homeless people. I have made no claims about funding or shelters at all. My comments only dealt with empathy, which is the ability to understand or share another’s feelings. I only played along with OP’s choice of words, when I think the better word would be compassion. OP appears to mistakenly believe that the local or state government must allow people to live wherever they choose. That is unrealistic and not grounded in law. Hence, my comments “get a job; pay rent” and “go where you can work; go where you can pay rent.”

This is not a novel approach. And some of the poorest working-class people do follow the work trail until they can settle. Ask me how I know.

You wrote a very long list of different scenarios. You for some odd reason believe I am against all people in those cases, which for the most part—I admit to finding your posts insufferable and boring so I kind of have to sip coffee to get through them—fall outside the parameters of the type of person I withhold compassion for.

By writing that list of scenarios, you are trying to portray me as dismissing all those lumped homeless cases together. Again, you seriously misunderstand my point.

And moving is not difficult for individuals. Have you ever hanged out around a greyhound station? People of the lowest income brackets travel across country. Ask me how I know. It is much more difficult for households to do so.

Finally, I can tell you are White. Most of the people posting on this Reddit page are White. You are no different. Spare me the social justice rhetoric of “lived experience,” which is redundant since an experience itself is lived.

The only ignorant person here is you. Do you even know what a logical fallacy is? I doubt it because you just mentioned it without pointing one out.

I am perplexed by this comment. Did you write it under another account or copy and paste? In my email, I received a message by another person verbatim. Then, hours later, you post the same message.

Creepy.

My responses only occur with respect to your initial message in which you mention having been homeless. In the same message, you misrepresent my initial post. Many people have done so. They claim my post is a direct attack on all homeless people. My post as written specifically states that I withhold empathy from a person exhibiting particular behaviors. That's it. Hence, you and a few others do display poor reading comprehension skills.

So I respond to you then share some of my experiences too. I did so pointing out that I (but indirectly others) have endured conditions most people here cannot fathom. Yet, the tone is not one of "victimhood." I only mention it in response to your rhetorical strategy: claim I lack some types of emotions, mention your experience to try to display your perspective as both accurate and knowledgable but also dismiss mine, and also distort my position.

Yawn. Any one of you sheltered Whites with money can come see me in Olneyville. I will be the Brown guy who made something of his life despite the hate you all direct towards my people.

Yawn. Ask someone to explain my posts to you. You clearly suffer from poor reading comprehension. But, since you were once homeless that makes you an eternal victim worst off than even people born into third world poverty and residing in the ghetto. You need to travel more.

Spare me your sob story and "hopes" for my family. What's wrong with you?

Most responsible adults do not find themselves homeless, but some do. And you know what? They usually get out of that unfortunate circumstance relatively quickly.

You remain under the impression that I am painting homelessness with a broad brush. Learn to read.

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.

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? 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 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.

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?

It is 2022! And how is it that reading comprehension is so poor. I know that the medical field categorizes addiction as a disease. Did you know researchers (people in medicine such as doctors) debate whether it is or not?

You are almost providing a false equivalence. The qualifiying word "almost" in your statement appears to downplay the real differences between schizophrenics and addicts.

Some addicts are in very bad conditions and others not so much. A schizophrenic on meds is still not the same person as once before pre schizophrenia.

And a schizophrenic cannot just stop being mentally ill unlike the addict. An addict's illness differs in important respects form that of the schizophrenic or of someone suffering from alzheimer's or dimentia. Why are you to trying desperately to depict them as the same kind of phenomena?

First, I have not claimed addiction is not categorized as a disease.

Second, not all phenomena under the category of disease are the same. Addiction is not like aids, cancer or alzheimers. They are different types of diseases.

Third, you are not a doctor. You continually make that claim as a means to dismiss my claims but fail to realize the irony of that rhetoric strategy: it also dismisses your views!!!

Doctors themselves do not conflate addiction with other ailments labeled as diseases. Yet, here you are doing just that.

Have you ever known someone who takes meds for schizophrenia?

They are not the same. And by failing to take it even once they fall into delusions. It is not pretty.

That differs in most respects from addicts.

How do you know what I am?

Do you think all phenomena labeled "disease" are the same? Try reading peer-reviewed articles in medical journals where doctors argue whether addiction is a disease at all. Or, read descriptions about the very real differences between addiction and the others diseases I listed

You misread my post or I did not clarify my position.

As you just read in my latest post, I am well aware of the various causes of homelessness.

I withhold my empathy from certain cases. I am more compassionate about people suffering from mental illnesses outside of addiction.

When it comes to addiction, I am more of a case-by-case basis guy. For instance, I knew an addict whose family wanted to help him. He was from an upper middleclass family. He choose to stay on the streets. That differed from some of his addict buddies who had no where to go. Their situation was far worst. He could pass as a normal guy and used that to his advantage to enter and exist places and stores to steal to support his habit. The others couldn't exit and enter as they pleased.