A shopping mall and office complex in downtown Montreal is being criticized for using the popular children's song 'Baby Shark' to discourage unhoused people from loitering in its emergency exit stairwells.
Do you think Cornell defining homeless but not unhoused might be a hint that they are synonyms?
Not to mention you brought up the legal definition of homeless without offering anything to compare it to and help your point. That is the sole reason I brought it up.
You gave me a definition of homelessness, which doesn’t counter what I said in the least and then gave me a article that sides with me (and then ignored it completely when I pointed it out) so I’m a bit puzzled.
But I guess sarcasm is easier then admitting you are wrong.
Do you think Cornell defining homeless but not unhoused might be a hint that they are synonyms?
That is quoted US statute, made available in an easy to access format through Cornell, not Cornell defining anything.
You gave me a definition of homelessness, which doesn’t counter what I said in the least
I gave you an article that discusses the terminology and how it is used for context that differing terminology is no inherently all different names for the same thing. It doesn’t define anything, it just makes it clear that there can be differing terminology that means different things and that the whole thing is a complicated topic. That is why I linked the article, not to prove definitions that don’t exist because the terminology varies in usage and consideration of importance.
But I guess sarcasm is easier then admitting you are wrong.
Any statement of how words are used will be wrong somewhere, except for things like the quoted law that is true in the context of written law in that country/region/whatever. There is always local or regional differences in usage.
So I am right about how we use it in our context to explain the concept of homelessness in the legal context even if some other people think it is a synonym, but thing other terminology has an important distinction. That is what I said, and if you can’t understand there isn’t a black and white defined terminology for all the variation then you aren’t getting my point.
Backtrack all you want but you made a blanket statement saying they weren’t synonyms for the entirety of the country when it only seems to apply to your personal context.
You then gave me a link to a meaningless definition and an article that clearly stated I was right, and then topped it off with rude sarcasm when I pointed it out.
The terminology seemed very black and white when you thought you were right, bro.
I was trying to be clear I wasn’t talking about Canada, which the article was about, and that my example was from the US,. Not saying it was literally true throughtout the the entire US.
Apparently I needed a full essay to avoid you reading meaning into things. Congrats, you win the internet.
So it was a simple misunderstanding but you just decided to defend it to the death and be a dick about it instead of explaining what you meant. I don’t think I could roll my eyes harder if I tried.
Your comments didn’t leave room for interpretation. You willy nilly gave out your own definitions and then literally googled “unhoused vs homeless” and threw the first article at me without even reading it. I’m surprised you can even see me from such a high horse. Please.
I can literally re read the conversation, you only started explaining with an attitude in the last comment.
The time to explain was before you gave made up definitions, not to mention your explanation is a cop out. An explanation doesn’t come with salty sarcasm.
Amazingly enough, most words aren’t defined in law!
Do you think Cornell defining homeless but not unhoused might be a hint that they are synonyms?
Not to mention you brought up the legal definition of homeless without offering anything to compare it to and help your point. That is the sole reason I brought it up.
You gave me a definition of homelessness, which doesn’t counter what I said in the least and then gave me a article that sides with me (and then ignored it completely when I pointed it out) so I’m a bit puzzled.
But I guess sarcasm is easier then admitting you are wrong.
That is quoted US statute, made available in an easy to access format through Cornell, not Cornell defining anything.
I gave you an article that discusses the terminology and how it is used for context that differing terminology is no inherently all different names for the same thing. It doesn’t define anything, it just makes it clear that there can be differing terminology that means different things and that the whole thing is a complicated topic. That is why I linked the article, not to prove definitions that don’t exist because the terminology varies in usage and consideration of importance.
Any statement of how words are used will be wrong somewhere, except for things like the quoted law that is true in the context of written law in that country/region/whatever. There is always local or regional differences in usage.
So I am right about how we use it in our context to explain the concept of homelessness in the legal context even if some other people think it is a synonym, but thing other terminology has an important distinction. That is what I said, and if you can’t understand there isn’t a black and white defined terminology for all the variation then you aren’t getting my point.
Backtrack all you want but you made a blanket statement saying they weren’t synonyms for the entirety of the country when it only seems to apply to your personal context.
You then gave me a link to a meaningless definition and an article that clearly stated I was right, and then topped it off with rude sarcasm when I pointed it out.
The terminology seemed very black and white when you thought you were right, bro.
I was trying to be clear I wasn’t talking about Canada, which the article was about, and that my example was from the US,. Not saying it was literally true throughtout the the entire US.
Apparently I needed a full essay to avoid you reading meaning into things. Congrats, you win the internet.
So it was a simple misunderstanding but you just decided to defend it to the death and be a dick about it instead of explaining what you meant. I don’t think I could roll my eyes harder if I tried.
Your comments didn’t leave room for interpretation. You willy nilly gave out your own definitions and then literally googled “unhoused vs homeless” and threw the first article at me without even reading it. I’m surprised you can even see me from such a high horse. Please.
I did explain. You treated explaining it as moving goalposts because you wanted to be right.
You were so close to being self aware.
I can literally re read the conversation, you only started explaining with an attitude in the last comment.
The time to explain was before you gave made up definitions, not to mention your explanation is a cop out. An explanation doesn’t come with salty sarcasm.
The time was before the misunderstanding…
Go touch grass.