>>Your argument doesn't make a whole lot of sense without that sense of outrage.

>Or maybe perhaps you're not fully understanding their position? It's super tempting to write them off as "they're just being illogical/evil/bigoted, how can they possibly disagree with my position when my position so obviously right!?", but that's not going to help you change minds, or figure out which part of your policy needs to be changed to get widespread support.

>That's basically what the parent post is stuck at. The guy has a policy proposal that he thinks is good and wants to get passed, but clearly he doesn't have enough supporters to do so. Instead of figuring out why people oppose his proposal, he rounds off all the opposition to "offense" and "outrage", then sulks about how "nothing will change".

No. I understand just fine. "Why should I pay rent when someone else doesn't have to. That's not fair!" sounds like outrage to me.

GP may well be attempting to persuade, but I'm not GP. And my goal here isn't to convince or convert. I gave that up years ago.

Because you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. And "someone is getting something I'm not! That's so unfair!" is a poster boy for unreasoned belief.

All that said, I agree that GP might catch more flies with honey than with vinegar (but not balsamic vinegar).

>What "economic argument" did I make? I literally made zero arguments in support or in opposition to the proposed policy itself last comment. I was only pointing out how the parent was rounding off all opposition as "outrage", and how that was wrong way to approach this.

You said:

"I think the concept of fairness, and the fact that people might be incentivized to freeload are legitimate concerns. You might not think they're valid, but if you want their tax dollars to fund the social programs you want, it seems entirely reasonable that their concerns be addressed."

First, moral and economic arguments aren't mutually exclusive. Second, policies concerning the disbursement of public funds are definitely economic arguments, even if there are other arguments that might be relevant. And finally, one can certainly make the moral argument that helping those in need in your community makes that community stronger and is a moral good.

>Moreover, the whole "economic argument" that comprises the bulk of your comment also misses the point, because people care more than just dollars and cents. As you might be able to infer, the "Why should some one/freeloader/whatever get a free place to live when I have to pay" argument isn't really an economic one at all."

That falls flat because the homeless already get free housing: at homeless shelters.

I've yet to hear anyone say "why should some one/freeloader/whatever get a free cot and a plastic box for their belongings at a homeless shelter when I have to pay?"

And since outcomes for folks who are put in actual apartments are better than for those in shelters and it costs less to do so, the entire argument falls apart.

Yes, I get that folks making an argument based on feelings don't focus on boring things like cost analyses, but that doesn't make such arguments any more valid, nor does it excuse local legislators/executives from doing those "boring" things -- after all, it's what we've elected them to do.