Re: Low cost community housing group
From: lcamundsen (
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 14:03:41 -0800 (PST)
So, what is the definition of functional and dysfunctional that underlies these assumptions?Or for that matter crazy vs sane? I agree the whole thing is very uncomfortable.It probably is a good topic to discuss for that very reason. Thanks to all who are participating.
C Amundsen

----- Original Message ----- From: "Fred H Olson" <fholson [at]>
To: "-cohousing-L mailing list" <cohousing-l [at]>
Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2010 10:08 AM
Subject: Re: [C-L]_ Low cost community housing group

Lyle Scheer <wonko [at]>
is the author of the message below.  It was posted by
Fred, the Cohousing-L list manager <fholson [at]>
due to a format problem.
--------------------  FORWARDED MESSAGE FOLLOWS --------------------

On 1/23/10 8:09 AM, Tom Hammer wrote:
I am amazed that it is not obvious why the statement below is
offensive.  It can be reworded:  "people who can afford to buy lower
cost homes are more likely to be dysfunctional."  If that is not
classism and dysfunctionality, I don't know what is.

You are correct, I don't follow that.  Why can we not entertain the idea
that there are more dysfunctional among the poor?  This is *not* equal
to, "if you're poor, you're dysfunctional," which is what you seem to be
equating this to.

The assertion is that someone who is dysfunctional (cannot function well
in society) is more likely not to have money.  This seems pretty logical
to me.  Certainly not 100%... after all, you can inherit money, not blow
it all, and still be dysfunctional.

There are quite a few dysfunctional people amongst the homeless.  Does
that make all homeless dysfunctional?  no.  However, lack of function
does make it more likley that you will not be able to earn much money or
have a home.

Why is this offensive?

- Lyle

Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.