Right, so the question was designed to expose me as a hypocrite, i.e. character assassination. In doing so, you make me look like a two-faced ass who cannot make sound arguments.
Except, even if we assume that one must not be a hypocrite to advocate a given position - I am accepting your fallacy here as truth - you are also changing the position. I did not argue that one should help homeless people. Rather, I argued for not using degrading terms to describe them. I have not been a hypocrite in that respect, and I have admitted to using degrading terms to describe them in the past.
Now, "a strong association in your mind" is a manipulative way of saying, "if and only if". So, if and only if I am a hypocrite, then my rhetoric is empty. Since you have exposed me as a hypocrite, or attempted to, my rhetoric must also be empty.
If you claim, no, it's only in the other direction, then since my rhetoric is empty, I must be a hypocrite, so then you decided to expose that side of it to see if you were right.
So now it falls back to the question of whether or not my argument is empty. Without an explanation as to what you mean by "empty rhetoric" - because the term is sufficiently vague on its own as to only constitute more character assassination - you may as well say, "Your argument is bad."
Your argument is bad too. I believe I have explained why.
Your question is an attempt to destroy my argument by character assassination.