NationStates Jolt Archive

Hotel workers have a union. The SEIU. They represent lots of immigrant and migrant workers all over North America. Migrants, because many hotels and tourism businesses use migrant workers who follow the jobs that shift around the continent seasonally. Those Mexicans who don't speak a word of English the NYC hotels? They are union members.

Okay. so to the Homeless people, join a union!!

Hospitals don't always deal with mental illnesses (especially if they aren't really extreme). There are halfway houses, but there aren't enough to help everyone. Same goes with homeless shelters.

That, and there arent enough. And you cant force them there.

greed and death, if you're trying to be funny, you're not.
Stop trolling.

okay I wills top, I think I've drank a bit too much tonight.

There's also the problem that in the 1980s, the federal government decided to stop funding public hospitals for mental illness, forcing virtually all state-run facilities to shut down (as they were dependent on federal tax funding), pretty much all at the same time. That was another sudden skyrocket of the homeless population in NYC, and all of the new ones suffering mental illness and having no support system. Yeah, fuck them, they should all have gotten jobs after being abandoned by the government.

Hm... Interesting pattern developing. The government seems to manufacture homeless people.

Anyway, the point is, not only can you not force a person to stay in care unless you can manage to get them involuntarily committed, even if you could, there is nowhere to keep them.
*nod*

This really is a problem -- that what seems to be available for the homeless is more in the way of band-aids than real help.

There clearly are people who require mental help. There clearly are people who require medical care. There clearly are people who require housing. There clearly are people who require jobs and job training.

I think that what ought to be put in place is something reminiscent of what the CCC did -- take the unemployed, give them a place to live until they are on their feet, give them job training, a job to do, medical care and a some kind of salary.

What if all of them had giving more in the offering to the Church moments prior? What if this neighborhood is experiencing especially bad recession, and there wasn't much for anyone to spare.

It hasn't. There are just as many homeless people or people panhandling as there were last year.

Well call or go over there. Rather then just talk behind their back.
Even if they have one. You said that they're only open Sundays. People have to eat six days a week, not one.

Ted Bundy was a charismatic all American boy 99% of the time.
1% of the time he raped and killed women.
The danger is always from the 1% of the time.
You have not seen him 100% of the time.
You haven't seen all of the people on the streets here. There are people who are a lot crazier. This guy looked like he might actually have a home, but not enough money to buy himself food.

As you see them. They might view that they gave money to their church so the church can help take care of him. More over seems their priesthood is teaching them to be weary of this one man.

Except that, even in your defense of the church, you claim that they have a soup kitchen open one day a week. How does that help?

But...but...shouldnt the private sector and charities been better then the government's programs? At least thats what people seem to want you to believe.

Seems like, however, when you get rid of the government systems, homelessness increased. Huh. So much for how superior private charities are.
Private charities just can't meet the demand for services. They cannot raise enough money without public subsidies to house the number of poor in this country. They cannot provide proper medical care for addicts, for the mentally ill, for the elderly, for the severely disabled, for children (with or without parents). Private charities are in the trenches, working like dogs. They are overwhelmed.

The government has the power and access to the resources to address the needs. Even just to manage the logistics of the problem. The private charities should be assisting and supplementing government programs. The government just will not maintain good programs due to political resistance from a few factions of motherfuckers. It is a moral crime, in my opinion, a dereliction of the government's duty to the public.

My country is fucked up in so many ways. This attitude towards poverty is the one that pisses me off the most.

EDIT: By "this country" and "my country" I mean the USA. I realize that this is an international discussion.

You mean like junk food? As opposed to the soup full of meat and vegetables they could buy if you gave them money?
LOL. OK there are too many rules to this game.

I would never give anything to a homeless person they scare me anyway

I was walking to the store to pick up some cat food. There are two churches on my street and as I passed one of them, mass was just letting out. There were a lot of people walking in the opposite direction carrying pieces of palm leaves, some of them tied into crosses et c. As I got closer to the church, I noticed that there was a guy standing near the walkway holding a sign that read "Hungry Please Help". From the time I spotted him (about a block) to the time I eventually felt sorry for him and gave him the $0.50 in change I had after passing him and turning around, not a single person carrying a palm leaf or generally leaving the church gave him anything. They all walked past as though there wasn't someone there.

I sort of expect this on a day to day basis, usually there are a lot of people begging for money and you can't give everyone some change (and often I don't have any change to give). However, these people had just sat around for two hours listening to stories about a man who supposedly sacrificed his life for others. Someone who would tell others to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, house the homeless, invite beggars in for supper et c and they carried physical reminders of this sort of talk outside the building with them. You would think that they would stop and throw the guy some change (maybe he did too, which is why he picked that spot). Instead, as far as I could tell, the only person who gave him anything (though I hope not $0.50 isn't going to buy much) is someone randomly passing by who doesn't even believe in any of this.
Maybe they are poor from the 10% graft their church guilt's out of them each week

Even if they have one. You said that they're only open Sundays. People have to eat six days a week, not one.

I said the soup kitchen was open on Sunday not only. I really didn't inquire about other days of the week. Call them, I will not call them again I feel if I do I might convert to Catholicism and well I could never be right with myself again.

You haven't seen all of the people on the streets here. There are people who are a lot crazier. This guy looked like he might actually have a home, but not enough money to buy himself food.

Perhaps the good Padre was talking about a different guy. But you still cast stones at them with out asking them their situation. Was he in a brown jacket ?


Except that, even in your defense of the church, you claim that they have a soup kitchen open one day a week. How does that help?

I didn't esquire about how many days of the week the soup kitchen was open, or if they rotate it to different churches. My conversation was focused on that guy.

Im out for the night. We'll see if this gets any more interesting tomorrow. :D

If you live in a big city you can kind of find people who will let you stack boxes or refill shelves or wash dishes usually without too many questions asked. That is how immigrants do it. There is also yard work. You know you basically stand around at 7-Eleven waiting for something. Also strength in numbers try to team up with others.
Standing around the 7-11 is a good way to get arrested, especially if female.
Another way in construction sites. Usually if you are handy with a hammer or can work a wheelbarrow you can usually find a guy who will look the other way.
And if you aren't, if you're sick for example. (most of the other homeless people I knew when I was homeless weren't in peak shape)
Why, obviously, they get the money by giving $5 blowjobs in alleys. It's called getting a job.
I was actually surprised how often I got that offer while living on the streets. Apparently when you're a young lady and homeless this is supposedly the job of choice, according to the men who "don't want to give you money" because it will teach you not to work. Their good Christian duty you know, make sure you get an honest hour's work in.

LOL. OK there are too many rules to this game.

I would never give anything to a homeless person they scare me anyway

How sweet of you.

Standing around the 7-11 is a good way to get arrested, especially if female.



I think 7-11 is a bad example. Hardware store or home depot is the norm here.
That or the migrant workers center.

Maybe they are poor from the 10% graft their church guilt's out of them each week

Yes, I'm sure the woman wearing 4" stilettos chatting on her iPhone on the way to her car is poor.

Why are you assuming everyone on this forum is American?

I wasn't, I was assuming that the amount of African _ on each continent would be roughly equal(expect for Africa of course, but as the amount of internet users was/is highest in Europe, North America and Asia, I discarded the African data as mostly useless) and/or lower than in the United States then I tried but largely gave up/failed to extend that fact/opinion into that most internet users are probably Asian or European/"White" descended due to the fact that the top three internet user groups are from North America, Asia and Europe and as far as I know African groups are in a minority in those three areas as are the other non Asian/European/"White" groups.

If I was to assume the population of NSG, I would assume we have a number of Japanese/Eastern Asian, A fair amount of Americans(both North and South) and a roughly equal number of Brits/Europeans while the African population is lacking.(not their descendants but people that currently live in Africa).

As to charity/homeless, when asked I generally do give money if I happen to have any...

Yes, I'm sure the woman wearing 4" stilettos chatting on her iPhone on the way to her car is poor.

Psst I was joking :)

Perhaps the good Padre was talking about a different guy. But you still cast stones at them with out asking them their situation. Was he in a brown jacket ?

No.

Also, I'm not sure how I'm casting stones. I'm pointing out that they seem to have ignored the teachings of a man they claim to worship. I mean, I'm not sure why they do this. They might be greedy bastards, they might not have seen him, they might actively avoid seeing him, they might think he's dangerous, they might by hypocrites, they might not pay attention in church and just attend because they like the pretty singing and don't take anything away from it.

I also do know that churches do good things and help families in need, however the odds that they help everyone sufficiently is low and the parishioners should help more if they are taking away anything from the lessons they have apparently been taught and it seems odd to me that they don't. Given that the church itself has a number of vacancies for volunteer positions, I doubt that many of the parishioners help out in the non-monetary way either.

Im out for the night. We'll see if this gets any more interesting tomorrow. :D
What? Leaving before you point out the post in which I demonstrated the prejudice you accused me of by characterizing the homeless as drug addicts and drunks?

I wonder why.

Psst I was joking :)

I should have figured. It's unlikely that they donate 10% anyway.

LOL. OK there are too many rules to this game.

I would never give anything to a homeless person they scare me anyway
Why do they scare you?

Okay, I mean, I can understand why they scare you. They can be pretty scary. Even if they don't seem hinky themselves, sometimes just their physical condition can be scary.

But I mean, what do you think they could possibly do to you if you just drop some money in their lap or a cup as you pass by? You don't even have to make eye contact with them if you feel uncomfortable about it.

I mentioned earlier that I don't interact with beggars when I give them money. It's because I don't like to be thanked for giving them money. It embarrasses me. I feel like they feel they have to grovel to show gratitude. I don't want anyone to grovel for the 75 cents I thought I could spare. I mean, it makes me feel a little sick be thanked for my spare change.

But it's also because I don't want to hear their stories. It horrifies and angers me to think of their suffering, when I know we are living in the richest nation in the world. It makes me get all revolutionary inside. I hate it. But it doesn't actually make me all that personally compassionate. I know that many of these people are completely fucked up, and getting involved with them in any personal way would not be good for me. But still, just because they are walking bundles of trouble, that doesn't mean we should just leave them to suffer.

I'm not trying to pressure you into giving stuff to homeless people. But I do have the opinion that everyone should try to do something to help alleviate homelessness and poverty around them. If not interacting directly with the poor and homeless, if not giving money to charities (if one doesn't have money to give), then at least supporting public programs with our votes, and things like that.

I wasn't, I was assuming that the amount of African _ on each continent would be roughly equal(expect for Africa of course, but as the amount of internet users was/is highest in Europe, North America and Asia, I discarded the African data as mostly useless) and/or lower than in the United States then I tried but largely gave up/failed to extend that fact/opinion into that most internet users are probably Asian or European/"White" descended due to the fact that the top three internet user groups are from North America, Asia and Europe and as far as I know African groups are in a minority in those three areas as are the other non Asian/European/"White" groups.


Just Use numbers
population of Asia 3,879,000,000 60% of world
population of Europe 731,000,000 11% or world
population of North America 528,720,588 8% of world

Easily 75% chance of user of internet being White or Asian(counted north Americas addition as 4% and Asians and Europe as being 100% by assuming non whites and Asians would be countered by whites and Asians posting from other countries).

What? Leaving before you point out the post in which I demonstrated the prejudice you accused me of by characterizing the homeless as drug addicts and drunks?

I wonder why.

See
Post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14670968&postcount=239)

Just Use numbers
population of Asia 3,879,000,000 60% of world
population of Europe 731,000,000 11% or world
population of North America 528,720,588 8% of world

Easily 75% chance of user of internet being White or Asian(counted north Americas addition as 4% and Asians and Europe as being 100% by assuming non whites and Asians would be countered by whites and Asians posting from other countries)

Guess that works too...

I should have figured. It's unlikely that they donate 10% anyway.

I probably did when I was a kid :) Figuring allowance was like 10 dollars a week if I made sure to do all the farm work I could ...

As an adult I would doubt most of them make it anywhere near that. I sure as heck wouldent

Its pretty obvious what youre implying with the bolded. They didnt want your food, so clearly they wanted the money for booze.

It sucks that we actually remember what you write, huh?
And again, you are deciding what I meant by that. The same way others have decided what people's motives are when they offer to buy a meal for people.

Amazing how those words you put in my mouth weren't there at all.

Are you flamebaiting me? Making up the argument you'd like for me to have made? Or just caught in a lie and trying to save face?

I probably did when I was a kid :) Figuring allowance was like 10 dollars a week if I made sure to do all the farm work I could ...

As an adult I would doubt most of them make it anywhere near that. I sure as heck wouldent
My dad does or at least did. His current job isn't exactly rolling in the dough, but also he does work at the food bank at his church.

See
Post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14670968&postcount=239)



Guess that works too...

I call it half ass math.

Its pretty obvious what youre implying with the bolded. They didnt want your food, so clearly they wanted the money for booze.


That's not such a fallacious assumption by any means, regardless.

I don't think there's any right or wrong approach to donating to homeless people, I suspect if I was homeless myself I'd prefer cash, even if just for the modicum of self-worth I might feel when going into a shop to purchase something, when one's life is completely abnormal, it's amazing how much joy one gets from the slightest sense of normality.

Totally unrelated, while waiting for seating at a restaurant in NY, I struck up a conversation with a homeless person selling roses, at some point a girl I did not know, also waiting in line, urged me to just buy a rose, so I did and, bending down to one knee, offered the rose to her in a ham-acted kind of way.

She totally broke down crying saying I could not understand how much that meant to her at that time, quite took me aback.

It was quite a lovely scene, everyone burst out clapping, I was pretty embarrassed myself but you never know how an act of charity affects other people, the homeless guy sold out of roses within about 10 minutes of that.

I'm sure you could do some experiment testing against how people donate when they see other people donating, I can't really blame people for walking by either.

I prefer to give food, or to charity. Not because I assume every homeless person will use it to purchase drugs... but it is indeed a risk. I've also heard of people panhandling who are not actually in need at all (my mother witnessed such an event first hand).

One time, a guy was sitting by road. My wife and I (having no cash on hand, I know that makes us bad people, because we couldn't give them the cash, as is the only proper giving) purchased a giftcard from McDonalds (which was very close to where he was... and it was the only close place). I pulled up and asked if he needed a ride anywhere in town (he was trying to hitch hike to a town across state). After my wife and I drove away, we talked about it a little bit, and decided that if we had enough cash, we would purchase a bus ticket for him. We stopped at the local bus station, and found that a bus ticket was quite affordable for us, so we drove back, picked the man up, and brought him to the bus station.

All of these things were directly useful to him, and he was a pretty friendly guy, it just seemed like his life got a bit off track, who knows why? Who cares? The point is that my wife and I were able to help, and we did so.

We didn't give him straight cash though... so I guess we were only motivated by self-interest, or the wrong kind of compassion or something. :rolleyes:

I prefer to give food, or to charity. Not because I assume every homeless person will use it to purchase drugs... but it is indeed a risk. I've also heard of people panhandling who are not actually in need at all (my mother witnessed such an event first hand).

One time, a guy was sitting by road. My wife and I (having no cash on hand, I know that makes us bad people, because we couldn't give them the cash, as is the only proper giving) purchased a giftcard from McDonalds (which was very close to where he was... and it was the only close place). I pulled up and asked if he needed a ride anywhere in town (he was trying to hitch hike to a town across state). After my wife and I drove away, we talked about it a little bit, and decided that if we had enough cash, we would purchase a bus ticket for him. We stopped at the local bus station, and found that a bus ticket was quite affordable for us, so we drove back, picked the man up, and brought him to the bus station.

All of these things were directly useful to him, and he was a pretty friendly guy, it just seemed like his life got a bit off track, who knows why? Who cares? The point is that my wife and I were able to help, and we did so.

We didn't give him straight cash though... so I guess we were only motivated by self-interest, or the wrong kind of compassion or something. :rolleyes:
Absolutely not, however refusing to help at all because "they might buy booze" I think is the objection, not helping in different ways. I don't always agree that "beggars can't be choosers" though, I would absolutely not accept food from a stranger while I was homeless, I would accept a gift card to Wal*mart or something though. I would rake someone's lawn for $10 but I brought someone with me, didn't go alone. I would not give someone head for $10. Even when you're poor and homeless and cold and starving you're human and you should be able to make choices for yourself.

Come with me to the Ghetto. They have these pay in advance weekly lease apartments. I think technically they register them as extended stay hotels. They are minimal furnished but perfect to help someone get a second start.


Halfway house?

There's a new billboard in town at one of the bus stops (I fully expect someone to get offended and have it torn down). It says "That love thy neighbor thing I said, I meant that." -God-

It does seem a little disturbing to watch people parade out of Church past a hungry person, but you might consider - 1. Is there a history of "homeless" people using donations for liquor or drugs? 2. These people might, like me and many others, donate to programs to which this man could apply. 3. There is nothing that makes people who are in a festive mood more uncomfortable than someone disrupting that festive mood - people who might have given cheerfully at any other time might have resented his presence and his attempt to "guilt" them into giving.

I prefer to give food, or to charity. Not because I assume every homeless person will use it to purchase drugs... but it is indeed a risk. I've also heard of people panhandling who are not actually in need at all (my mother witnessed such an event first hand).

So you do judge people based on what you assume they will do with the money you give them.

One time, a guy was sitting by road. My wife and I (having no cash on hand, I know that makes us bad people, because we couldn't give them the cash, as is the only proper giving) purchased a giftcard from McDonalds (which was very close to where he was... and it was the only close place). I pulled up and asked if he needed a ride anywhere in town (he was trying to hitch hike to a town across state). After my wife and I drove away, we talked about it a little bit, and decided that if we had enough cash, we would purchase a bus ticket for him. We stopped at the local bus station, and found that a bus ticket was quite affordable for us, so we drove back, picked the man up, and brought him to the bus station.

All of these things were directly useful to him, and he was a pretty friendly guy, it just seemed like his life got a bit off track, who knows why? Who cares? The point is that my wife and I were able to help, and we did so.

We didn't give him straight cash though... so I guess we were only motivated by self-interest, or the wrong kind of compassion or something. :rolleyes:

Good for you, you helped your fellow man in a meaningful way. Are you denying that there are many, many people who refuse to help the homeless by giving them cash because they "will just buy drugs or alcohol with it and I don't want my charity going to waste."?

And people who have actual experience of homelessness have pointed out several very good reasons why they refused to accept donations apart from money. Do you believe that homeless people should just accept these very real risks because people are trying to be nice?

That's not supposed to matter. From the Palm Sunday ritual described, I'm going to guess they were Catholics. The kind of judgmentalism you describe sounds too Calvinist for them to get away with. They're just hypocrites, and that's all there is to it. They can wave those palms all they like. When their god comes back, there isn't going to be a seat for them on the hippy bus to heaven unless they learn to care.

Of course they could have just given a money towards a charity that works with homeless people in their town, I know some Catholic churches that do this.

I think it would be more accurate to say human beings fail. I know plenty of ultra-liberal people who profess no religion, go on and on about social justice and equality, yet never give anything to a beggar on the street.

And I know others who always give something.

And I know conservatives who give, as well.

It's an issue of people's attitudes, not necessarily their club memberships.

And this is what the real problem was about.

Don't blame the faith for the actions of the supposedly faithful.

There's a new billboard in town at one of the bus stops (I fully expect someone to get offended and have it torn down). It says "That love thy neighbor thing I said, I meant that." -God-

It does seem a little disturbing to watch people parade out of Church past a hungry person, but you might consider - 1. Is there a history of "homeless" people using donations for liquor or drugs? 2. These people might, like me and many others, donate to programs to which this man could apply. 3. There is nothing that makes people who are in a festive mood more uncomfortable than someone disrupting that festive mood - people who might have given cheerfully at any other time might have resented his presence and his attempt to "guilt" them into giving.
Do you realize that all of the possibilities you list are the most egregious excuses for not giving a shit about the poor?

1) Poor people have bad habits so they don't deserve charity.

2) I gave at the office, so I don't have to care about the poverty right in front of me and my church.

3) His poverty is harshing my good mood so I'm going to ignore him so I can keep having fun.

And all of those in front of a church whose religion encourages charity as one of the highest virtues.

Can irony be a sin?

So you do judge people based on what you assume they will do with the money you give them.

Good for you, you helped your fellow man in a meaningful way. Are you denying that there are many, many people who refuse to help the homeless by giving them cash because they "will just buy drugs or alcohol with it and I don't want my charity going to waste."?

And people who have actual experience of homelessness have pointed out several very good reasons why they refused to accept donations apart from money. Do you believe that homeless people should just accept these very real risks because people are trying to be nice?

Excellent example of a post failure.

No where did I say that all homeless people are reckless junkies. Unless I did... though I certainly recall no such nonsense. It is a possibility for the homeless to spend cash on drugs/alcohol. Me choosing alternatives that restrict my contribution potentially going to drug use does not mean judgement, I am merely trying to help them in a meaningful way, rather than to possibly enable an addiction, but feel free to judge me for my preference.

I also never said that giving cash is bad, or the wrong giving... you'll notice that I didn't say anything bad about giving cash, I merely said it was not my preference.

I suggest you read peoples posts, and understand them, before judging people based on them.

Absolutely not, however refusing to help at all because "they might buy booze" I think is the objection, not helping in different ways.

According to you, doubtless. However, there are some others who seem to strongly make the point that if you don't give cash to every homeless person you see, then you are an incompassionate, judgementalist. And if you give to any charity, or give anything but cash, then you are only self-motivated, or in need of a power trip.

There's a new billboard in town at one of the bus stops (I fully expect someone to get offended and have it torn down). It says "That love thy neighbor thing I said, I meant that." -God-

Yeah, I like that billboard.

3) His poverty is harshing my good mood so I'm going to ignore him so I can keep having fun.

I think this example was meant to express an unconcious decision/reaction.

Do you realize that all of the possibilities you list are the most egregious excuses for not giving a shit about the poor?

1) Poor people have bad habits so they don't deserve charity.

2) I gave at the office, so I don't have to care about the poverty right in front of me and my church.

3) His poverty is harshing my good mood so I'm going to ignore him so I can keep having fun.

And all of those in front of a church whose religion encourages charity as one of the highest virtues.

Can irony be a sin?

Hey, not excusing it, just attempting, in my own poor way, to explain it. Most of us aren't as upstanding and wonderful as we wish we were.

Do you realize that all of the possibilities you list are the most egregious excuses for not giving a shit about the poor?

1) Poor people have bad habits so they don't deserve charity.

Snip

I am going to play devils advocate with this one ... with the high number of substance abusers among the homeless population it may be a justifiable concern. If it was their own money being used to fuel their bad habits so be it ... its their money to spend

But when they are abusing charity to fuel those bad habits it is something else completely

Personally this is why I am so involved with giving to charity that focus on providing to the basic needs rather then through cash directly. I also take a strong lean towards organizations that help with either education, mental treatment, or substance abuse counciling as well as food and shelter

They may have bad habbits like everyone else but I want to make sure the money I worked hard for goes as minimally to those bad habits as I reasonably can and hopefully help them improve themselves in the long run as well

Excellent example of a post failure.

No where did I say that all homeless people are reckless junkies. Unless I did... though I certainly recall no such nonsense. It is a possibility for the homeless to spend cash on drugs/alcohol. Me choosing alternatives that restrict my contribution potentially going to drug use does not mean judgement, I am merely trying to help them in a meaningful way, rather than to possibly enable an addiction, but feel free to judge me for my preference.

You ever know a homeless person? Most of the homeless people I worked with would rather be given cash in the hand - that way they can buy safe accommodation, clean, new clothes, and other things necessary for survival. Money was meaningful to them, not a ride somewhere or a hot meal that they can get from charities.

I am in no way suggesting that giving in other ways is less meaningful - not sure where you have gotten that in any of my posts. I am merely trying to point out that the issue is not so cut and dried.

I also never said that giving cash is bad, or the wrong giving... you'll notice that I didn't say anything bad about giving cash, I merely said it was not my preference.

I was referring to your sarcastic comment that, "We didn't give him straight cash though... so I guess we were only motivated by self-interest, or the wrong kind of compassion or something.:rolleyes:" Implying that your impression of the comments other people made was that if you didn't give cash you were a bad person. If you can find me a single post where anyone said that, I'll eat my hat.

I asked you 2 questions. I asked you to provide your opinion on whether you felt that there were significant numbers of people who refused to give cash because they pre-judged homeless people as being substance abusers, alcoholics, or otherwise bad people.

I also asked you whether you felt that homeless people should accept the inherent risks associated with many of the "charitable deeds" that people perform in place of money, simply because people are trying to be nice.

I suggest you read peoples posts, and understand them, before judging people based on them.

How bout you do the same?

Standing around the 7-11 is a good way to get arrested, especially if female.

If you drive out to Long Island right now. I know I can find 50 to 100 people.
Cops usually stay away. I guess it depends where you live.


And if you aren't, if you're sick for example. (most of the other homeless people I knew when I was homeless weren't in peak shape)

I know few of them are in shape enough to swing a hammer. There is washing dishes which usually not too strenuous. I know it is really hard on the dignity.



I was actually surprised how often I got that offer while living on the streets. Apparently when you're a young lady and homeless this is supposedly the job of choice, according to the men who "don't want to give you money" because it will teach you not to work. Their good Christian duty you know, make sure you get an honest hour's work in.

These are the parasites I am talking about that almost delight in other people's misfortune. Disgusting.

I know few of them are in shape enough to swing a hammer. There is washing dishes which usually not too strenuous. I know it is really hard on the dignity.

I had no dignity when I was homeless, the "responsible" people around me made sure of that. I wish I could have gotten a job washing dishes, but sadly you needed an address and your birth certificate and SS card to get one.

Private charities just can't meet the demand for services. They cannot raise enough money without public subsidies to house the number of poor in this country. They cannot provide proper medical care for addicts, for the mentally ill, for the elderly, for the severely disabled, for children (with or without parents). Private charities are in the trenches, working like dogs. They are overwhelmed.

The government has the power and access to the resources to address the needs. Even just to manage the logistics of the problem. The private charities should be assisting and supplementing government programs. The government just will not maintain good programs due to political resistance from a few factions of motherfuckers. It is a moral crime, in my opinion, a dereliction of the government's duty to the public.

My country is fucked up in so many ways. This attitude towards poverty is the one that pisses me off the most.

EDIT: By "this country" and "my country" I mean the USA. I realize that this is an international discussion.

Wow I agree again. Think of all the empty warehouses that are just sitting there decaying. Think about all the old factories especially along the New Jersey coastline, crumbling before your eyes. What would it take to add a few space heaters and put down a few cots? Add some running water and a few tables all donated from Thrift Shops or whatever. These problem are solvable we just need the will.

Wow I agree again. Think of all the empty warehouses that are just sitting there decaying. Think about all the old factories especially along the New Jersey coastline, crumbling before your eyes. What would it take to add a few space heaters and put down a few cots? Add some running water and a few tables all donated from Thrift Shops or whatever. These problem are solvable we just need the will.

Then the health inspector comes and says XYZ must be done.
Then the building inspector comes.
Then some TV shows says how degrading it is they have limited privacy.

Before long it just would have been cheaper to tear down the ware house a build free condominiums for the homeless.

Wow I agree again. Think of all the empty warehouses that are just sitting there decaying. Think about all the old factories especially along the New Jersey coastline, crumbling before your eyes. What would it take to add a few space heaters and put down a few cots? Add some running water and a few tables all donated from Thrift Shops or whatever. These problem are solvable we just need the will.

It would take convincing the owners which I can't see being easy.

Hey, not excusing it, just attempting, in my own poor way, to explain it. Most of us aren't as upstanding and wonderful as we wish we were.
Oh, I realized you were not expressing your own thoughts. But still, I am not going to have more patience for one vice than for another. If we're going to criticize the homeless for vices like addiction (gluttony?), then I will equally criticize the non-charitable for their vices (pride? greed? whatever combination of the 7 deadlies causes people not to give a shit about their fellow humans and to make up self-serving excuses about how it's the poor person's fault).

Then the health inspector comes and says XYZ must be done.
Then the building inspector comes.
Then some TV shows says how degrading it is they have limited privacy.

Before long it just would have been cheaper to tear down the ware house a build free condominiums for the homeless.
Sounds like a plan.

It would take convincing the owners which I can't see being easy.
The kinds of buildings TB mentioned are usually abandoned or semi-abandoned. They have either already lapsed into municipal ownership or they are open to municipal taking. Or they are so devalued, the municipality or state could buy them at a bargain price, or subsidize charitable organizations to buy them.

Other things the government could do is fund public health and mental facilities properly, fund food and public shelter programs properly, fund job training programs properly, and (brace yourselves) raise the minimum wage so that fewer working people will be the "working poor" at risk of slipping into homelessness if they miss even one or two paychecks.

The US government chooses to do none of those things. They should be held accountable, only the American people are still too Calvinist to be considered civilized, in my opinion.

Sounds like a plan.




I am not building them a condominiums. After the state shut down my ware house where Fed and gave a place to sleep for the homeless.
Given the state said I was keeping them locked up and making them crappy plastic products...

but the lock was for their security, and the work was just because they looked bored.

Then the health inspector comes and says XYZ must be done.
Then the building inspector comes.
Then some TV shows says how degrading it is they have limited privacy.

Before long it just would have been cheaper to tear down the ware house a build free condominiums for the homeless.

Hey we are not trying to make it a 5 star hotel just better than a park bench. If you think of the homeless shelters there no privacy at all. Except maybe a bathroom.

Great we can open up a Reality TV show. The real life on the streets. Stay at home kids and stay off drugs...

Hey we are not trying to make it a 5 star hotel just better than a park bench. If you think of the homeless shelters there no privacy at all. Except maybe a bathroom.

Great we can open up a Reality TV show. The real life on the streets. Stay at home kids and stay off drugs...

I am seeming profit potential at least for a season or two, maybe more then the time i had the homeless making goods for sale. Defiantly less legal issues.

It would take convincing the owners which I can't see being easy.

They have long since gone bankrupt. The bank probably owns it but have long since written it off. At least this way they could use it as a tax deduction until it is sold which is not likely to happen anytime soon. They would prefer to see it crumble than put it to "good" use. Great that is all we need another abandon warehouse or falling down factory.

Even something along the line of FEMA housing would be better. The so called tent city would be an improvement.

I am not building them a condominiums. After the state shut down my ware house where Fed and gave a place to sleep for the homeless.
Given the state said I was keeping them locked up and making them crappy plastic products...

but the lock was for their security, and the work was just because they looked bored.
No more Troll Chow for you.

I am seeming profit potential at least for a season or two.

Sad thing is people would watch. Not lift a finger to help but they would tune in to see some good misery.

The Outer Darkness awaits!

No more Troll Chow for you.

http://www.salagir.com/gfx/troll-web.jpg

Sad thing is people would watch. Not lift a finger to help but they would tune in to see some good misery.

The Outer Darkness awaits!

I would donate a percentage of the profits to run the shelter after the show was canceled. Be my good deed for the homeless for my life.

And this is why Christianity fails. Because so many people who follow it are either fundamentalist fools or hypocrites.

No, this is why individual Christians fail.

Jesus, how fucked up are you people that not only do you bitch about people NOT giving, but then bitch about those who do that THEY GIVE WRONG?

Kat, I hate to say this, but that is very close to being a flame, and under normal circumstances, the poster might be disciplined; to varying degrees depending on their history and reputation. I would expect a fellow moderator to show more self-restraint and discipline. We're supposed to set the bar high here and lead my example. This is one example that we don't want to set.

O shi-

*Sets up chairs......sells popcorn

!!!

Again I call for a NSG Fight Club! We could solve so many problems.....


Remember rule number one!

What? Leaving before you point out the post in which I demonstrated the prejudice you accused me of by characterizing the homeless as drug addicts and drunks?

I wonder why.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14670968&postcount=239

It helps to read the thread before you start getting snotty. It makes you look a lot less silly when youre wrong.
And again, you are deciding what I meant by that. The same way others have decided what people's motives are when they offer to buy a meal for people.

Amazing how those words you put in my mouth weren't there at all.

Are you flamebaiting me? Making up the argument you'd like for me to have made? Or just caught in a lie and trying to save face?

Oh please. Its obvious to everyone what youre implying. I understand why youre backpeddling now. You probably feel silly. You should.

Tell us then, why wouldnt the guy want food instead of money? Like I said, it doesnt take a genius to figure out what youre implying. Its pretty obvious. If youd like to explain, Ill listen. Not that I really expect you to. We all know what you meant.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14670968&postcount=239

It helps to read the thread before you start getting snotty. It makes you look a lot less silly when youre wrong.


Oh please. Its obvious to everyone what youre implying. I understand why youre backpeddling now. You probably feel silly. You should.

Tell us then, why wouldnt the guy want food instead of money? Like I said, it doesnt take a genius to figure out what youre implying. Its pretty obvious. If youd like to explain, Ill listen. Not that I really expect you to. We all know what you meant.

That's a hell of a leap.

That's a hell of a leap.

Hardly. Considering the context of the thread and the posts before it, its not a very big stretch to assume that when you say "I offered to give the guy asking for money food, but he declined, so apperantly he wasnt hungry" that said poster is implying "He probably just wanted the money for booze."

But what do I know? According to Kat, because I havent trumpeted the community service and charity I partake in, Im not really doing anything at all, just complaining.:rolleyes:

According to you, doubtless. However, there are some others who seem to strongly make the point that if you don't give cash to every homeless person you see, then you are an incompassionate, judgementalist. And if you give to any charity, or give anything but cash, then you are only self-motivated, or in need of a power trip.

Oh really? Who has said any of this?

I dont give money to every homeless person I see, for a lot of reasons. If Im in the city, for example, I took the train there, so I need cash for a ticket back.

No one has also decryed giving money to charity.

Hardly. Considering the context of the thread and the posts before it, its not a very big stretch to assume that when you say "I offered to give the guy asking for money food, but he declined, so apperantly he wasnt hungry" that said poster is implying "He probably just wanted the money for booze."

No, you would infer that, but she did not imply that. You are attaching your own interpretations into her words, plain and simple. Nowhere did she ever claim that they just wanted money for booze. You did.


But what do I know? According to Kat, because I havent trumpeted the community service and charity I partake in, Im not really doing anything at all, just complaining.:rolleyes:

And according to several people in this thread, there's no way to try to help those less fortunate that isn't either self-serving or judgemental. What's your point?

Hardly. Considering the context of the thread and the posts before it, its not a very big stretch to assume that when you say "I offered to give the guy asking for money food, but he declined, so apperantly he wasnt hungry" that said poster is implying "He probably just wanted the money for booze."


Seriously, what the fuck is the problem anyway. If you are completely unable to find any other explanation as to why he didn't want the food, you are making the EXACT SAME ASSUMPTION. And again, given the disturbingly high rates of drug abuse amongst the homeless, there is nothing at all wrong with that assumption.

No, you would infer that, but she did not imply that. You are attaching your own interpretations into her words, plain and simple. Nowhere did she ever claim that they just wanted money for booze. You did.
Oh? Considering the common arguement in this thread has been that they'll spend it on substances to abuse.

If Kat really didnt mean that, she could have elaborated and explained. She didnt. She just went "Nu-uh!" and accused me of flamebating her. Her lack of clarification is also telling.

And according to several people in this thread, there's no way to try to help those less fortunate that isn't either self-serving or judgemental.
Oh? And Im sure you can provide me with quotes? Otherwise youre building a pretty epic strawman.

Seriously, what the fuck is the problem anyway. If you seem to be completely unable to find any other explanation as to why he didn't want the food, you are making the EXACT SAME ASSUMPTION
Hardly. The context matters.
And again, given the disturbingly high rates of drug abuse amongst the homeless, there is nothing at all wrong with that assumption.
Yes there is. Its fucking judgemental.

EDIT: Seriously, a high proportion of african americans do drugs. What would you all say if I said "I dont lend my black friends money because they'll probably spend it on crack."

Youd (rightfully) freak the fuck out and scream "racist!"

Hardly. The context matters.


You have explicitly stated that Kat must have meant that he was going to spend it on something like drugs or alcohol, because there is nothing else he would have spent it on. That's you making the assumption.


Yes there is. Its fucking judgemental.

Yes, generally when you discuss something, you make a judgement.

You have explicitly stated that Kat must have meant that he was going to spend it on something like drugs or alcohol, because there is nothing else he would have spent it on. That's you making the assumption.
Whatever. The only way this can be cleared if is if Kat clarifies what she meant. But she seems more content to let it sit.

Im sticking with my reading. Ill retract it if Im proven wrong, but your interpertation is worth just as much as mine.

Yes, generally when you discuss something, you make a judgement.

See my edit.

Im sticking with my reading.

So you're sticking with your assumption. All you're saying to me is, given the context Kat gave, is that one MUST make that assumption. So all you are doing is agreeing with her if she did make that assumption.


See my edit.

Doesn't compare at all. There is no reasoning linking skin pigmentation to drug abuse. It is reasonable to link a tramp who's not interested in food, only currency, to drug or alcohol abuse, given that's largely the reason many are homeless in the first place, given that it's one of the few pleasures they can turn too, and given there is very little else a tramp can purchase with currency that will give him any utility.

So you're sticking with your assumption. All you're saying to me is, given the context Kat gave, is that one MUST make that assumption. So all you are doing is agreeing with her if she did make that assumption.

No, not at all. But hey, you dont ever really respond to what is being said, so why should now be any different?
Doesn't compare at all.
Actually, it does. Youre making a judgement based on stereotypes and faulty reasoning in both situations. It only doesnt compare for you because its inconvenient for it to.

Anyway, I have class. Be back later.

Oh? And Im sure you can provide me with quotes? Otherwise youre building a pretty epic strawman.

That should be hard.

I'm guessing: 1, you get to watch them eat, and it's a power trip and you feel awesome about yourself because of how generous you are. 2, you don't trust them, and believe they're just going to buy drugs or alcohol (Oh, No!) and by forcing them to eat a meal with you, you get to observe and control their behavior there.

And it's all bullshit. If they really want alcohol or drugs, you think they are going to wait for money from stingy, suspicious, hypocritical passers by to get it? By depriving them of money you're only depriving them of the freedom and opportunity that money represents. And if they're drug addicts, forcing them to steal. But at least you didn't accidentally pitch in a 25 cent piece on a bottle of wine! Way to go!

Giving a homeless person food is either self-serving or judgemental.

You're not supposed to hand a homeless man money, you're supposed to throw the coins onto the pavement and laugh as you watch hims scramble. Toss your head back, put your hands on your hips and let out a long belly-laugh. Then when he's collected some of the coins you kick him and step on his hand, and say, "You know, you're only going to buy drugs and alcohol with the money, so I'm actually doing you good right now!" Laugh again as you walk off, knowing that you've earned your place in Heaven.

Giving a homeless person money is either self-serving or judgemental.

God, it's almost like it was on the first page.

But, I know the next verse in this song. This is where you'll deny those posts mean what I interpreted them to mean, while hypocritically continuing to defend your own personal interpretation of someone else's posts. Then, for good measure, you'll throw in an attack on my intelligence for not agreeing with your own personal world view.

No, not at all. But hey, you dont ever really respond to what is being said, so why should now be any different?


I'm telling you how I see it, you've failed to show me otherwise.


Actually, it does. Youre making a judgement based on stereotypes and faulty reasoning in both situations.

You haven't demonstrated the reasoning to be faulty. Indeed, you've been convinced by the reasoning yourself, since you yourself can't see any other possible assumption you can get from that situation. Also, just because something is a stereotype, does not mean it is untrue.

Then they could offer him dinner.
i was told if a homeless person asks for money to buy food, offer to buy him some. if he says "i can buy me own food if you give money" he could be lying. if he says "okay, i want a (burger)*, he really wants food.
*just an example. substitute anything else if you prefer

Giving a homeless person food is either self-serving or judgemental.


When it's done because you don't trust homeless people with money because you assume they're drug addicts? You betcha.

Giving a homeless person money is either self-serving or judgemental.


When it's done because you don't trust homeless people with money because you assume they're drug addicts? You betcha.

God, it's almost like it was on the first page.

The topic? The common thread you are ignoring so you can try to make these idiotic accusations stick? 'Oh, Trostia, YOU HATE COMPASSIONATE PEOPLE who don't give money to the homeless because they assume they're all fucking drug addicted alcoholics! Why do you HATE COMPASSION?'

But, I know the next verse in this song. This is where you'll deny those posts mean what I interpreted them to mean, while hypocritically continuing to defend your own personal interpretation of someone else's posts. Then, for good measure, you'll throw in an attack on my intelligence for not agreeing with your own personal world view.

This is the part where I congratulate you for your amazing powers of foresight!

It's almost like you not only could see the weak points in your interpretation, you could see that I would see them! So, while they're still weak and your Nostradamus predictions don't address them in any way, at least you have "I told you so!"

I'm gonna play Nostradamus too - you'll post some more bullshit that I shouldn't even be bothering with, but probably will out of sheer boredom. Oooooh I'm prescient!

Do you consider that an attack on your intelligence?

The topic? The common thread you are ignoring so you can try to make these idiotic accusations stick? 'Oh, Trostia, YOU HATE COMPASSIONATE PEOPLE who don't give money to the homeless because they assume they're all fucking drug addicted alcoholics! Why do you HATE COMPASSION?'

The common thread you are ignoring is that it is somehow completely acceptable for you to interpret people's motivations for giving food in lieu of money to homeless, accusing them of being judgemental without so much as a single shred of evidence, but yet it's somehow completely verboten for me to interpret your words as being hypocritical. Double standards abound wherever you post.

Please, continue with your hypocrisy. Do be sure to throw in some more flamebait too, please. It wouldn't be a Trotsia post if you didn't attempt antagonize someone.

When it's done because you don't trust homeless people with money because you assume they're drug addicts? You betcha.


Oh no! A judgement! How terrible!

The common thread you are ignoring is that it is somehow completely acceptable for you to interpret people's motivations

Why yes, I think my having an opinion IS completely acceptable.

for giving food in lieu of money to homeless, accusing them of being judgemental without so much as a single shred of evidence, but yet it's somehow completely verboten for me to interpret your words as being hypocritical. Double standards abound wherever you post.

That's bullshit. The people whose opinions I'm so maliciously guessing at are not posters on this forum. They are people in the OP's anecdote and frankly they may or may not even exist, depending on the truth of said anecdote.

I do exist, and I'm posting here, and I'm here to correct you when you mis-interpret what I say.

Frankly, deliberately misinterpreting me just to make the point that deliberately misinterpreting people is obnoxious is, itself, obnoxious.

Please, continue with your hypocrisy. Do be sure to throw in some more flamebait too, please. It wouldn't be a Trotsia post if you didn't attempt antagonize someone.

Apparently I don't even need to attempt.

Oh no! A judgement! How terrible!

It's a prejudice, actually, since it happens without any thought and is applied automatically. I guess it's no more terrible than any other prejudice, like automatically assuming black people are criminals, Middle Eastern people are terrorists, or that gay people will harm your children.

It's a prejudice, actually, since it happens without any thought and is applied automatically.

This total, utter, complete, bullshit. I've already demonstrated how reasoning can lead one to find, in the situation Kat gave, that the assumption is a pretty good one. So much so, Trve wasn't even able to think of any other assumption you could derive from it.

That's bullshit. The people whose opinions I'm so maliciously guessing at are not posters on this forum. They are people in the OP's anecdote and frankly they may or may not even exist, depending on the truth of said anecdote.

I do exist, and I'm posting here, and I'm here to correct you when you mis-interpret what I say.

Frankly, deliberately misinterpreting me just to make the point that deliberately misinterpreting people is obnoxious is, itself, obnoxious.

And Katganistan is a poster here, and despite her denial of KoL's interpretation of her words, he's seen fit to continue to deliberately misinterpret her words to benefit his argument.

This total, utter, complete, bullshit. I've already demonstrated how reasoning can lead one to the assumption, in the situation Kat gave, that the assumption is a pretty good one.

I offered counter-reasoning, but I guess it's not so much fun to address the arguments as to just scream at me for my supposed hypocrisy.

As a reminder, the counter-arguments for that assumption are:

- A natural suspicion of taking food from strangers. We are all taught at a young age not to do this.
--For the homeless, who get abused (and murdered, and generally preyed upon) it is even more important a trait.
--It doesn't help that many homeless have, as resulting from or causing their homelessness, mental disorders. They will have even less reason to trust you (or anyone).
-Not wanting to eat right now, but preferring to save food for later. This is even more understandable if you don't get much food to eat and your belly is smaller.
-Maybe he just didn't want that sandwich and that cup of coffee. Not everyone likes coffee. If they don't, do you assume it's because they prefer booze?

Given all the above, is that assumption really such a valid one in that specific case? Or is it just a general prejudice being applied more or less universally to homeless persons?

- A natural suspicion of taking food from strangers. We are all taught at a young age not to do this.

That's heavily context based, and I highly doubt Kat would be the type of person that a tramp would immediately distrust.


--For the homeless, who get abused (and murdered, and generally preyed upon) it is even more important a trait.

I'm sure there are far, in fact hugely more people who give food to homeless people, than there are that kill them.


--It doesn't help that many homeless have, as resulting from or causing their homelessness, mental disorders. They will have even less reason to trust you (or anyone).

If someone is so mentally impaired so as to assume Kat was trying to kill him, currency would be of little value to him regardless.


-Not wanting to eat right now, but preferring to save food for later. This is even more understandable if you don't get much food to eat and your belly is smaller.

Given that we don't know what Kat meant exactly by 'they weren't that hungry apparently', as in we don't know if he flat out refused it, or just put it to one side, we can't really comment on that aspect.


-Maybe he just didn't want that sandwich and that cup of coffee. Not everyone likes coffee. If they don't, do you assume it's because they prefer booze?


When you're homeless, trivial things like not liking a particular type of sandwich is not of much relevance.


Given all the above, is that assumption really such a valid one in that specific case? Or is it just a general prejudice being applied more or less universally to homeless persons?

Firstly, I take issue mostly with your insane comparison of Kats assumption with correlating skin pigmentation to being criminals, that is perhaps one of the most ridiculous comparisons I have ever seen on NSG. The only thing I have seen close to such a strong assumption was your monumental assumption about why people give food to the homeless. Assumptions do not work as if they are either completely valid, or completely invalid. Obviously correlating skin pigmentation to crime is a far less valid assumption than inferring that a homeless person who is not interested in the food she gives and is specifically asking for currency (where there is very little a homeless person can purchase with currency other than food or drink which will offer him any utility), is most likely more interested in drugs or alcohol. She by no means made a universal assumption about all homeless people, only a specific homeless person, in a specific context, and it's a perfectly normal assumption, even if it isn't 100% objectively proven.

I offered counter-reasoning, but I guess it's not so much fun to address the arguments as to just scream at me for my supposed hypocrisy.

As a reminder, the counter-arguments for that assumption are:

- A natural suspicion of taking food from strangers. We are all taught at a young age not to do this.

Sort of. We actually take food from strangers all the time - at restaurants and convenience stores. It's more prepared food that we aren't supposed to take. That, and food offered unsolicited (candy from strangers).

I've personally had a situation in which a person (presumably homeless) was standing outside a convenience store and asked me for money so that he could buy food inside. I was in the process of going in, so I asked him what he wanted so that I could buy it for him. He could have come in with me if he really thought I'd poison it on the way out. He refused.

--It doesn't help that many homeless have, as resulting from or causing their homelessness, mental disorders. They will have even less reason to trust you (or anyone).

Ok, a homeless person doesn't trust me. But I'm supposed to implicitly trust him? Why?

-Not wanting to eat right now, but preferring to save food for later. This is even more understandable if you don't get much food to eat and your belly is smaller.

There isn't much food that you'd have to eat right now when given to you.

-Maybe he just didn't want that sandwich and that cup of coffee.

And if I hand someone a pocketful of change, do they get to say they don't want the tarnished coins? Am I then somehow a bad person if I don't go get them shiny new ones?

I hate to use a trite phrase, but beggars really can't be choosers. If you want someone to help you out, don't get upset when they do so in their own way. (Obviously, if the person is allergic to something in it, that's another story).

Given all the above, is that assumption really such a valid one in that specific case? Or is it just a general prejudice being applied more or less universally to homeless persons?

Maybe it's a general prejudice being applied more or less universally to all persons, period. We know people lie, cheat, and steal. Some people do less of it, but we don't know that until we get to know them. When I give to a charity, I check it out first. I look into the reputation of that charity and I want to see evidence that they are using the money they get in the way they have told me they will. Giving to homeless persons is just another form of charity. Since I can't really check up on them to see what they do with any money I give them (unless I see them back at that same spot trying to scam someone else later - which has happened), I prefer to give something more concrete.

Strangely, the only time I've had anyone refuse an offer to actually buy them food, rather than give them money, is the instance I described above. Most often, the response has been gratitude, possibly due to the fact that most people who do give money only give a few coins and they'd have to wait for multiple such people before they'd be able to buy the meal I get them on my own. So the idea that homeless people, as a whole, would regularly refuse food seems pretty spurious to me.

Please, continue with your hypocrisy. Do be sure to throw in some more flamebait too, please. It wouldn't be a Trotsia post if you didn't attempt antagonize someone.

What a joke of a comment. I think its awesome that you feel qualified to make this statement. Its almost as if you arent continually antagozing anyone who disagrees with you! Like, for example, in this very thread:


God, it's almost like it was on the first page.

But, I know the next verse in this song. This is where you'll deny those posts mean what I interpreted them to mean, while hypocritically continuing to defend your own personal interpretation of someone else's posts. Then, for good measure, you'll throw in an attack on my intelligence for not agreeing with your own personal world view.

And before you say "lulz so do you" the difference is, I know I do it, and dont act all high and mighty to others who do so.


Anyway, as an aside:

I apologize to Kat. Her post may very well have not meant what I said it did, but given the context of the thread and the arguements before it from others, it shouldnt be hard to see why I felt that way.

I readily admit, however, that is no excuse, and should have asked for clarification before I snapped at her. Poverty is a very important and emotional issue to me, and prior posts to hers had me in a very aggressive mode. I take full responsibility for any of the douschy things I may have (and probably did say) and apologize.

As an aside, it has nothing to do with anything said by anyone since then. I still believe that my interpertation is a very valid one, but I admit it may be wrong. I simply feel I was setting a poor tone. It would be nice, however, if Kat could clarify the post in question.

This total, utter, complete, bullshit. I've already demonstrated how reasoning can lead one to find, in the situation Kat gave, that the assumption is a pretty good one. So much so, Trve wasn't even able to think of any other assumption you could derive from it.

Oh? I couldnt? Actually, I could, I just felt that such assumptions were irrlevent. Maybe he wanted the money for bus fare, so he could leave the area. Who knows.

Your arguement was actually shit, and I dont appreciate you using me leaving for class as proof that you are teh uber thinker.

Oh? I couldnt? Actually, I could, I just felt that such assumptions were irrlevent. Maybe he wanted the money for bus fare, so he could leave the area. Who knows.

Your arguement was actually shit, and I dont appreciate you using me leaving for class as proof that you are teh uber thinker.

It was nothing to do with you leaving. It was to do with you explicitly saying so. If there were other assumptions you could have reasonably deduced from what Kat said, then you would have NO REASON to complain, as you would have no reason to assume what Kat implied, if she could have just as easily implied something different.

It was nothing to do with you leaving. It was to do with you explicitly saying so. If there were other assumptions you could have reasonably deduced from what Kat said, then you would have NO REASON to complain, as you would have no reason to assume what Kat implied, if she could have just as easily implied something different.

Again, context matters. The tone and context of her post, to me, gave off a certian impression. But Ive already said that perhaps I reacted hastily.

Me maybe overreacting hasnt given you the ability to actually read whats posted, however.

Sort of. We actually take food from strangers all the time - at restaurants and convenience stores. It's more prepared food that we aren't supposed to take. That, and food offered unsolicited (candy from strangers).


Well, it's clear that taking food from a vendor is different from some person you meet on the street to most people.

I've personally had a situation in which a person (presumably homeless) was standing outside a convenience store and asked me for money so that he could buy food inside. I was in the process of going in, so I asked him what he wanted so that I could buy it for him. He could have come in with me if he really thought I'd poison it on the way out. He refused.

There are many possible reasons for this.

Ok, a homeless person doesn't trust me. But I'm supposed to implicitly trust him? Why?

No one said you are supposed to implicitly trust him.

There isn't much food that you'd have to eat right now when given to you.

Well, a coffee is one, unless you like cold coffee. Sandwiches - depends.

And if I hand someone a pocketful of change, do they get to say they don't want the tarnished coins?

Yes they do get to say that, if they really feel that way. Most people are less picky about coins than things they put into their stomachs, however...

Am I then somehow a bad person if I don't go get them shiny new ones?

? No.

I hate to use a trite phrase, but beggars really can't be choosers.

They can, and are. Sorry, reality disagrees with you. People regardless of position are "choosers" if they want or feel they must be.

If you want someone to help you out, don't get upset when they do so in their own way.

Who said anything about being upset? In neither Kat's nor the OP's story, beggars never did any of these things - demand "shinier" food, or express being upset.

Maybe it's a general prejudice being applied more or less universally to all persons, period. We know people lie, cheat, and steal.

Maybe, but it's awfully convenient that homeless people are the ones least prepared to defend themselves against unfair prejudices, and no one seems to be assuming everyone is a drug addict. (Even though, if you count caffeine, they statistically are likely to be.)

Some people do less of it, but we don't know that until we get to know them. When I give to a charity, I check it out first. I look into the reputation of that charity and I want to see evidence that they are using the money they get in the way they have told me they will. Giving to homeless persons is just another form of charity. Since I can't really check up on them to see what they do with any money I give them (unless I see them back at that same spot trying to scam someone else later - which has happened), I prefer to give something more concrete.

That was exactly what I was talking about earlier.

Strangely, the only time I've had anyone refuse an offer to actually buy them food, rather than give them money, is the instance I described above. Most often, the response has been gratitude, possibly due to the fact that most people who do give money only give a few coins and they'd have to wait for multiple such people before they'd be able to buy the meal I get them on my own. So the idea that homeless people, as a whole, would regularly refuse food seems pretty spurious to me.

We're not talking about as a whole, or regularity. I'm just saying there are plenty of reasons behind a person's actions, and to jump to a conclusion like "drug use" is an unfair dismissal.

When used as a reason for not giving, it looks very much like a self-serving, rationalizing, reaffirming bias.

That's heavily context based, and I highly doubt Kat would be the type of person that a tramp would immediately distrust.

How would you know what "type" an individual might or might not trust?

I'm sure there are far, in fact hugely more people who give food to homeless people, than there are that kill them.

I'm sure there are, but that doesn't matter to people being cautious.

If someone is so mentally impaired so as to assume Kat was trying to kill him, currency would be of little value to him regardless.

Uh, because distrusting strangers = cannot use currency? What kind of nonsense rule is this?

Given that we don't know what Kat meant exactly by 'they weren't that hungry apparently', as in we don't know if he flat out refused it, or just put it to one side, we can't really comment on that aspect.



When you're homeless, trivial things like not liking a particular type of sandwich is not of much relevance.

This is an assumption and it again implies that being homeless means you have to vacuum up anything that might be food that anyone gives to you. No, you don't, and you wouldn't if you maybe had some mental issues in general and trust issues as a natural consequence of the lifestyle.

Firstly, I take issue mostly with your insane comparison of Kats assumption

I don't know if she made that assumption or not, but I'm comparing that assumption regardless, so kindly stop trying to drag me into this personal dispute.

with correlating skin pigmentation to being criminals, that is perhaps one of the most ridiculous comparisons I have ever seen on NSG.

Assuming homeless people are drug users is no more valid an assumption than assuming black people are criminals.

In both cases, the one making the assumption can point to statistics - high crime in black populations, high incarceration rate for black men, high drug use in homeless populations.

In both cases, one is taking a generalization and applying it as an assumption made with prejudice.

The only thing I have seen close to such a strong assumption was your monumental assumption about why people give food to the homeless.

It seems you are still having difficulty with this thing called "context." Sorry. But you're on you're own, I'm not going to continue burning this fucking strawman even if you wave it around again and again.

Assumptions do not work as if they are either completely valid, or completely invalid. Obviously correlating skin pigmentation to crime is a far less valid assumption than inferring that a homeless person who is not interested in the food she gives and is specifically asking for currency (where there is very little a homeless person can purchase with currency other than food or drink which will offer him any utility), is most likely more interested in drugs or alcohol.

You're only repeating arguments I've already addressed. No, that "inference" is nothing but serving a particular bias. No, refusing a coffee and sandwich doesn't make you a drug addict. Calling it "more likely" and stating your bias as "obviously" true doesn't make it the least bit valid.

And people do not correlate "skin pigmentation" to crime, but the concept of 'race' to crime. And there are obviously racial discrepancies - just as there is high drug use in homeless populations. Where you are going wrong is assuming people are drug addicts, just as people who are afraid when they see a black guy on the street are doing wrong by assuming.

She by no means made a universal assumption about all homeless people

I never said she did.

, only a specific homeless person, in a specific context, and it's a perfectly normal assumption, even if it isn't 100% objectively proven.

It's more like 0% objectively proven, but you're correct that it is "normal."

Hardly. The context matters.

Yes there is. Its fucking judgemental.

How is this: I do not give money to strangers--homeless or not--unless I am certain it will be used properly. I will buy them food, or give them money via a charity service.

If somebody asked me for money, and that fellow was clean and had fine English, I would be just as wary. Homeless/not homeless, black/white, it matters not.

How is this: I do not give money to strangers--homeless or not--unless I am certain it will be used properly. I will buy them food, or give them money via a charity service.

If somebody asked me for money, and that fellow was clean and had fine English, I would be just as wary. Homeless/not homeless, black/white, it matters not.

Thats consistancy. I probably wouldnt accuse you of being judgemental.

I don't wish to address that whole post, the most important disagreement is below.


I don't know if she made that assumption or not, but I'm comparing that assumption regardless, so kindly stop trying to drag me into this personal dispute.


And the comparison is extremely obnoxious.


In both cases, the one making the assumption can point to statistics - high crime in black populations, high incarceration rate for black men, high drug use in homeless populations.

In both cases, one is taking a generalization and applying it as an assumption made with prejudice.


This is such shallow analysis You're deliberately over simplifying and reducing all context so as to make any assumption just as bad as assuming black people are criminals, even assuming that the cheese in my sandwich will taste good. There are very distinct differences:

One can use reason, as well as statistics, to show why there could be some causation to that correlation. There is no reason why having black skin makes you inherently more likely to commit crimes. It is perfectly reasonable to think that being homeless makes you inherently more likely to turn to drugs and alchohol. That is one distinction. That's what you should be arguing about, debating whether being homeless has an inherent link to drug addiction and alcohol abuse. Pointing out an irrelevant similarity between two different assumptions tells us absolutely nothing, and contributes fuck all to a debate other than trying set up some bullshit moral high ground.

Well, it's clear that taking food from a vendor is different from some person you meet on the street to most people.

Indeed. Of course, when you're asking someone to help you get food, it seems that you are already placing some trust in them.

There are many possible reasons for this.

Yes. But the most likely is, "He didn't really want to buy food there." He wasn't doing anything other than sitting outside the store asking people for money. According to him, he wanted to use it to buy some food at the store. There aren't many reasons for not allowing someone to buy you food there, unless you weren't actually planning on buying food there in the first place. It's the same food, regardless of whether you get the intermediary step of receiving money.

No one said you are supposed to implicitly trust him.

No, but entertaining the notion that he might spend money on something other than what he claims and working that into my decision on whether or not to give it to him apparently equates to bigotry on the scale of assuming all black people are criminals.

Well, a coffee is one, unless you like cold coffee. Sandwiches - depends.

I was talking about whether or not you could eat it, not whether or not it would still be equally appetizing.

They can, and are. Sorry, reality disagrees with you. People regardless of position are "choosers" if they want or feel they must be.

I don't think you get the point of the phrase. Yes, someone can refuse a charitable gift on the basis that it isn't their preferred flavor. But, if they do, it is their own damn fault that they're hungry. Faulting the person who tried to give them said gift is silly.

If someone tells me they want food, I offer to buy it for them, and they refuse, then it really is their own fault if they are hungry. I tried to help. They refused. They certainly don't get to choose what type of help I will offer. That is up to me.

Maybe, but it's awfully convenient that homeless people are the ones least prepared to defend themselves against unfair prejudices, and no one seems to be assuming everyone is a drug addict. (Even though, if you count caffeine, they statistically are likely to be.)

It's not really about assuming that they are drug addicts. It's about knowing that they might be - and that they might use any money you have to feed that addiction. They could, of course, just as well use it for something else that isn't what they told you they'd use it for.

That was exactly what I was talking about earlier.

What is? Treating the homeless like I would any other charitable giving?

We're not talking about as a whole, or regularity. I'm just saying there are plenty of reasons behind a person's actions, and to jump to a conclusion like "drug use" is an unfair dismissal.

And I'm saying that there is a difference between "jumping to a conclusion" and "factoring in the possibility." I don't know if the homeless man who hangs out on the corner is a drug user unless I specifically see him taking drugs. I do know that he might be - and is even statistically likely to be (especially if we're counting alcohol). And since I am willing to help someone who needs food, but not necessarily willing to help with other wants (ie. drugs), I prefer to give in such a way that I know what I'm giving.

When used as a reason for not giving, it looks very much like a self-serving, rationalizing, reaffirming bias.

It can be, but it isn't necessarily.

Private charities just can't meet the demand for services. They cannot raise enough money without public subsidies to house the number of poor in this country. They cannot provide proper medical care for addicts, for the mentally ill, for the elderly, for the severely disabled, for children (with or without parents). Private charities are in the trenches, working like dogs. They are overwhelmed.

The government has the power and access to the resources to address the needs. Even just to manage the logistics of the problem. The private charities should be assisting and supplementing government programs. The government just will not maintain good programs due to political resistance from a few factions of motherfuckers. It is a moral crime, in my opinion, a dereliction of the government's duty to the public.

My country is fucked up in so many ways. This attitude towards poverty is the one that pisses me off the most.

EDIT: By "this country" and "my country" I mean the USA. I realize that this is an international discussion.

If you're poor, it's your fault.

If you're homeless, you can't be trusted with money.

It's okay to have a broken leg, but a broken brain is YOUR failing.


There's a pattern that enables people to walk on by and say 'not my problem'.

I am going to play devils advocate with this one ... with the high number of substance abusers among the homeless population it may be a justifiable concern. If it was their own money being used to fuel their bad habits so be it ... its their money to spend

But when they are abusing charity to fuel those bad habits it is something else completely

Personally this is why I am so involved with giving to charity that focus on providing to the basic needs rather then through cash directly. I also take a strong lean towards organizations that help with either education, mental treatment, or substance abuse counciling as well as food and shelter

They may have bad habbits like everyone else but I want to make sure the money I worked hard for goes as minimally to those bad habits as I reasonably can and hopefully help them improve themselves in the long run as well

Poor addicts need drugs too.

At least if they ask for it, and you give, you probably won't find them in your living room at midnight, hopping through the window with your camcorder.

Wow I agree again. Think of all the empty warehouses that are just sitting there decaying. Think about all the old factories especially along the New Jersey coastline, crumbling before your eyes. What would it take to add a few space heaters and put down a few cots? Add some running water and a few tables all donated from Thrift Shops or whatever. These problem are solvable we just need the will.

More than will - real determination in the face of actual (illogical, perhaps) opposition.

This country COULD house everyone, and it would ultimately be cheaper to do it through programs like reconditioning old warehouses, etc than it is playing catch-up on the various COSTS of homelessness... like treated illness, disease, etc.

A choice has been made to do what is politically pleasing to the most people - which is to treat homelessness as a personal problem, rather than a societal one.

That's a hell of a leap.
Isn't it just.

Oh? Considering the common arguement in this thread has been that they'll spend it on substances to abuse.

If Kat really didnt mean that, she could have elaborated and explained. She didnt. She just went "Nu-uh!" and accused me of flamebating her. Her lack of clarification is also telling.

Oh? And Im sure you can provide me with quotes? Otherwise youre building a pretty epic strawman.
My lack of clarification? I didn't say it. I said I didn't mean what you DECIDED I meant. I did not so much as mention substance abuse. How much clearer can I be?

It's almost as if you're ignoring what I actually write, making up what you want me to have written, and continuing call me prejudiced without a shred of proof.

Oh, actually, it's EXACTLY that way.

Isn't it just.


My lack of clarification? I didn't say it. I said I didn't mean what you DECIDED I meant. I did not so much as mention substance abuse. How much clearer can I be?

It's almost as if you're ignoring what I actually write, making up what you want me to have written, and continuing call me prejudiced without a shred of proof.

Oh, actually, it's EXACTLY that way.

In the interests of clearing it up then... if someone asks you for money, and you offer them food, and they refuse it, and thus, aren't that hungry after all...

...what IS the connotation intended?

(And... wow... that was a run-on sentence and a half).

I apologize to Kat. Her post may very well have not meant what I said it did, but given the context of the thread and the arguements before it from others, it shouldnt be hard to see why I felt that way.

I readily admit, however, that is no excuse, and should have asked for clarification before I snapped at her. Poverty is a very important and emotional issue to me, and prior posts to hers had me in a very aggressive mode. I take full responsibility for any of the douschy things I may have (and probably did say) and apologize.

As an aside, it has nothing to do with anything said by anyone since then. I still believe that my interpertation is a very valid one, but I admit it may be wrong. I simply feel I was setting a poor tone. It would be nice, however, if Kat could clarify the post in question.

Kat has clarified. Trve, I note that you have (to an extent) apologised -- it could have done without the "may have said" and "probably did say": you did say.

Given your history as a player, be extremely careful. Attributing to another player a position they didn't take is flamebaiting. You've been doing it for the past three pages. Warned. You know what to expect if you continue.

Now it's time to both stop the squabble and play nice.

Trostia and Hydesland, the corpse is buried; don't dig it up again.

Plrease base further comments on the OP.

Doesn't compare at all. There is no reasoning linking skin pigmentation to drug abuse. It is reasonable to link a tramp who's not interested in food, only currency, to drug or alcohol abuse, given that's largely the reason many are homeless in the first place, given that it's one of the few pleasures they can turn too, and given there is very little else a tramp can purchase with currency that will give him any utility.

Clothes, underwear, shoes, a doctor's appointment, medication, water bottle, esky, blankets, room for the night, train/bus/ferry ticket/cab ride, newspaper, haircut, shower time, razor, toothbrush, toothpaste, hairbrush, tampons, pads, tissues, pen, phone call...

These are all things which would give a homeless person, as you call it, utility. They are all things that we take for granted, but a homeless person may be eternally grateful for. They aren't things that I would usually think to offer a homeless person. And so, if they have already eaten that day, do you think that perhaps your money may go to one of the things listed above?

Kat has clarified. Trve, I note that you have (to an extent) apologised -- it could have done without the "may have said" and "probably did say": you did say.

Given your history as a player, be extremely careful. Attributing to another player a position they didn't take is flamebaiting. You've been doing it for the past three pages. Warned. You know what to expect if you continue.


You know, honestly, I regret the apology. Especially since even though I asked Kat to clarify, she didnt, just came back on here and accused me of flamebait again.

And then there is the whole implication that anyone not trumpeting their good works clearly doesnt do anything to help the poor. Which was an explicit one. I can point that one out too. Or would that be flamebaiting?:rolleyes:

EDIT:
Again, I see a lot of criticism of people doing what they can to help out, and not a lot of evidence that those sitting in judgment have done absolutely anything?
Or am I 'misinterpreting' you there too?

You know, honestly, I regret the apology. Especially since even though I asked Kat to clarify, she didnt, just came back on here and accused me of flamebait again.

And then there is the whole implication that anyone not trumpeting their good works clearly doesnt do anything to help the poor. Which was an explicit one. I can point that one out too. Or would that be flamebaiting?:rolleyes:

Silly Trve, only normal people can flame bait. Mods are immune to such mortal failures.

Silly Trve, only normal people can flame bait. Mods are immune to such mortal failures.

To be fair, Kat got a slap on the hand too.

Im specifically attacking her arguement in the above post. There shouldnt be a problem anymore.

And my 'tone' is the same Kat has with people on a regular basis who disagree with her. So we should be good.

To be fair, Kat got a slap on the hand too.


Only to have it reversed by Ardchoille.

Only to have it reversed by Ardchoille.

Im going to stop here, because I have nothing nice to say:p

Im going to stop here, because I have nothing nice to say:p

Since when has that stopped you before? :wink:

Since when has that stopped you before? :wink:

Since Im trying to tone it down.


That worked.:p

And then there is the whole implication that anyone not trumpeting their good works clearly doesnt do anything to help the poor. Which was an explicit one. I can point that one out too. Or would that be flamebaiting?:rolleyes:

Doesn't look too explicit to me. She said there isn't much evidence that people who haven't said they've done anything have done anything. That doesn't mean that they haven't. It just means she has no explicit reason to believe that they have.

But then, one would have to wonder why so many people are whining about how some choose to help, without telling them what the "correct" way to help would be. If you don't just hand money to anyone who asks you for it, are you "doing it all wrong"?

We usually go buy food and bring it back to them instead of just giving money, since we normally don't carry cash.

Doesn't look too explicit to me. She said there isn't much evidence that people who haven't said they've done anything have done anything. That doesn't mean that they haven't. It just means she has no explicit reason to believe that they have.

But then, one would have to wonder why so many people are whining about how some choose to help, without telling them what the "correct" way to help would be. If you don't just hand money to anyone who asks you for it, are you "doing it all wrong"?

I dont care how people are helping. I just care that they're helping.

I will say, donating money to charity and then doing nothing else and just forgetting about it is maybe a little lazy. But at least youre doing something.

I dont have the money to donate to charity ATM, Im a student. So instead I do a lot of community service over the summers. When Im in Chicago, Ill throw homeless people a few bucks. Ive even hailed some guy a cab and payed his fair when he was told if he didnt leave the area in front of the building he was by the cops would show up (he was in a wheelchair, couldnt really go very many places).

What I do care about is people saying "I dont give the homeless money because they will probably spend it on drugs".

For pete's sake, Trve (and Trve supporters, and Trve opponents, and anyone else with an opinion on the subject), give it a rest.

Two posters, you and Kat, had a squabble. Two posters, you and Kat, got a slap -- yours slightly snarkier, based on your record, but still, nobbut a slap. You don't even have a scab to pick at, so I can't say,"Stop picking at the scab" ... but STOPPIT should get the point across.

EDIT: Okay, your last post is back on topic. That's fine.

I dont care how people are helping. I just care that they're helping.

I will say, donating money to charity and then doing nothing else and just forgetting about it is maybe a little lazy. But at least youre doing something.

I dont have the money to donate to charity ATM, Im a student. So instead I do a lot of community service over the summers. When Im in Chicago, Ill throw homeless people a few bucks. Ive even hailed some guy a cab and payed his fair when he was told if he didnt leave the area in front of the building he was by the cops would show up (he was in a wheelchair, couldnt really go very many places).

What I do care about is people saying "I dont give the homeless money because they will probably spend it on drugs".


Ok, I don't give the homeless money because ... . But, I will buy a bag of nonperishable groceries for homeless people. I've bought dog food for the ones who had dogs with them and given them coupons from the local vet for free shots for their dogs. I've bought them makings for sandwiches, bottled water, fruit and, in once case when there was a little kid with them, a candy bar. But I don't give them money.

Ok, I don't give the homeless money because ... . But, I will buy a bag of nonperishable groceries for homeless people. I've bought dog food for the ones who had dogs with them and given them coupons from the local vet for free shots for their dogs. I've bought them makings for sandwiches, bottled water, fruit and, in once case when there was a little kid with them, a candy bar. But I don't give them money.

My friend and I took a homeless guy to dinner once.:D

My friend is one of them good Christians.

I dont care how people are helping. I just care that they're helping.

And yet you seem to be coming down pretty hard on anyone who prefers to give something more concrete than money.

What I do care about is people saying "I dont give the homeless money because they will probably spend it on drugs".

That's a bit specific, but I don't personally have a problem with someone choosing not to give money, specifically, because they know it might not be used as they intend.

If someone has a problem with their money being used for drugs, they shouldn't give it to a stranger. Will that person use it for drugs? Maybe. Maybe not. But it won't be up to the person giving once that money is out of their hands.

It seems one of those statements that people say but don't really think deeply about - oh, but they'll spend it on drugs/alcohol...

For most homeless people, my opinion is 'there but for the grace of god...'. I almost find it offensive to read the underlying thought that homeless people only have themselves to blame, that if they aren't expending every effort to make themselves an honest citizen they're somehow morally worse than us.

Many of us fail to realise that mostly circumstance separates us from being a paid student on their paid-for computer compared to someone living on the street.

I think my goal for this week is to buy a homeless person a nice bottle of whiskey, a pack of cigarettes and a good bag of weed.

I don't know why but buying someone a meal seems so condescending, as though we judge as to what's best for others while affording ourselves the luxury of making any mistake we want while being lucky enough to have a large safety net below us.

I don't know why but buying someone a meal seems so condescending, as though we judge as to what's best for others while affording ourselves the luxury of making any mistake we want while being lucky enough to have a large safety net below us.

I don't know why either. How does buying someone a meal suggest that we judge what's best for others? Most of the time, a homeless person is asking for a way to get food. Why would giving them the food suddenly be condescending?

Now, if that's not what they want, they can ask for something else. And the person they're asking can decide whether or not to aid them in that.

It seems one of those statements that people say but don't really think deeply about - oh, but they'll spend it on drugs/alcohol...

For most homeless people, my opinion is 'there but for the grace of god...'. I almost find it offensive to read the underlying thought that homeless people only have themselves to blame, that if they aren't expending every effort to make themselves an honest citizen they're somehow morally worse than us.

Many of us fail to realise that mostly circumstance separates us from being a paid student on their paid-for computer compared to someone living on the street.

I think my goal for this week is to buy a homeless person a nice bottle of whiskey, a pack of cigarettes and a good bag of weed.

I don't know why but buying someone a meal seems so condescending, as though we judge as to what's best for others while affording ourselves the luxury of making any mistake we want while being lucky enough to have a large safety net below us.

While sometimes my own thinking will tend towards the drugs and booze end of the spectrum, I'm really more concerned about the animals and children involved. I know that, for many of these people, their pets are their last connection with hope, if they can't feed them or provide medical care for them, they could lose them - hence the dog food and vet's coupons. I know that for many of the children, being homeless means that they've lost even the small luxuries of candy and gum and I know that their parents will probably not spend money on such trivia - hence the candy bar. I've seen these people out in full sun on 100^ plus days looking like they're ready to pass out from the heat - hence the bottled water. I give them the groceries so they can eat now and not have to wait until one of them can go to the store.

It seems one of those statements that people say but don't really think deeply about - oh, but they'll spend it on drugs/alcohol...

For most homeless people, my opinion is 'there but for the grace of god...'. I almost find it offensive to read the underlying thought that homeless people only have themselves to blame, that if they aren't expending every effort to make themselves an honest citizen they're somehow morally worse than us.

Many of us fail to realise that mostly circumstance separates us from being a paid student on their paid-for computer compared to someone living on the street.

I think my goal for this week is to buy a homeless person a nice bottle of whiskey, a pack of cigarettes and a good bag of weed.

I don't know why but buying someone a meal seems so condescending, as though we judge as to what's best for others while affording ourselves the luxury of making any mistake we want while being lucky enough to have a large safety net below us.


I agree with this.

+1 to what Barringtonia just said. Reflects how I feel about it, totally.

You know, fuck it -- if you want to give money to the homeless, give it. If you want to give burgers and underwear, give that. If you want to walk past them like they're not there while you diddle your fucking blackberry, do that.

Just please, spare us the moralistic bullshit about how whatever you do, it's because that's what's best for the homeless. Who the fuck is any of us to decide we know what's best for anyone else? We don't know these people. We are lucky. We are not in their reality. We have no idea what any given homeless person is coping with or failing to cope with, etc. Stop pretending.

We give to the poor for reasons that are all about us, not them. Some of us feel guilty that we have more than them and we give to assuage that guilt. Some of us are pragmatic about it, and reason that we don't need all of what we have, and that other guy does need it, so giving it away seems the best use for it at the moment. Some of us think we are sorting things out spiritually for ourselves or the universe or something by trying to alleviate suffering. And yes, as much as they might not like to admit it, some give to create a debt, an obligation, to make the poor person accountable to their benefactors for what they do with the other person's "gift," to give themselves the power to demand such accountability.

But whatever the reason, it is OUR reason. It originates within each of us, and has nothing at all to do with the homeless person we give to or don't give to, because after all, we likely have never seen that person before and will never see them again. To blame the homeless person for our decision -- to say "he'll only buy booze/drugs so that's why I won't give to him," or "he won't make good decisions so that's why I'll pick and choose what I think he should get," or "his story seems genuine so that's why I'll give to him" -- all of that is crap, and those who do talk that way are not being honest with themselves.

I don't give to the homeless all the time, because I don't always have something to give. When a beggar does ask me, if I have nothing to give, I'll look him right in the eye and apologize, not ignore him like he doesn't exist. And when I do have something to give, I don't wait to be asked. That's because I know my own reasons for giving to the poor, and I don't need to prompted to do it when I can do it. I don't need to make my charity dependent on them interacting with me a certain way, because they are not what prompts me to give.

And what are my reasons? I'd say my motives are maybe 20% guilt for my good fortune, and 80% pragmatism. While others give food/money to the homeless directly and save their money for donations to charities, I do the opposite. That's because I have WAAY more food and clothes to spare than money. So I give spare change to the poor directly and donate clothing and food to charities that give it away or sell it for funds. It's just practical for me.

And when I give money to homeless beggars, I have to say I don't much care what they use it for. I only care that they have a need, and my spare change will go towards easing that need a little. That's good enough for me.

But that's just me.

+1 to what Barringtonia just said. Reflects how I feel about it, totally.

You know, fuck it -- if you want to give money to the homeless, give it. If you want to give burgers and underwear, give that. If you want to walk past them like they're not there while you diddle your fucking blackberry, do that.

Just please, spare us the moralistic bullshit about how whatever you do, it's because that's what's best for the homeless. Who the fuck is any of us to decide we know what's best for anyone else? We don't know these people. We are lucky. We are not in their reality. We have no idea what any given homeless person is coping with or failing to cope with, etc. Stop pretending.

We give to the poor for reasons that are all about us, not them. Some of us feel guilty that we have more than them and we give to assuage that guilt. Some of us are pragmatic about it, and reason that we don't need all of what we have, and that other guy does need it, so giving it away seems the best use for it at the moment. Some of us think we are sorting things out spiritually for ourselves or the universe or something by trying to alleviate suffering. And yes, as much as they might not like to admit it, some give to create a debt, an obligation, to make the poor person accountable to their benefactors for what they do with the other person's "gift," to give themselves the power to demand such accountability.

But whatever the reason, it is OUR reason. It originates within each of us, and has nothing at all to do with the homeless person we give to or don't give to, because after all, we likely have never seen that person before and will never see them again. To blame the homeless person for our decision -- to say "he'll only buy booze/drugs so that's why I won't give to him," or "he won't make good decisions so that's why I'll pick and choose what I think he should get," or "his story seems genuine so that's why I'll give to him" -- all of that is crap, and those who do talk that way are not being honest with themselves.

I don't give to the homeless all the time, because I don't always have something to give. When a beggar does ask me, if I have nothing to give, I'll look him right in the eye and apologize, not ignore him like he doesn't exist. And when I do have something to give, I don't wait to be asked. That's because I know my own reasons for giving to the poor, and I don't need to prompted to do it when I can do it. I don't need to make my charity dependent on them interacting with me a certain way, because they are not what prompts me to give.

And what are my reasons? I'd say my motives are maybe 20% guilt for my good fortune, and 80% pragmatism. While others give food/money to the homeless directly and save their money for donations to charities, I do the opposite. That's because I have WAAY more food and clothes to spare than money. So I give spare change to the poor directly and donate clothing and food to charities that give it away or sell it for funds. It's just practical for me.

And when I give money to homeless beggars, I have to say I don't much care what they use it for. I only care that they have a need, and my spare change will go towards easing that need a little. That's good enough for me.

But that's just me.

The bolded part, that's the key. You may not give to them, you may not want give to them. But looking past them and pretending they don't exist is immoral.

I don't know why either. How does buying someone a meal suggest that we judge what's best for others? Most of the time, a homeless person is asking for a way to get food. Why would giving them the food suddenly be condescending?

Now, if that's not what they want, they can ask for something else. And the person they're asking can decide whether or not to aid them in that.

It's the combination of the two, the idea that one buys a product rather than gives money because otherwise the homeless person 'will only spend it on drugs/alcohol'.

I find it condescending to deny someone that choice, a choice we all have and the only difference seems to be that because someone is homeless they're denied being able to drink.

Sure, if someone wants a meal, by all means buy one, I'm not against that, I'm against this attitude that homeless people are in some way lesser than us to the extent that we make a judgment in terms of what's best for them.

I can probably express this better, the core of what I'm trying to say, there's a similar reason as to why we don't give people on welfare vouchers.

While sometimes my own thinking will tend towards the drugs and booze end of the spectrum, I'm really more concerned about the animals and children involved. I know that, for many of these people, their pets are their last connection with hope, if they can't feed them or provide medical care for them, they could lose them - hence the dog food and vet's coupons. I know that for many of the children, being homeless means that they've lost even the small luxuries of candy and gum and I know that their parents will probably not spend money on such trivia - hence the candy bar. I've seen these people out in full sun on 100^ plus days looking like they're ready to pass out from the heat - hence the bottled water. I give them the groceries so they can eat now and not have to wait until one of them can go to the store.

Something in buying a candy bar for the kid is at the heart of what I'm trying to say, I suppose I'm reacting against the cold utilitarianism - and that might not be the right word - of thinking that it's somehow morally superior to buy a meal rather than give a little money, a little choice, to a homeless person for fear they might, heaven forbid, spend the money 'unwisely'

EDIT: As in, I agree with the sentiment of buying the candy bar for the kid - I haven't expressed myself too well in this post.

I think my goal for this week is to buy a homeless person a nice bottle of whiskey, a pack of cigarettes and a good bag of weed.


http://i42.tinypic.com/11hz1iw.jpg

+1 to what Barringtonia just said. Reflects how I feel about it, totally.

You know, fuck it -- if you want to give money to the homeless, give it. If you want to give burgers and underwear, give that. If you want to walk past them like they're not there while you diddle your fucking blackberry, do that.

Just please, spare us the moralistic bullshit about how whatever you do, it's because that's what's best for the homeless. Who the fuck is any of us to decide we know what's best for anyone else? We don't know these people. We are lucky. We are not in their reality. We have no idea what any given homeless person is coping with or failing to cope with, etc. Stop pretending.

We give to the poor for reasons that are all about us, not them. Some of us feel guilty that we have more than them and we give to assuage that guilt. Some of us are pragmatic about it, and reason that we don't need all of what we have, and that other guy does need it, so giving it away seems the best use for it at the moment. Some of us think we are sorting things out spiritually for ourselves or the universe or something by trying to alleviate suffering. And yes, as much as they might not like to admit it, some give to create a debt, an obligation, to make the poor person accountable to their benefactors for what they do with the other person's "gift," to give themselves the power to demand such accountability.

But whatever the reason, it is OUR reason. It originates within each of us, and has nothing at all to do with the homeless person we give to or don't give to, because after all, we likely have never seen that person before and will never see them again. To blame the homeless person for our decision -- to say "he'll only buy booze/drugs so that's why I won't give to him," or "he won't make good decisions so that's why I'll pick and choose what I think he should get," or "his story seems genuine so that's why I'll give to him" -- all of that is crap, and those who do talk that way are not being honest with themselves.

I don't give to the homeless all the time, because I don't always have something to give. When a beggar does ask me, if I have nothing to give, I'll look him right in the eye and apologize, not ignore him like he doesn't exist. And when I do have something to give, I don't wait to be asked. That's because I know my own reasons for giving to the poor, and I don't need to prompted to do it when I can do it. I don't need to make my charity dependent on them interacting with me a certain way, because they are not what prompts me to give.

And what are my reasons? I'd say my motives are maybe 20% guilt for my good fortune, and 80% pragmatism. While others give food/money to the homeless directly and save their money for donations to charities, I do the opposite. That's because I have WAAY more food and clothes to spare than money. So I give spare change to the poor directly and donate clothing and food to charities that give it away or sell it for funds. It's just practical for me.

And when I give money to homeless beggars, I have to say I don't much care what they use it for. I only care that they have a need, and my spare change will go towards easing that need a little. That's good enough for me.

But that's just me.

Wonderful post!! ^_^

It's the combination of the two, the idea that one buys a product rather than gives money because otherwise the homeless person 'will only spend it on drugs/alcohol'.

I buy a product rather than give them money because then I know what I'm giving them. Why? Because I'm willing to spend my money to help someone out with some things, and not with others. That is my choice.

I don't see it as any more condescending than the fact that I would gladly buy my friend dinner, but I wouldn't buy him a night with a prostitute. If he wants to go see a prostitute, more power to him. I'll probably even ask him for all the juicy details that he's willing to share afterward. But he'll have to find the funds for it elsewhere.

I find it condescending to deny someone that choice, a choice we all have and the only difference seems to be that because someone is homeless they're denied being able to drink.

They aren't denied that choice because they're homeless. They dont' have it it because they don't have any money of their own and are thus restricted to what they can get from others. If they can find someone willing to give them money for booze/buy them booze, more power to them.

I can't afford a big-screen plasma TV. That doesn't mean I'm somehow being denied the choice to watch movies on an awesome TV. It means I don't have the money for it. If I want one, I'm going to have to convince someone else to buy it for me or give me the money. But I'm unlikely to find someone willing to do so, and that doesn't somehow make me less than someone who can afford that TV.

It isn't that no one is willing to buy booze for other people. It's that not everyone is - not even as many people who are willing to pay for necessities like food, clothing, or shelter.

And it's important to mention the fact that people don't like being lied to. If a homeless person wants to buy beer, that's what she should be telling people when she asks for money. She shouldn't tell them that she needs it for food or bus fare or anything else.

I've actually seen homeless people with signs that say something along the lines of, "Why lie? I want it for beer." I've also seen people choose to give money to them, at least somewhat because they're being honest.

Sure, if someone wants a meal, by all means buy one, I'm not against that, I'm against this attitude that homeless people are in some way lesser than us to the extent that we make a judgment in terms of what's best for them.

Again, it has nothing to do with being lesser than us. It has to do with the fact that they are asking for resources from someone else. That someone else can determine what resources they will and will not give, and under what circumstances.

It's really no different from, say, asking your boss for time off (assuming it isn't contractually obligated). Most likely, your boss will expect a reason for that time off - and will deem some reasons more worthy than others. It doesn't mean you are in any way "less" than him. It means that you are asking for something that he does not have to give, and he can now determine whether or not your reasons are enough for him to give it.

Something in buying a candy bar for the kid is at the heart of what I'm trying to say, I suppose I'm reacting against the cold utilitarianism - and that might not be the right word - of thinking that it's somehow morally superior to buy a meal rather than give a little money, a little choice, to a homeless person for fear they might, heaven forbid, spend the money 'unwisely'

Has someone argued that it is somehow immoral to give homeless persons money or more moral to choose to give something else? If so, I missed it. I thought people were just expressing their personal preferences on the matter.

I don't see it as any more condescending than the fact that I would gladly buy my friend dinner, but I wouldn't buy him a night with a prostitute. If he wants to go see a prostitute, more power to him. I'll probably even ask him for all the juicy details that he's willing to share afterward. But he'll have to find the funds for it elsewhere.

Not really the same, your friend is in no way beholden to you for his actions, the difference would be in saying you would only buy a meal for your friend if he stops visiting prostitutes.

I can't afford a big-screen plasma TV. That doesn't mean I'm somehow being denied the choice to watch movies on an awesome TV. It means I don't have the money for it. If I want one, I'm going to have to convince someone else to buy it for me or give me the money. But I'm unlikely to find someone willing to do so, and that doesn't somehow make me less than someone who can afford that TV.

Again, not really, but I'm not going to think out why on this one.

It's really no different from, say, asking your boss for time off (assuming it isn't contractually obligated). Most likely, your boss will expect a reason for that time off - and will deem some reasons more worthy than others. It doesn't mean you are in any way "less" than him. It means that you are asking for something that he does not have to give, and he can now determine whether or not your reasons are enough for him to give it.

Possibly, the boss in this situation is superior, he makes a decision on whether you get a day off. If you were a good and trusted friend he might not even ask the reason, whereas if not he may weigh the decision. Something in that is similar to what I'm saying.

There's the aspect of control, that in 'giving' we assume the right to control and that speaks to an attitude of superiority.

Again, I'm not really admonishing anyone for choosing to give a product rather than cash, it's an underlying attitude that often accompanies it that I'm against, and I'm not necessarily ascribing that attitude to you personally.

Has someone argued that it is somehow immoral to give homeless persons money or more moral to choose to give something else? If so, I missed it. I thought people were just expressing their personal preferences on the matter.

..or possibly anyone, I might read the thread more closely but there is the idea that it's better to give a useful - in our opinion - product than straight cash.

Attributing to another player a position they didn't take is flamebaiting.
If the above holds true, then are the following examples considered "flamebait"?

You've poisoned the well, I'm afraid. Your antagonistic, hysterical and obstructive (not to - mention factually weak, and ultimately illogical) opening gambit has lost you a potential pool of support.

I will never, ever, click on any of those links.

Maybe I'm killing the message, because of the messenger, but you've effectively evangelised me AGAINST wanting to give to ANY charity you feel you act as an agent for.
Just wondering?

They're probably of the mindset that he would just use it to buy booze

Well if he can't make it out of water where else is he going to get it?

Besides, it's the perfect duality. Jesus makes water into wine, then his followers empower the homeless to turn wine into water.

If the above holds true, then are the following examples considered "flamebait"?




Just wondering?


The examples you gave are GnI's opinion of another player's argument, not GnI's attributing to them a position they didn't take. That is, "they took a position, GnI considers it [all those adjectives]", not "they took a position, GnI says they actually took another position".

Whether such adjectives consititute flamebait in themselves is another question. Generally players are not penalised for quite extreme opinions on the value of other players' arguments; it's when they denigrate or abuse the player behind the post that sparks fly.

This, BTW, is an answer to a question. if you have a complaint about GnI's post, please make it in Moderation.

Not really the same, your friend is in no way beholden to you for his actions, the difference would be in saying you would only buy a meal for your friend if he stops visiting prostitutes.

A homeless person is in no way beholden to me for his actions. I'm not going to come back the next day expecting something from him, nor will I make buying him a meal contingent on some sort of promise that he won't buy booze with any money he gets from others.

So, no, it really is a lot like the situation I described. I'll buy one thing, and not another. If the homeless person (or my friend) finds a different way to get the thing I'm not willing to pay for, more power to them.

Possibly, the boss in this situation is superior, he makes a decision on whether you get a day off.

And I make the decisions on how to spend my money. After all, it is my money.

But that doesn't make me in any way better than or superior to a person who has less money than me. I think you're conflating different ways to use the word "superior". My boss is "superior" to me in the hierarchy involved in my job. She isn't somehow objectively "better than" me.

Likewise, I am the authority in determining how I will or will not spend my money, who I will and will not give it to, and the reasons I will use to make those decisions. But that doesn't make someone who asks me to use my money in a certain way somehow "lesser" than me, even if I choose not to do as they request.

There's the aspect of control, that in 'giving' we assume the right to control and that speaks to an attitude of superiority.

No, it really doesn't. I assume the right to determine what I will and will not give. That hardly means I'm controlling the person. It means that I'm controlling what I am willing to do.

Again, I'm not really admonishing anyone for choosing to give a product rather than cash, it's an underlying attitude that often accompanies it that I'm against, and I'm not necessarily ascribing that attitude to you personally.

Ah. Well, others seemed to be doing so. Sorry if I attributed an attitude to you that wasn't yours.

..or possibly anyone, I might read the thread more closely but there is the idea that it's better to give a useful - in our opinion - product than straight cash.

When someone expresses their own preferences, it sometimes comes across as sounding like they think it's better. But I don't personally see anything wrong with someone who chooses to give money or even go out and buy a beer or something for a homeless person. It's just not the way that I wish to give.

A homeless person is in no way beholden to me for his actions. I'm not going to come back the next day expecting something from him, nor will I make buying him a meal contingent on some sort of promise that he won't buy booze with any money he gets from others.

No, the contingent is built in to you buying the food rather than giving some cash, you've made the decision already, which means he's beholden to you for giving him a specific 'thing' rather than the choice to get what they want.

You've basically said 'you get this or nothing'.

Fine, it's your choice and I've little truck with it unless the condition accompanying it is '...because they'll only buy drugs or booze if I give them money'.

But that doesn't make me in any way better than or superior to a person who has less money than me. I think you're conflating different ways to use the word "superior". My boss is "superior" to me in the hierarchy involved in my job. She isn't somehow objectively "better than" me.

Not in your mind but there is most likely a certain power deference, the recognition that they have power over you - how that power is exercised makes the difference here, in requiring a possibly arbitrary reason as to the value of your request, they are 'superior'.

Likewise, I am the authority in determining how I will or will not spend my money, who I will and will not give it to, and the reasons I will use to make those decisions. But that doesn't make someone who asks me to use my money in a certain way somehow "lesser" than me, even if I choose not to do as they request.

No, it really doesn't. I assume the right to determine what I will and will not give. That hardly means I'm controlling the person. It means that I'm controlling what I am willing to do.

I just don't agree, you are making a decision for someone else based on your superior ability to provide, you're using that to make a judgement call, it's not about how you'll spend your money, it's about satisfying something within you that says buying some food is better than providing money - what is the reason for that other than to limit their choice in how that money is spent.

Sure it's your money, up until the point you give it away but by buying the product you've placed conditions on the 'gift, I will only give if...

Why, why is that, is it really defending your choice to use your money as you see fit or is it a judgment on how that money is best spent?

When someone expresses their own preferences, it sometimes comes across as sounding like they think it's better. But I don't personally see anything wrong with someone who chooses to give money or even go out and buy a beer or something for a homeless person. It's just not the way that I wish to give.

Yet that preference is expressed in what someone else receives, I just don't see it as purely the choice that you're making as opposed to a decision on what will most benefit the person you're giving to.

I was walking to the store to pick up some cat food. There are two churches on my street and as I passed one of them, mass was just letting out. There were a lot of people walking in the opposite direction carrying pieces of palm leaves, some of them tied into crosses et c. As I got closer to the church, I noticed that there was a guy standing near the walkway holding a sign that read "Hungry Please Help". From the time I spotted him (about a block) to the time I eventually felt sorry for him and gave him the $0.50 in change I had after passing him and turning around, not a single person carrying a palm leaf or generally leaving the church gave him anything. They all walked past as though there wasn't someone there.

I sort of expect this on a day to day basis, usually there are a lot of people begging for money and you can't give everyone some change (and often I don't have any change to give). However, these people had just sat around for two hours listening to stories about a man who supposedly sacrificed his life for others. Someone who would tell others to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, house the homeless, invite beggars in for supper et c and they carried physical reminders of this sort of talk outside the building with them. You would think that they would stop and throw the guy some change (maybe he did too, which is why he picked that spot). Instead, as far as I could tell, the only person who gave him anything (though I hope not $0.50 isn't going to buy much) is someone randomly passing by who doesn't even believe in any of this.

There is a good way to help the homeless and then there is your way. These people may have already given to the homeless through donations to charity. You should not judge these people as bad because they do not give to beggers. Besides now that government takes peoples' tax money from them for wealth distribution why should people give money to charity anyway?

I just felt like acting like a conservative asshole. I, in no way, believe all the homeless are drug addicts, I am just very skeptical. Deviant is a fun and snotty word.

I hope you never wonder why you're bitter, lonely and cynical.

Parkology, you may be an intellectual gazelle, but your own deliberately fractious snobbery is a very hungry lion, indeed.