Thats one rich bitch

"Giving" doesn't necessarily mean giving to the "needy."
You can give to orgnanizations that simply need more money to function.
You can give fund scholarships, that don't necessarily go to "needy" kids, but kids and families of all incomes. With the cost of college educations nowadays, who doesn't need some kind of help or boost. The prospect of winning a scholarship award can spur high school kids to do better in school.

It's not always about "the needy." Sometimes it's just about helping.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

You may be right. But you talk about an "excuse". What I am inferring is that you believe that people are obliged to help the needy. I do not believe that. I think that whether to help or not help is a decision that is properly made by each individual.

I don't see the contradiction. The bequeather has a right to decide what her moral values are, and to distribute her bequest accordingly. Nimh, on the other hand, has an equal right to decide what his moral values are, and to form his opinion about the bequeather accordingly. Nimh can think the bequeather's decision was a bad one without denying that it was the bequeather's decision to make.

Where's the problem?

0 Replies

Thomas- From that point of view, there is no problem.

0 Replies

Then I don't understand what problem you have with his position, or Dag's, or the other's; they disapprove of the old lady's decision, but none of them said the government should override it or anything..

0 Replies

Quote:

ex·cuse
tr.v., -cused, -cus·ing, -cus·es.

To explain (a fault or an offense) in the hope of being forgiven or understood: He arrived late and excused his tardiness in a flimsy manner.
To apologize for (oneself) for an act that could cause offense: She excused herself for being late.

Thomas- The word that elicited my response was "excuse". The implication was that not helping is a moral error. Nimh is entitled to believe that not helping is a moral error. I don't.

0 Replies

Phoenix -- Kindly revisit the paragraph where nimh used the word "excuse":

nimh wrote:

Basically, re Phoenix etc - to make my own assessment of folks - in my experience, the "better teach them to fish" argument is more often than not used by people who do in fact neither. They use the argument as an excuse to not give away anything, but they're not actually willing to do some of the teaching either.

It seems obvious to me that nimh is talking about people who don't give fish to other people. The reason, they say, is that it's "better [to] teach them to fish" instead, implying that they do intend to help. But then they don't teach them how to fish either, implying that they don't intend to help after all. Nimh used the word "excuse" to attack people for being hypocritical -- not for refusing to help.

0 Replies

dagmaraka wrote:

montana, do you believe that most homeless people or beggars that ask for money are doing it because they are lazy to work?

I never said anything about them being lazy, but the majority that I've met are alcoholics and drug addicts.

Sozobe touched on something I wanted to talk about, which is the fact that there are programs that help these people. They help clean them up and prepare them for the work place.
The problem is that a lot of them refuse the help that there is for the homeless, so if they are not willing to help themselves, why should we help them?

I've talked with some homeless people and have asked them why they don't get help, since there are place where they can go for help and the response I usually got was "f*** that"! So, am I suppose to reach in my pocket, pull out my hard earned money to give to them?

The woman who couldn't speak english and was going around getting bottles/cans from peoples trash did get $20 from me one day, though.
Why? Because, as far as I'm concerned, she was working for her money instead of standing on a street corner with her hand out expecting others to provide for her.

There are programs for the homeless if they want to help themselves.

I don't enable people anymore!

0 Replies

In my opinion, anyone who is smart enough to survive on the streets, is smart enough to work.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Phoenix -- Kindly revisit the paragraph where nimh used the word "excuse":

nimh wrote:
Basically, re Phoenix etc - to make my own assessment of folks - in my experience, the "better teach them to fish" argument is more often than not used by people who do in fact neither. They use the argument as an excuse to not give away anything, but they're not actually willing to do some of the teaching either.

It seems obvious to me that nimh is talking about people who don't give fish to other people. The reason, they say, is that it's "better [to] teach them to fish" instead, implying that they do intend to help. But then they don't teach them how to fish either, implying that they don't intend to help after all. Nimh used the word "excuse" to attack people for being hypocritical -- not for refusing to help.

Just because someone believes it's better to teach them to fish than to feed them the fish doesn't mean they think THEY should be the teachers; perhaps they don't know how to fish. This is just their philosophy. Therefore, their belief doesn't make them a hypocrite.

0 Replies

Montana wrote:

In my opinion, anyone who is smart enough to survive on the streets, is smart enough to work.

Not necessarily. Some homeless people are just so weird (mentally unstable) that no one wants to go near them and they just get left alone to fend for themselves. It's not that they have good survival skills.

Just because someone can find food in a dumpster behind a store, doesn't mean they have the mental/emotional capacity to work inside the store.

Unfortunately.

0 Replies

Happycat, that's why they have halfway house all over the place for people such as those. I met lots of these people and they are provided for with government funding.

I know there are some who are truly lost, not mental stable and such, but I'm basing my thoughts and opinions on the experiences I've had with the homeless.

I drove a cab for years, which put me in a possition where I was often approached by the homeless looking for money, smokes, or free rides and I never met one who couldn't work if they straitened themselves out.

Like I said "there are exceptions", but I haven't seen many, if any.

My father was an alcoholic who drank for several years, even ending up on the streets for a while. He said that it was his choice to be there and he refused all the help that was offered to him to get him off the streets.

He eventually went into a detox, then to a halfway house, then back home to us, where he went back to work, started his own business within 2 years and was making over $100,000 a year within 7 years.

Cheers dad :-D

0 Replies

Mame wrote:

Just because someone believes it's better to teach them to fish than to feed them the fish doesn't mean they think THEY should be the teachers; perhaps they don't know how to fish. This is just their philosophy. Therefore, their belief doesn't make them a hypocrite.

It does if they offer this belief as the reason they don't donate to "fish-giving" charities, and then it turns out they don't give to "teaching-fishing" charities either. If people's philosophy is that they don't have to donate if they don't wanna, and it happens they don't wanna, then they should offer that as the reason -- if they're honest.

0 Replies

Wow, Montana! what a great story ending! Smile

0 Replies

Happycat, it was great to have my father back :-D

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Mame wrote:
Just because someone believes it's better to teach them to fish than to feed them the fish doesn't mean they think THEY should be the teachers; perhaps they don't know how to fish. This is just their philosophy. Therefore, their belief doesn't make them a hypocrite.

It does if they offer this belief as the reason they don't donate to "fish-giving" charities, and then it turns out they don't give to "teaching-fishing" charities either. If people's philosophy is that they don't have to donate if they don't wanna, and it happens they don't wanna, then they should offer that as the reason -- if they're honest.

I disagree. Not being able to is not the same as not wanting to. And having a philosophy about something doesn't require them to do something about it. I can believe that teaching people to fish is more efficient than giving people fish, but not be able to show them how to do it. Doesn't make me a hypocrite. It has nothing to do with whether I want to teach them to fish. I don't see your correlation at all.

0 Replies

Mame wrote:

I don't see your correlation at all.

In that case, I give up on this part of the discussion. It is my policy to stop arguing if I can't make my point any clearer, and I can't make this particular point any clearer than I already have.

0 Replies

I go along with that philosophy, Thomas.

0 Replies

Montana wrote:

In my opinion, anyone who is smart enough to survive on the streets, is smart enough to work.

It's a completely different kind of smartness. A different set of skills.

I have the skills to get and keep a nice job in an international organisation. But I wouldnt survive for a day in a gang, or in prison, and wouldnt last long on the streets either.

Likewise, a homeless person has to have ferocious survival skills. But most of those skills will do **** all for him when trying to get or keep a job. In fact, it's the very skills he needs to survive on the street that over time make him into the kind of person that's ruled out from most any regular job right away.

For example, on the street you need to have a kind of aggro at hand, and you need to distrust, in principle at least, the people you meet. If you dont internalise that kind of attitude, you'll have a hard time surviving on any big city's streets. But once you've internalised it, that same attitude will have employers brushing you off the moment they see it.

So no, it dont work that way.

0 Replies

Montana wrote:

My father was an alcoholic who drank for several years, even ending up on the streets for a while. He said that it was his choice to be there and he refused all the help that was offered to him to get him off the streets.

He eventually went into a detox, then to a halfway house, then back home to us, where he went back to work, started his own business within 2 years and was making over $100,000 a year within 7 years.

Cheers dad :-D

Thats wonderful. That makes him one of those heroes I talked about! Someone who can do that, has shown enormous fortitude. Cause it's hard, to pull that off.

Most homeless people dont have the strength or ability anymore to pull that off. Not cause they're lazy, but because alcoholism or addiction or the paranoia of streetlife or the mental problems that got them on the street in the first place took them too far down the river.

Your dad did a great feat. Doesnt mean that one shouldnt help those who have not managed to achieve such a feat.

Thats one rich bitch

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know