Please Don't Feed our Bums

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It isn't that I don't know that there are a variety of reasons; I just don't care. At all.

I find that... less-than-ideal.

Quote:

This isn't to say that I hate homeless, or want to legislate them away; far from it. I am just indifferent. However, when they become aggressive with myself or with my wife - and they are especially aggressive towards females in my experience - I move from indifference to disdain.

I have no qualm with that. When they harass me I often tell them in no uncertain terms that I will not help them for being aggressive with me.

My qualms are with the societal rejection and how looking down your noses at them makes it harder for many of them to get out of the situation that society heaps scorn on them for being in.

Quote:

Nothing gives them or anyone the right to be verbally abusive and sometimes physically threatening to people who refuse to give them money.

I agree with that. And often there's a fine line between panhandling and mugging.

Quote:

So what? They got their **** together, good for them. That has nothing to do with our discussion at all.

Yes it does, the point is that these folks can still have value and shouldn't be written off entirely just by calling them "lazy" or "asshole".

2 Replies

@Pangloss,

Pangloss wrote:

Some places have unconstitutional local laws against panhandling...

Interesting, then, that they haven't been overturned, yet.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

Yes it does, the point is that these folks can still have value and shouldn't be written off entirely just by calling them "lazy" or "asshole".

What does 'write them off entirely' mean? These guys got their **** together, not because our government or state helped them, but because they got tired of living on the street and being lazy assholes. This is what will happen to the vast majority of the kids I'm talking about as well.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

It seems to me that, despite the protestations to the contrary, the posters here are simply takling past one another, without seriously connecting on the rather obvious issues.

There are both voluntary drifters and homeless out there and unfortunate victims ... and all points in between. Some are obnoxious, even dangerous, while others merely pollute the scene they occupy. Those of us who observe and encounter them have the right to make judgements about the behavior we encounter. We also have moral obligations to help the less fortunate. Balancing these factors is sometimes easy, but often enough very difficult - it depends on the case.

Many would like to see their government deal with these generally individual moral issues for them. Some of this is motivated by the selfish desire to remove the offending and unsettling spectacle from public view: some from purely good intentions. Unfortunately government generally does a poor job discriminating between the truly unfortunate & damaged and the voluntary exploiters. Moreover many well-intended government programs (the minimum wage is an example) have adverse side effects on those who are trying to work themselves off the bottom of the economic ladder. They can instead become wards of the state and learn the art of permanent dependency - not a particularly desirable outcome for any involved.

We can't organize extensive public aid for such persons without seeing it exploited by the undeserving. Many cities have learned that difficult lesson with permanent tent cities and a growing class of permanent dependents. Just pushing them aside and enforcing laws to keep them off the streets merely adds to the misery of those who are true victims of circumstances. I believe the best answer is for government to enforce good order and cleanliness in the streets and to rely on private and individual charity to deal with the victims.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

I see, I still hope you actually help starving Africans one day though. I hate when they are just used as rhetorical devices to minimize sympathy for others and the preference to help them really just means a preference not to help the person they are being contrasted with.

1 Reply

It might be a cultural, at least it's something anecdotal from the past.

in our home (built 1904), there is a window in the kitchen on the lower floor (leading to the entrance hall): it one and only purpose was to give the food out for homeless people.

Such was done until ... well, might be the mid-60's by my grandma.

Until a few years ago, there were about a handful homeless people, who 'toured' (like on a schedule) from one vicarage to the next hospital to the next monastery to the next ... to get their one warm meal a day. (I suppose, that only stopped when the last of those died or couldn't use his bicycle anymore.)

0 Replies

I can see how it would be a nuisance, but I can't see that nuisance being bad enough to where we violate people's constitutional rights in order to make it stop.

And I think we should consider that, if these people are exercising an OPTION to be homeless, well there must be something better about that to them than living at the home that they came from. Maybe their parent beat them or is addicted to drugs, maybe there are some mental issues, maybe the person is just going through a rough time in his/her life. I'm just saying, 1) anti-homeless laws are unconstitutional and inhumane, 2) try to see it from another person's perspective before you make rash, damning judgments.

Handing out these stickers has to do with #2, in that some of the "bums" may need help, while others may not. And Fido was totally correct when he pointed out, "Today's smoke shop employee is tomorrow's bum".

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

Yes it does, the point is that these folks can still have value and shouldn't be written off entirely just by calling them "lazy" or "asshole".

Calling it like it is doesn't say that we're writing them off entirely.

Some people are lazy, and they can make their choice and live with the consequences.

Some people are assholes, and they can make their choice and live with the consequences.

Some people are down on their luck through no fault of their own; these people I really want to help.

There are other categories that I have more trouble with. I have no clue how to help a mentally ill person who refuses to take medication. I have no clue how to help a person addicted to drugs or alcohol. Beyond food and shelter, that is.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

I have helped starving Africans. (It was a reputable charity, so I assume they spent the money on what they said they were going to.) I probably will help starving Africans again. I don't send money on a daily basis, though.

I do regularly give support to local charities.

And I would still rather send my money to Africa than support a cigarette, drug, or alcohol habit.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

And I would still rather send my money to Africa than support a cigarette, drug, or alcohol habit.

Because none of those Africans use any psychoactive substances whatsoever...

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Calling it like it is doesn't say that we're writing them off entirely.

Cyclo claims he doesn't care "at all" about whether they live or die in their situation.

If what you advocate is not writing them off entirely perhaps you could explain in what way you are not writing them off?

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

What does 'write them off entirely' mean?

You wrote that you didn't "give a ****" if they lived or died, that is a good example. I think society is better for caring more than that about the lives of their members. With a stronger social contract we are all safer.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

DrewDad wrote:
Calling it like it is doesn't say that we're writing them off entirely.

Cyclo claims he doesn't care "at all" about whether they live or die in their situation.

If what you advocate is not writing them off entirely perhaps you could explain in what way you are not writing them off?

I think 'writing them off entirely' would entail supporting legislation to curtail their presence or activities. I do not support said legislation, even though the truth is that I don't want them around, because they add no value to our society whatsoever and in fact represent a significant drain.

I don't have a problem with these guys taking the time to turn their lives around, or with my tax dollars being spent to help them do that - so yeah, there's a big diff between my attitude of indifference and actively 'writing off' these guys completely.

I would point out that it isn't limited to the homeless; I really don't care if most anyone that I don't know lives or dies, and why should I? Everyone dies sooner or later, it's a part of life.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Well, that's just a matter of opinion, as to what 'wisely' entails. I personally do not believe it is wise to give money to or even acknowledge these asses who have chosen to drop out rather than work towards something constructive.

On what do you base this belief? I've been able to help some people from the street who I don't think I would have been able to without acknowledging them or with the sneer you have for them.

Does your approach help them to a greater degree? Or is it just rhetoric justifying your sneer?

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

Does your approach help them to a greater degree? Or is it just rhetoric justifying your sneer?

I don't care much about helping them, personally; that's up to them to do. Not my mission nor goal in life. If they cannot help themselves, Darwin takes care of the problem eventually and the entire species ends up that much stronger for it.

Additionally, I need no rhetoric to justify any opinion of mine whatsoever. You are free to disagree all you like - but you already knew that.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I would point out that it isn't limited to the homeless; I really don't care if most anyone that I don't know lives or dies, and why should I? Everyone dies sooner or later, it's a part of life.

I know, if it weren't just part of your every day posturing (where you mistake strength of conviction and absolutism for intellectual authority) I'd find it a lot more offensive.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I don't care much about helping them, personally; that's up to them to do.

I didn't ask you if you cared, I asked what you based your claim on. You made claims about what helps them and what doesn't but apparently those were just empty claims that you would like to believe rather than being based on any evidence.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I would point out that it isn't limited to the homeless; I really don't care if most anyone that I don't know lives or dies, and why should I? Everyone dies sooner or later, it's a part of life.

I know, if it weren't just part of your every day posturing (where you mistake strength of conviction and absolutism for intellectual authority) I'd find it a lot more offensive.

I am not asking you nor anyone else to consider me to be an intellectual authority on anything, Robert. That's up to you to decide. The fact that you are willing to even engage me in conversation is an indication that you believe me worth discussing these issues with.

I find you to be as completely absolutist as you consider me to be... but your heart bleeds in a way which makes me look downright conservative, even though I am to your left on the vast majority of issues.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I don't care much about helping them, personally; that's up to them to do.

I didn't ask you if you cared. You made claims about what helps them and what doesn't but apparently those were just empty claims that you would like to believe rather than being based on any evidence.

What claims did I make, exactly? I already stated that I support paying taxes to help improve their situation, and that I try and give money and buy papers off of those who I believe need it. What more do you want from me?

I will say that giving money to street rats so they can buy dog food and ciggies doesn't help them one bit.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I find you to be as completely absolutist as you consider me to be...

You seem to be saying I'm as radical or something, but I simply do not have your penchant for rhetorical absolutisms at all, not one bit. Not a single iota. Absolutely, positively nothing at all similar.

1 Reply

Please Don't Feed our Bums

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know