@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:
And I'll say this again: I think you're buying an experience, not actually helping someone.
I suppose if I'm honest about it, I give to charity because it makes me feel good.
I shouldn't disparage your choice of how to achieve the same end.
@DrewDad,
Everyone can sell themselves a narrative sometimes, for some it's that others are too emotional and their hearts bleed, while they are more rational and aren't as easily manipulated.
I'm sure there are a lot of people selling themselves an experience with the poor, but I can't personally count myself as one of them. When it comes to my own time I am very selfish and my own eleemosynary activities are more along the lines of advocacy and check writing than the Mother Theresa hands-on folk (who I have a lot of respect for, whatever their motivations may be because they sacrifice more of their lives with their time than I might with money). But having been down that low and kicked around by a bunch of self-righteous people who knew nothing of me I like to caution society against writing them off so easily and assuming they know why they are there.
@Robert Gentel,
The
charitable person is buying the experience of being charitable.
@DrewDad,
That certainly is a common motivation yes. I imagine there are others.
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:but more often I think the "teach a man to fish" argument is just a pretext not to part with any fish.
I'm not sure how that assumption is any different from "I think that more often panhandlers pretend to be down-on-their-luck as a pretext to get money for drugs."
You're assuming things about the anti-handout folks, while at the same time railing against them for making assumptions about panhandlers.
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:I am very familiar with aggressive panhandlers, but what is your point?
I don't want to legislate these people away, but I don't care if they live or die. Not even a little. Why should I? They give me no reason to do so, they don't contribute to society in any way. They don't do anything at all.
Quote:
Quote:What is the purpose of having the power of judgment, if not to use it?
Well there's always using it wisely as an alternative to what I'm criticizing.
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 the other hand, I am likely to give money to homeless who actually need it - older folks with mental problems, who likely couldn't find a job if they tried.
Cycloptichorn
So...you have taken a lengthy personal history from each of these young people you condemn so casually?
You have every bit of information you need to allow you to know that these people have no reason to be in their situation and will never change?
@dlowan,
I'm sure they have their reasons.
I'm sure Cyclo has his reasons for not giving them money, too.
@DrewDad,
Not all assumption is created equal and I am not arguing that people should never make assumptions. I'm not rejecting these folk in society and advocating that others not help them (or even legislate them away) on the basis of my assumption. I am just speculating to the effect that I believe all the talk about effective help and all is often just hot air from people who don't do that either.
I don't mind if you want to make assumptions about bums all day long, it's when you want to write them off on the basis of the assumptions that my objections kick in. I don't believe I have done anything of that sort myself here.
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:
I don't reward them.
I also don't see any problem in telling other people not to reward them, which is the whole point of the sticker that started this thread.
No...what started this thread was someone promulgating a view that people who beg on the street are like animals and that it was humorous to lump them all together as a group that were not human.
We've seen some kind of nasty results from that sort of thing.
Sure, clearly some beggars are aggressive and nasty, and can be scary. Hell, I got robbed by one in the New York subway, and it was a very nasty and scary experience, I can tell you.
The problem is lumping people together and denying them humanity is a very nasty thing to do.
@Pangloss,
Pangloss wrote: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...
I suppose that it's possible for the recipients to trade the bag of rice for drugs.
But
someone is going to eat that rice.
@dlowan,
Quote:So...you have taken a lengthy personal history from each of these young people you condemn so casually?
It's condemning people, to refuse to give them money when they beg me for it? To get upset when they are verbally abusive after I refuse?
Hardly.
Quote:You have every bit of information you need to allow you to know that these people have no reason to be in their situation and will never change?
You misunderstand me. I have no information as to why they are in their situation or as to whether or not they can or could change, at all; but that's immaterial, because I really don't care if they do or not. It's not a factor in my life.
Cycloptichorn
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:
I'm sure they have their reasons.
I'm sure Cyclo has his reasons for not giving them money, too.
I am not commenting on whether Cyclo should give them money or not.
I am arguing against feckless mass condemnation when you know NOTHING of people's circumstances.
Notice how the language is getting more and more disturbing? We have gone from bears to "street rats".
@dlowan,
Quote:Notice how the language is getting more and more disturbing? We have gone from bears to "street rats".
That's the popular slang for them here.
Even more so, I really don't care what their circumstances are. At all. It doesn't give them the right to harass me when I refuse to give them money, period.
Cycloptichorn
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:It's condemning people, to refuse to give them money when they beg me for it? To get upset when they are verbally abusive after I refuse? Hardly.
Have you limited yourself to that? Hardly.
Quote:You misunderstand me. I have no information as to why they are in their situation or as to whether or not they can or could change, at all; but that's immaterial, because I really don't care if they do or not.
Then why do you advocate that others not help them on the basis of such a dearth of informed opinion on the matter or empathy with the humans involved? Not giving a **** for yourself is one thing, but it seems downright ignorant and mean-spirited to be trying to convince others not to either, for no good reason.
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:Notice how the language is getting more and more disturbing? We have gone from bears to "street rats".
That's the popular slang for them here.
Even more so, I really don't care what their circumstances are. At all. It doesn't give them the right to harass me when I refuse to give them money, period.
Cycloptichorn
I would be perturbed by being harassed, too.
So?
You're not condemning just the harassing ones, you are calling a whole group of humans street rats.
That other people are similarly disgusting has nothing to do with whether or not YOU are being disgusting,
"But EVERYBODY calls them niggers/kikes/slants/gooks/."
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:It's condemning people, to refuse to give them money when they beg me for it? To get upset when they are verbally abusive after I refuse? Hardly.
Have you limited yourself to that? Hardly.
Not hardly at all. Perhaps you should review my posts in this thread before making such a statement.
Quote:Quote:You misunderstand me. I have no information as to why they are in their situation or as to whether or not they can or could change, at all; but that's immaterial, because I really don't care if they do or not.
Then why do you advocate that others not help them on the basis of such a dearth of informed opinion on the matter or empathy with the humans involved? Not giving a **** for yourself is one thing, but it seems downright ignorant and mean-spirited to be trying to convince others not to either, for no good reason.
[/quote]
Once again, do me a favor and point out where I advocated that others not help them.
I'll help you out - here's my second post in this thread:
Quote:
It isn't as simple as that. I deal with this a lot here in Berkeley, we have a large population of waster kids who refuse to take control of their life. I don't give a **** that they are homeless; they can do whatever they want as far as I'm concerned.
But they get abusive when you refuse to hand them money. It can be disturbing. There are several streets here that my wife and most of the women I know here don't like to walk down, because they are infested with these bums who don't like to take no for an answer. I really don't care personally but the women feel intimidated and harassed.
As I said earlier, what the **** do you guys want from me? To get all sad inside because of the poor home lives these kids may have had, or to give them money so they can buy their dog (who they don't take care of appropriately) food and buy some smokes? To just forget about the fact that many of these guys are perfect assholes to everyone they come across?
I'm going to go with 'no' on all those things.
Cycloptichorn
@dlowan,
dlowan wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:Notice how the language is getting more and more disturbing? We have gone from bears to "street rats".
That's the popular slang for them here.
Even more so, I really don't care what their circumstances are. At all. It doesn't give them the right to harass me when I refuse to give them money, period.
Cycloptichorn
I would be perturbed by being harassed, too.
So?
You're not condemning just the harassing ones, you are calling a whole group of humans street rats.
That other people are similarly disgusting has nothing to do with whether or not YOU are being disgusting,
"But EVERYBODY calls them niggers/kikes/slants/gooks/."
You are incorrect. Nigger/kike/slant/gook are racial epithets - things that people cannot change about themselves. Any one of these kids could cut their hair, take a shower and get a job and their status would change.
They get called Rats because that is the behavior they emulate, not because of intrinsic factors. There really is no comparison between this and slurs revolving around inherent characteristics.
Cycloptichorn
I tend to robert's pov here. I thought I lived in the home of the homeless, or one of them, in venice, california, for 25 years, while it went from redlined for real estate to gentrification per block. We became kind of a mecca, as other towns in the u.s. didn't catch up - or seem to - on how to help their own. Of course you too would try to move where people or the weather might not seem so hostile.
When I visited Ocean Beach, it was 1971, so I didn't experience, say, meth culture, there. Venice, I don't remember meth there - that was Arcata.
In venice, just walking down my block involved being solicited for coins, McDonald's being at the corner with Lincoln, and that gets difficult, especially if you are having difficulty paying your mortgage, which I have, countless times. I never made much money to disperse, and my mortgage wasn't all that large. I've never really faced what is being described in Vancouver? Or, maybe I have and am more sanguine. I think that is it. I'm more used to it. I did bail out a good pal who was caught in cocaine dept. once - not a lot of money but enough to get him out of that particular day's mess. He's fine now, by the way. Other good pals got him into rehab, which has worked for a bunch of years.
I did give, often to a woman who only wanted a quarter. That was/is Marie. I also worried about the Screamer. She lay on the bus bench in front of out one story building, pulling her tee shirt up and hollering. Last I heard, she was helped, but I've no followup on it. There was another guy who showed up on that bench, ranting, with a briefcase. We did somewhat follow on that, and, after picked up, he did get help. He had a home, but difficult problems.
I also from (I think) his lover, a scion of a major u.s. family, who had advanced aids and was not picked up by an ambulance on a stairway. Probably late eighties. My friend also died of aids. Best raconteur on the face of the earth, good architectural designer.
I admit that on my at least 3x a week at the ocean walk that I didn't give to all. I didn't have it. But we sort of knew each other, including me and the thalidomide guy with cut off arms and legs and a dwarf body. We talked many times. That is part of why I went off on Slappy and his dwarf stuff, early on a2k. I've now adjusted re humor and its range, but I was sensitive back then.
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:Not hardly at all. Perhaps you should review my posts in this thread before making such a statement.
I have, it's full of your machismo trying to outdo itself in condemnation of these people. You go so far as to suggest their genetic inferiority and that we would be better through the process of evolution if they die.
Quote:Once again, do me a favor and point out where I advocated that others not help them.
Here, you are right. I confused you as the author of
this post by DrewDad.
Quote:As I said earlier, what the **** do you guys want from me? To get all sad inside because of the poor home lives these kids may have had, or to give them money so they can buy their dog (who they don't take care of appropriately) food and buy some smokes? To just forget about the fact that many of these guys are perfect assholes to everyone they come across?
I'm going to go with 'no' on all those things.
I'm fine with your no on all those things. I'm not fine with your willingness to portray them as
genetically inferior so easily and your dehumanization of them. I do, however, take solace in that I think it's mostly bluster and posturing and that on some level you do have empathy for your fellow man.
@Robert Gentel,
Quote:I'm fine with your no on all those things. I'm not fine with your willingness to portray them as genetically inferior so easily and your dehumanization of them.
Oh, c'mon. You're really reaching now. I never said one word about genetic inferiority. Evolution is about choices that people make, more so than it is genetic inferiority.
Cycloptichorn
