Please Don't Feed our Bums

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

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.

The distinction between discriminating against inherent characteristics and "chosen" ones is important, but you'd likely not accept too much of that either (do you accept all religious discrimination?) and pointing out that it is a dehumanizing generalization is comparable to those slurs.

And in some societies such labels are themselves additional burdens and obstacles to overcome, as now society has a label on you and in some places a glass ceiling for your caste. Street rat, street urchin and the like are often slurs that present a more difficult path to improving their lot in life.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

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.

You can't weasel out of your words that easily. Here they are:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

If they cannot help themselves, Darwin takes care of the problem eventually and the entire species ends up that much stronger for it.

If the "entire species" ends up stronger, it must be a genetic reference and you can't beg off using the behavioral evolution excuse.

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

If the "entire species" ends up stronger, it must be a genetic reference

I went ahead and pointed out the logical error you made there. This is an assertion which does not logically follow, nor is it one I agree with.

Cyclotpichorn

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

do you accept all religious discrimination?

Accept it? I discriminate against the Religious all the time! Laughing

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

I'd like to edit that post, but, oh, well.

I guess what I object to on this thread, and many other threads on which I've either complained or just shut up, is the whole sense of people in trouble being other, from someone in a chair and a computer.

There is this superior condescension thing going on. A lot of this comes from people who have been able to advance in times of trouble and look back as 'I did it, you can too.'
There's empathy missing.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

I'll laugh at myself re cocaine debt and cocaine dept.
(I've never tried it, and that is just as well.)

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Then feel free to show how the "entire species" improves without genetics being involved.

You go to amazing lengths to defend what you yourself know is just a bit of throw-away, hyperbolic machismo. But if you wanna defend it let's see where you go with this.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Accept it? I discriminate against the Religious all the time!

I said "all" for a reason, here is an extreme example: Would you mind ethnic cleansing on the basis of religion? After all, it is not an "inherent" characteristic, but a "chosen" one.

Come on, inherent vs. chosen is a good point but let's not take that this mind-numbingly far. Do you really accept epithets and slurs based on religion, I think I may have seen you speak out against such things with Muslims in the US no?

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

You can't weasel out of your words that easily. Here they are:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
If they cannot help themselves, Darwin takes care of the problem eventually and the entire species ends up that much stronger for it.

If the "entire species" ends up stronger, it must be a genetic reference and you can't beg off using the behavioral evolution excuse.

Ahh, social darwinism. Helping elitists justify their lack of compassion since 1870-something....

"Wherever progress is to ensue, deviating natures are of greatest importance. Every progress of the whole must be preceded by a partial weakening. The strongest natures retain the type, the weaker ones help to advance it. Something similar also happens in the individual. There is rarely a degeneration, a truncation, or even a vice or any physical or moral loss without an advantage somewhere else. In a warlike and restless clan, for example, the sicklier man may have occasion to be alone, and may therefore become quieter and wiser; the one-eyed man will have one eye the stronger; the blind man will see deeper inwardly, and certainly hear better. To this extent, the famous theory of the survival of the fittest does not seem to me to be the only viewpoint from which to explain the progress of strengthening of a man or of a race" - Nietzsche

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

Then feel free to show how the "entire species" improves without genetics being involved.

When those who continually engage in behaviors which are deemed by society to be unsavory, or who fail to produce for themselves in society in any way at all, are shown to have greatly reduced life outcomes based on these factors, it serves as a lesson that these behaviors are not a viable way to live one's life.

I will remind you once again that I not only support paying taxes to help people, I give my personal money to those I believe need help - the old and mentally disturbed who cannot help themselves. I just don't feel the same way about young folks who have decided that they don't give a **** about society, it's rules or expectations - yet somehow believe that the rest of us are obligated to take care of them somehow. We are not.

Quote:

You go to amazing lengths to defend what you yourself know is just a bit of throw-away, hyperbolic machismo. But if you wanna defend it let's see where you go with this.

You may refer to my statements or beliefs using whatever words you like; I am unconcerned by them. Personally I feel that your side of the argument is unsupportable using logic, and you have shifted to an Ad Hominem attack instead.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

ossobuco wrote:

There is this superior condescension thing going on. A lot of this comes from people who have been able to advance in times of trouble and look back as 'I did it, you can too.'
There's empathy missing.

I know what you mean, but the way I look at it is that for every one person that has that attitude, there are 10 or more that don't. I see it everyday, in my own community and beyond...even in my own family. My MIL doesn't even wait to be asked, she voluntarily gives assistance even at the risk of offending. We sometimes worry about her, but nothing bad has happened yet. She once saw a man panhandling with a baby stroller (she thought he had a baby) and she emptied her purse to him. Turned out he didn't have a baby, but it wouldn't have mattered to her anyway. Her motto is sort of "if you give, you must give with no regrets". We always tell her she'll have good karma coming her way. I think most people are willing to help out and that sticker business in Orange Beach might just be a gimmick.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Accept it? I discriminate against the Religious all the time!

I said "all" for a reason, here is an extreme example: Would you mind ethnic cleansing on the basis of religion? After all, it is not an "inherent" characteristic, but a "chosen" one.

Religion is not an ethnicity, so your terminology is incorrect to begin with. But, my answer is no, I do not support cleansing of any kind.

You will note that I also specifically stated on this thread, several times, that I do not support legislation that criminalizes the homeless in any fashion. I am just indifferent to them, unless they are aggressive towards me in some way. That, however, doesn't seem acceptable to you.

Quote:

Come on, inherent vs. chosen is a good point but let's not take that this mind-numbingly far. Do you really accept epithets and slurs based on religion, I think I may have seen you speak out against such things with Muslims in the US no?

Slurring Muslims is not attacking their behavior, is it? It is a blanket condemnation based on factors which cannot reasonably be changed. It is simply not comparable to a young person who refuses to get a job!

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Irishk,

Thanks for responding, hey.

That's Ocean Beach, a part of the San Diego area, not all that far from Orange County, California. Orange County is famously conservative, but not all conservatives are meanies, so I won't just generalize. I've family there. Plus, demographics change over time.

When I was in Ocean Beach as a many times visitor, it was just a bunch of apartments and a small commercial street with a pottery making shop, etc.

1 Reply

The original article in question even makes the same distinction that I did -

Quote:

"It isn't about the homeless...it's about the bums, the trolls that we deal with day in and day out, they get angry at you if you don't have spare change, they urinate in your doorways, graffiti on the buildings, it's terrible." said Denise Prigmore, an employee at The Black.

It's a real distinction.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

Well, I knew it started with an 'O' lol.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Slurring Muslims is not attacking their behavior, is it?

This is why I tried to get us to define our terms earlier. Bum does not equal homeless. (Just look at my brother-in-law!)

I think Robert is seeing condemnation of bums as condemnation of the homeless. It isn't the same thing, though.

Edit: I see the Cyclo beat me to it.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Slurring Muslims is not attacking their behavior, is it? It is a blanket condemnation based on factors which cannot reasonably be changed.

Your last distinction was inherent versus chosen, now you move the goal posts to what can reasonably be changed (I wish you'd notice that a lot of those swept up in your chosen slur don't always have reasonable chances to change their situation).

Quote:

It is simply not comparable to a young person who refuses to get a job!

You already said you know nothing about them and don't care to, so how do you know they refuse to get a job? And incidentally, it's odd to see the tones in a2k discussions change about these poor depending on what the subject is (when talking about international poor the chorus is about the poor Americans and how some of them don't have much of a chance here either, when talking about American bums the sympathy suddenly dries up and these guys are street rats who choose not to work).

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I'm sorry, but Prigmore? Not fair of me to pick on her name.

As a small gallery owner x 2, I get fear from a commercial district being swamped with questionable panhandlers. Both places I've lived and had galleries, Venice, and Eureka, have services in place; I've friends helped by them. Not saying those are tip top, but people there are trying.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

You already said you know nothing about them and don't care to, so how do you know they refuse to get a job?

Do you pretend that you don't actually have familiarity with this situation, Robert? That you are not familiar with the type of young person I speak of? You keep asking these questions as if you don't know exactly what I am talking about. I think we both know that this is not true.

I note that you didn't respond to two posts of mine which were full of valid points, so I guess I'll just consider those points to have been dropped by you.

On edit:

Quote:

And incidentally, it's odd to see the tones in a2k discussions change about these poor depending on what the subject is (when talking about international poor the chorus is about the poor Americans and how some of them don't have much of a chance here either, when talking about American bums the sympathy suddenly dries up and these guys are street rats who choose not to work).

Sigh. It's like you just ignore what I write completely. I have sympathy for the homeless, I have less so for Bums, I have even less so for Aggressive Bums. That has been my entire argument in the thread, and what more, the argument of the person who was quoted in the initial article. It is you who are arguing that there is no distinction whatsoever in homeless folks; or, what exactly are you arguing, again? I can't tell anymore.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Yes it is. How do you distinguish? So called bums may well be in serious depression. Anecdote, a friend's father died on skid row, LA, in the sixties. More than one life is affected by the sniffing off of "bum's" lives.

2 Replies

Please Don't Feed our Bums

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know