"dont give change to beggars please"

madmik · 28-12-2008 8:17am

beggars are begging here in droves for a reason

the reason being people are too braindead to stop giving them money

its not unusual to beg well in excess of 100 euro a day

between the irish junkies and the scumbag foreigners theres a cup being shook in ur face evry 50 meteres in any of the busy streets

the luas machines are being plagued,theyre on all the bridges,theyre in all the alleys and shortcuts around the city centre and of course all the atms are manned

its about time people stopped being conned

if these people wanted food or shelter the infrastructure is in place

much better to give cash to the registered charitys than give it to this filth to waste on drink and heroin

Black Swan · 28-12-2008 8:34am

Normally I do not give money to strangers, plus I am on a very tight student budget and cannot afford it. But I remember this one incident when I did. She was a young mother with child, and they both looked hungry. She had a sign, claiming she did not speak English, asking for food or money. I gave her a few dollars, but then she asked if she could repay me someday (she had an index card that said this)? I said OK, but gave her a campus mailbox address, not my residence. I was shocked to receive the money with a thank you sometime later!

acorntoast · 02-01-2009 5:31pm

I don't give money to people begging, mainly because of the advice of two ex-homeless guys I know. One was homeless due to his heroin addiction, the other guy was homeless due to alcoholism. Both of them had brutal childhoods. Both of them have now completed degrees and are recovering addicts with many years of sobriety behind them. They both told me not to give money to the homeless; that it would be better to give your time or money to homeless charities instead. In their opinion, easy money was a short term enabler for a long term lifestyle problem - that even in cases where the person was suffering from a mental illness they have the ability to make choices. They said easy money stopped people from hitting rock bottom. One guy in particular felt that almost all help - even from charities etc. stopped people from taking personal responsibility.

On the subject of intimidation - I have been intimidated by beggars. I was struck by a drunken beggar a few years ago, and I was intimidated by a drunk guy at an ATM this Christmas, and shouted at very aggressively by a begging woman outside a supermarket. We aren't all Sarah Connors, and having to become a self defence expert in order not to feel intimidated is only about managing and coping with threat, it doesn't remove the fact that the threat exists.

Macha · 03-01-2009 10:09pm

acorntoast wrote: »

They said easy money stopped people from hitting rock bottom. One guy in particular felt that almost all help - even from charities etc. stopped people from taking personal responsibility.

Sorry but that's ridiculous and the fact that an ex-homeless person said it proves nothing. So shall we revert to a Thatcher-style situation where there is no society, only individuals? Often these sort of opinions are voiced by people who went through hardships and have a "I sorted myself out, so why can't you?" attitude.

acorntoast wrote: »

On the subject of intimidation - I have been intimidated by beggars. I was struck by a drunken beggar a few years ago, and I was intimidated by a drunk guy at an ATM this Christmas, and shouted at very aggressively by a begging woman outside a supermarket. We aren't all Sarah Connors, and having to become a self defence expert in order not to feel intimidated is only about managing and coping with threat, it doesn't remove the fact that the threat exists.

And I think you will find that many people have been struck by non-homeless people as well. Your anecdote proves nothing.

acorntoast · 04-01-2009 1:40am

taconnol wrote: »

Sorry but that's ridiculous and the fact that an ex-homeless person said it proves nothing. So shall we revert to a Thatcher-style situation where there is no society, only individuals? Often these sort of opinions are voiced by people who went through hardships and have a "I sorted myself out, so why can't you?" attitude.

And I think you will find that many people have been struck by non-homeless people as well. Your anecdote proves nothing.

Hi Taconnol, I don't agree with him either, I merely posted his opinion. However, I find it interesting because it's different, and also relevant to the topic.

I would take the opinion of people who have successfully navigated their way through these issues over the opinions of people speculating and imagining from the peripheries.

Funnily enough he had no connection to Thatcher or the Tory party. What he went through in order to sort himself out really can't be summarily dismissed. Doing that minimizes the individual, that sort of lack of empathy also leads to nasty societies.

It seems that you joined late and didn't have time to read the posts above mine, but there was an argument that homeless people aren't intimidating, which is obviously untrue; and my anecdote was in response to that.

I agree with him that personal responsibility is ultimately the major contributor to ending homelessness, however I would think everyone should, in an ideal world, be given access to help. Just not in the form of 2 euro in a cup on the street.

Macha · 04-01-2009 12:07pm

acorntoast wrote: »

Hi Taconnol, I don't agree with him either, I merely posted his opinion. However, I find it interesting because it's different, and also relevant to the topic.

I would take the opinion of people who have successfully navigated their way through these issues over the opinions of people speculating and imagining from the peripheries.

Funnily enough he had no connection to Thatcher or the Tory party. What he went through in order to sort himself out really can't be summarily dismissed. Doing that minimizes the individual, that sort of lack of empathy also leads to nasty societies.

It seems that you joined late and didn't have time to read the posts above mine, but there was an argument that homeless people aren't intimidating, which is obviously untrue; and my anecdote was in response to that.

I agree with him that personal responsibility is ultimately the major contributor to ending homelessness, however I would think everyone should, in an ideal world, be given access to help. Just not in the form of 2 euro in a cup on the street.

If you actually read the whole thread, you would have realised that I have already posted on here.

Whether homeless people are intimidating or not is specific to each individual. A homeless person could act the same way towards 2 different people and one person might find him/her intimidating and the other might not. My point is that it isn't always the fault of the homeless person that s/he is considered intimidating. So you're assertion that homeless people aren't intimidating may be true for you but you cannot claim that it is true for other people or an absolute truth.

Funnily enough, personal responsibility is not one the major contributor to ending homeless. According to Drudy & Punch, it is institutional factors that prevent homeless people from sorting themselves out. I like to take the opinions of people who have studied this subject from an objective stand-point, over individuals who might have glaringly obvious psychological reasons for having a particular opinion (the cases of people who have come through hardship off their own steam who in turn have little sympathy for others is well documented: a simple everyday case is the ex-smoker being more militant than someone who never smoked at all-"I quit, why can't you?")

AARRRGH · 04-01-2009 4:15pm

taconnol wrote: »

Whether homeless people are intimidating or not is specific to each individual.

Using your own logic, the Nazis were only intimidating or dangerous depending on who you were. While technically this might be true (the Nazis weren't a threat to Hitler) it seems rather silly to try to bring everything down to black and white arguments.

taconnol wrote:

I would suspect that much of the fear of homeless people is unfounded

Forgetting things like how aggressive and beaten up so many homeless people are (those injuries came from somewhere), from a little bit of googling I can see there is a link between homelessness and crime, e.g. this research by Focus Ireland.

No one is attacking you taconnel, so there is no need for your over the top defensiveness and aggression. Other people's opinions are valid too.

InFront · 04-01-2009 7:06pm

AARRRGH wrote: »

Using your own logic, the Nazis were only intimidating or dangerous depending on who you were.

This is quite a bizarre parallell for you to draw. You say it is "technically true" - it was absolutely a practical reality for millions of people in the pre-war era and in wartime Germany. Millions of Germans didnt realistically have to fear the Nazis! The original statement that fear of a homeless person varies from individual to individual is absolutely correct. I have lived in Dublin for a long time now and have never once felt threatened in an encounter with a homeless person, even at night.

from a little bit of googling I can see there is a link between homelessness and crime, e.g. this research by Focus Ireland.

Did you read the PDF or just the abstract you linked to? Because the report is not exactly damning.
It largely draws a relationship between the homeless people ending up abusing illicit substances while they live on the streets... this is 95% of the crime that has a relationship with the homeless according to the report. Hardly surprising that they are addicts surely? Meaning that of all the criminal respondents (less than half) only 5% were criminally active outside from suffering an addiction.

AARRRGH · 04-01-2009 7:36pm

InFront wrote: »

This is quite a bizarre parallell for you to draw. You say it is "technically true" - it was absolutely a practical reality for millions of people in the pre-war era and in wartime Germany. Millions of Germans didnt realistically have to fear the Nazis! The original statement that fear of a homeless person varies from individual to individual is absolutely correct. I have lived in Dublin for a long time now and have never once felt threatened in an encounter with a homeless person, even at night.

My comparison with the Nazis is as follows - you may not think they are dangerous (for example, if you're a German) but the fact that they killed millions of people does mean they are "dangerous" in the dictionary sense of the word. It is incorrect to say "the Nazis weren't dangerous".

The same logic can be applied to homeless people (intimidating), fast driving (dangerous) and eating bad food (unhealthy). Yes, on an individual level you might drive fast while giving a lift to a homeless person and eating a hamburger - and get home safely. That's normal, there are exceptions to every situation, but it doesn't change the fact that fast driving is dangerous, eating bad food is unhealthy, and homeless people (as they are often drunk/on drugs/criminals) are intimidating.

Anyway, it doesn't matter. I just think it's silly to take the extreme position that homeless people are lovely innocent crime free individuals. Some of them are, but a lot of them aren't. I also think it's odd to ignore the big connection between poverty and crime.

InFront wrote: »

Did you read the PDF or just the abstract you linked to? Because the report is not exactly damning.
It largely draws a relationship between the homeless people ending up abusing illicit substances while they live on the streets... this is 95% of the crime that has a relationship with the homeless according to the report. Hardly surprising that they are addicts surely? Meaning that of all the criminal respondents (less than half) only 5% were criminally active outside from suffering an addiction.

Yes, I read the PDF. I never said it was damning, but it shows homeless people commit crimes - a lot more crimes than non-homeless people.

I'm sorry, but a lot of people find criminals intimidating, especially drunken/high criminals!

acorntoast · 04-01-2009 8:27pm

taconnol wrote: »

So you're assertion that homeless people aren't intimidating

Firstly, I asserted that homeless people are capable of being intimidating, and gave examples of how I have been intimidated by homeless people. You disagreed with the opinion that homeless people are intimidating - well - of course they are capable of being intimidating Tannacol, and of course there are intimidating homeless people. Are you saying there aren't?

Are you saying if you were struck by someone, say a large, drunk man, you wouldn't be intimidated?

taconnol wrote: »

may be true for you but you cannot claim that it is true for other people or an absolute truth.

Um, where did I do that? You're setting up a straw man to attack - it's a lazy device. I spoke about myself and my experiences. I actually forgot that I also had my handbag, ipod, house keys, passport stolen by a homeless woman 2 years ago. She was both addicted and mentally ill.

taconnol wrote: »

Funnily enough, personal responsibility is not one the major contributor to ending homeless. According to Drudy & Punch, it is institutional factors that prevent homeless people from sorting themselves out.

I really think you are absolutely misrepresenting Punch and Drudy here - as they don't set these two concepts in flat opposition to each other. I.e. Institutional factors vs. Personal Readiness, provision of houses wins.

In fact, as a Geography professor and an Economics professor, they haven't even tried to measure Psychological factors.

You're not taking your opinion from Drudy and Punch therefore - it's something you came up with yourself.

I really think your dismissal of people who feel intimidated as needing confidence courses, and the life learnt lessons of ex-addicts as irrelevant is very arrogant.

The major factor in all human change is personal responsibility Tannacol. Wouldn't the person have to be capable of meeting the criteria to avail of housing - i.e. doing simple things like turning up to their meetings on time and sober? Wouldn't they have to be ready to do those things?

I have friends who run hostels and they say personal responsibility is key. Where services are provided, and meetings are arranged, it is all pointless unless the person is ready to take responsibility and take advantage of what is being provided.

taconnol wrote: »

I like to take the opinions of people who have studied this subject from an objective stand-point, over individuals who might have glaringly obvious psychological reasons for having a particular opinion (the cases of people who have come through hardship off their own steam who in turn have little sympathy for others is well documented: a simple everyday case is the ex-smoker being more militant than someone who never smoked at all-"I quit, why can't you?")

That's another straw man - I never expressed this militant attitude - of "why can't they do it" - neither did I report my friends as having expressed it. You seem to make a habit of making other people's opinions more extreme, and then you attack the extreme position. This is very lazy.

Talking about personal responsibility is not the same as lacking empathy Tannacol. How are those two concepts mutually exclusive?

Any addict will talk to you about the concept of tough love, and how rock bottom can only be reached alone. I know you don't care about their perspectives, but they are the experts, not you.

That's what both guys were talking about - basically that the individual has to realise that the way they are going is untenable and unsustainable. Every 2 euro in the cup convinces them there is an easy way out.

AARRRGH · 04-01-2009 8:37pm

acorntoast wrote: »

You seem to make a habit of making other people's opinions more extreme, and then you attack the extreme position.

I agree completely. Sorry taconnel, but I have noticed this before, and have been on its receiving end.

It results in people having to re-explain what you've misinterpreted and defend themselves.

Btw, I don't personally find the majority of homeless people intimidating, but I don't think my personal opinion automatically applies to the average person. I am, after all, a young man with a shaved head who lifts weights.

Macha · 04-01-2009 8:45pm

HAHA AARRGHH that is so hypocritical of you, I don't even know where to start. Putting a smiley face after a negative comment like that is quite pointless.

acorntoast - I didn't say that Punch and Drudy claimed psychological factors. Might want to check yourself for strawman arguments while you're busy accusing others. Punch and Drudy do say that institutional factors are the main reason that homeless people cannot get out of homelessness.

Also, I actually wasn't claiming that you said that "why can't they do it". But you did put across the testimonial of one ex-homeless person who showed strong signs of exhibiting this psychological reaction. I don't see any reason why I shouldn't put across an opposing argument if I don't agree. The question of the importance of personal responsibility is also called into question when you consider the fact that according to Focus Ireland, 48% of homeless people are mentally ill.

I take your point that giving them €2 is just helping them in the short term and not helping them in the long term. However, I would feel better about turning my back on them if I thought that the services genuinely existed to help them, should they want to help themselves. As it stands, it's largely left up to charities like Focus Ireland and Simon Community to step in where the government leaves huge gaps.

AARRRGH · 04-01-2009 9:00pm

taconnol wrote: »

HAHA AARRGHH that is so hypocritical of you, I don't even know where to start. Putting a smiley face after a negative comment like that is quite pointless.

Riiight.

taconnol wrote: »

acorntoast - I didn't say that Punch and Drudy claimed psychological factors. Might want to check yourself for strawman arguments while you're busy accusing others. Punch and Drudy do say that institutional factors are the main reason that homeless people cannot get out of homelessness.

No, they didn't even consider psychological factors, they only considered socio-economical factors.

Just admit you're wrong... or at least that you took an extreme position that you can't defend.

Macha · 04-01-2009 9:07pm

AARRRGH wrote: »

Riiight.

*sigh*

AARRRGH wrote: »

No, they didn't even consider psychological factors, they only considered socio-economical factors.

Just admit you're wrong... or at least that you took an extreme position that you can't defend.

Jesus Christ - is that what you want? Just admit I'm wrong because you want me to? No. I never said that Drudy and Punch discussed psychological factors. However they did discuss what they called "individual" factors such as alcoholism, addiction etc. Er..have you even read the book? They clearly state institutional factors as paramount to the perpetuation of homelessness.

acorntoast · 04-01-2009 9:25pm

taconnol wrote: »

acorntoast - I didn't say that Punch and Drudy claimed psychological factors. Might want to check yourself for strawman arguments while you're busy accusing others. Punch and Drudy do say that institutional factors are the main reason that homeless people cannot get out of homelessness.

Tannacol, you know what you did. You rebutted my claim that personal responsibility is the major factor with their study - if you knew they didn't claim psychological factors, and their study was irrelevant to my point, why did you bring them up as though they dismissed personal responsibility, or ranked it further down. When in fact, as psychological factors are outside their field of study, they simply didn't consider them.

taconnol wrote: »

Also, I actually wasn't claiming that you said that "why can't they do it". But you did put across the testimonial of one ex-homeless person who showed strong signs of exhibiting this psychological reaction.

You criticised another poster further up for making assumptions about the homeless, but you're quite happy to make massive assumptions about the ex-homeless. You imagined him, and your imagined version of him was aggressive and unempathetic. That's all happening in the confines of your mind. The guy actually just thinks himself lucky to have hit rock bottom. You have a terrible opinion of reformed addicts if this is where your brain automatically goes, I know quite a few, and they are some of the most switched on, compassionate people.

taconnol wrote: »

I don't see any reason why I shouldn't put across an opposing argument if I don't agree.

No reason not to, but remember it's a discussion - you come across very aggressively - I think this is because you presume the worst of the poster you are talking to. Try imagining that they are coming from a good place. Most people are.

taconnol wrote: »

The question of the importance of personal responsibility is also called into question when you consider the fact that according to Focus Ireland, 48% of homeless people are mentally ill.

Yep - lots of things diminish personal responsibility, it's definitely a gradient. Each person is personally responsible according to their capacity. The possibility to change, and to make choices exists in all conscious people. A society that doesn't believe in that rides rough shod over not just the mentally ill, but over anyone who is incapacitated. All of us are continuously choosing - if we aren't who is? Are we being determined in some way? By what or whom?

taconnol wrote: »

I take your point that giving them €2 is just helping them in the short term and not helping them in the long term. However, I would feel better about turning my back on them if I thought that the services genuinely existed to help them, should they want to help themselves. As it stands, it's largely left up to charities like Focus Ireland and Simon Community to step in where the government leaves huge gaps.

Not giving them 2 euro isn't turning your back on them. You could do some volunteer work, or give the money to Simon. Or even better keep paying your taxes, and write to your TD.

AARRRGH · 04-01-2009 9:42pm

taconnol wrote: »

*sigh*

Try to think about what I'm saying instead of angrily dismissing what you don't want to hear.

taconnol wrote: »

Jesus Christ - is that what you want? Just admit I'm wrong because you want me to?

I think it would be a start if you considered the concept that you don't have all the answers, and that the opinions of other people may be relevant or correct. In particular, you tend to have extreme views on things - and you stick to them. It's ok to change your mind or consider the points other people make. Certainly I think you should consider other viewpoints before you go on the attack!

taconnol wrote: »

No. I never said that Drudy and Punch discussed psychological factors. However they did discuss what they called "individual" factors such as alcoholism, addiction etc. Er..have you even read the book? They clearly state institutional factors as paramount to the perpetuation of homelessness.

Their solution boils down to give everyone a house. You quoted them in the context of "personal responsibility is not the major contributing factor". Do you really believe someone who is unable to take personal responsibility for their life will magically get their life together once they have a home? And do you really think there will ever come a time when the homeless are immediately and automatically given a free home no matter what their circumstances? No, of course that will never happen.

I don't know what the solution to homelessness is, but I do know shouting people down, misquoting them and refusing to consider their viewpoints is not a good way to win people over to your way of thinking.

Macha · 04-01-2009 9:54pm

acorntoast wrote: »

Tannacol, you know what you did. You rebutted my claim that personal responsibility is the major factor with their study - if you knew they didn't claim psychological factors, and their study was irrelevant to my point, why did you bring them up as though they dismissed personal responsibility, or ranked it further down. When in fact, as psychological factors are outside their field of study, they simply didn't consider them.

They dismiss personal responsibility insofar as they consider individual factors (including issues such as addiction and mental health) to be most important in creating homeless and institutional factors as most important in perpetuating homelessness. I don't really know how much clearer I can make that. Have you read the book?

acorntoast wrote: »

You criticised another poster further up for making assumptions about the homeless, but you're quite happy to make massive assumptions about the ex-homeless. You imagined him, and your imagined version of him was aggressive and unempathetic. That's all happening in the confines of your mind. The guy actually just thinks himself lucky to have hit rock bottom. You have a terrible opinion of reformed addicts if this is where your brain automatically goes, I know quite a few, and they are some of the most switched on, compassionate people.

Sorry but yes, someone who considers that help from charities is not beneficial for homeless people certainly comes across as unempathetic. I got that impression from his opnions, not from the fact that he was a reformed addict. I am not biased against reformed addicts, as you imply.

acorntoast wrote: »

Yep - lots of things diminish personal responsibility, it's definitely a gradient. Each person is personally responsible according to their capacity. The possibility to change, and to make choices exists in all conscious people. A society that doesn't believe in that rides rough shod over not just the mentally ill, but over anyone who is incapacitated. All of us are continuously choosing - if we aren't who is? Are we being determined in some way? By what or whom?

The ability or desire of many of these people to change (IMO) is shackled by the lack of help that they have available to them. Of course personal agency is involved however, I still feel that the sheer extent of mental illness among homeless people suggests that for these people, at least, personal responsibility is not the limiting factor.

acorntoast wrote: »

Not giving them 2 euro isn't turning your back on them. You could do some volunteer work, or give the money to Simon. Or even better keep paying your taxes, and write to your TD.

I actually do give money to Simon community but I'm afraid I don't have as much faith as you do in FF to improve services. It speaks volumes that most research and involvement in homeless is by charities, not a government agency. Isn't the Combat Poverty Agency being wound down..or funding seriously cut?

Edit: I wonder what Focus Ireland & Simon Community's stance is on giving change to homeless?

acorntoast · 04-01-2009 10:34pm

taconnol wrote: »

They dismiss personal responsibility insofar as they consider individual factors (including issues such as addiction and mental health) to be most important in creating homeless and institutional factors as most important in perpetuating homelessness. I don't really know how much clearer I can make that. Have you read the book?

I haven't read the book, I have read some of their papers, and a friend who works in social policy (and who did your course) confirmed this for me. Their conclusions on addiction and mental health don't dismiss personal responsibility. I don't know how much clearer I can make that. Are you a classical behaviourist or something?

taconnol wrote: »

Sorry but yes, someone who considers that help from charities is not beneficial for homeless people certainly comes across as unempathetic. I got that impression from his opnions, not from the fact that he was a reformed addict. I am not biased against reformed addicts, as you imply.

His position, is that the handouts perpetuate the idea in the person that someone else is responsible for picking up the pieces of their life. Out of total compassion, and total kindness, he believes that the person has to operate from the belief that nothing is going to work for them until they work for themselves. I'm not defending his opinion, as I don't share it, I'm defending his right to it, and posting it because I think it's really interesting. Most people don't get to hear from ex-homeless people.

taconnol wrote: »

The ability or desire of many of these people to change (IMO) is shackled by the lack of help that they have available to them. Of course personal agency is involved however, I still feel that the sheer extent of mental illness among homeless people suggests that for these people, at least, personal responsibility is not the limiting factor.

Again, mental illness is a continuum. At the milder end there is still personal responsibility and treatment approaches which emphasise empowering the person are far more successful. The institution will not always be there. However I can definitely see and agree that the mentally ill are totally shafted in Irish society left, right and center. There are some seriously mentally ill people living rough in Dublin. However I can think of a couple of guys in particular who would have to be held against their wills. Being homeless is their choice over being institutionalised.

taconnol wrote: »

I actually do give money to Simon community but I'm afraid I don't have as much faith as you do in FF to improve services. It speaks volumes that most research and involvement in homeless is by charities, not a government agency. Isn't the Combat Poverty Agency being wound down..or funding seriously cut?

Edit: I wonder what Focus Ireland & Simon Community's stance is on giving change to homeless?

I don't have much faith in FF or in the electorate that keeps returning them to government, but I just hate the fact that we all complain to each other, and very few complain to them. Pressure groups and lobbying work - (don't know if I agree with this tactic at an ethical level, but boy is it successful).

Their stance is don't give them money directly.

dontbossme · 09-04-2009 2:18pm

hi my brother 30 year old lost his job in 2007 he spent his savings paying for his flat for 9 months and then couldn't keep it he became homeless just before xmas he signed on the homeless unit in dublin on 02/02/08 and had to stay in a hostel where he got beat up robbed more then once he then left the hostel after 3 months and is now in fear of hostels the homeless unit stoped his welfare payments last week because he will not stay in hostels he has told them of this fear of hostels but no one cares what is his options now and how can he get paid his only thing he has left

gogglebok · 09-04-2009 2:40pm

chillywilly wrote: »

Actually, yes. The government should be putting more money into getting homeless people off the street.

You won't achieve that by giving them money. What you are doing is hiring them to stay homeless.

djpbarry · 09-04-2009 2:59pm

dontbossme wrote: »

hi my brother 30 year old lost his job in 2007
...
what is his options now and how can he get paid his only thing he has left

Perhaps he could turn to his brother for help?

Fighting Irish · 09-04-2009 3:08pm

chillywilly wrote: »

I personally dont find it intimidating.

If giving change to the homeless encourages others to give some too, then even better!

Im not sure if it is illegal, i know that a new law just came in to stop "aggressive begging". Im not sure how you define that term but the man is definetly not aggresive.

:rolleyes:

Gu3rr1lla · 09-04-2009 3:15pm

Fair play OP! A lot of people would have ignored it or put it out of their mind even if it bothered them but it's good to see you actually listened to your conscience and did something about it.

ham_n_mustard wrote: »

they do, thats called income tax

actually income tax goes to pay off the interest on the loans our government took off the European Central Bank. research FIAT currency.

chillywilly · 11-04-2009 1:54pm

Fighting Irish wrote: »

:rolleyes:

would you like to elaborate?

:rolleyes:

SeekUp · 14-04-2009 4:25pm

jim o doom wrote: »

And all charity is selfish ultimately, either immidiate releif from "middle class guilt" which I mentionned in my 2nd last post from this one or the abilitity to be happy in heavan (HAH) for devoting "this" life (as if we had any other).

Sure, it's often the case that donating time/money/efforts makes you feel better about yourself or the situation that you're attempting to help alleviate. But I think charitable donations are just as often given because a person thinks they can help in some way -- someone does what they can to better a situation, or they continue to do what they can because they can see an improvement, however small. To say that all charity is selfish is quite cynical.

I don't give homeless people money, but I have given food. When it comes down to it, us not-so-rich folk have to choose which (if any) charities to donate money to, and how we're going to help anyone else (if at all). So while giving food isn't going to help in the long term, it's still needed . . . as is a smile and just some simple acknowledgment that you do see the people who make their beds in doorways. I agree, sometimes homeless people can be intimidating, especially if they're in a place where it seems they almost expect to get money (next to an ATM, outside a shop, etc.), but sometimes I'd guess that they're just sick of being ignored by other people.

Blue_Wolf · 20-04-2009 11:07am

What confuses me is why they sit beside an atm machine as if it dispenses coins :rolleyes:

carlybabe1 · 20-04-2009 6:49pm

topper75 wrote: »

Gee! I hope I don't just 'fall' out on the roadside! LOL - is that what you really think happened to them?

GEE! of course not cleverpants, we all KNOW that homeless people are addicts or alcholics who CHOOSE to be where they are. I mean they could just give up couldn't they???? Not a ONE of them are mentally ill, not one!!! And the idea that ANY of them are kids who've run away frrom abusive homes??? Well now, we all just know thats a big myth, dont we.
After all, Im sure they aren't bothered being considered the dregs of humanity, less valuable than rubish by people just like your good self.

I contest that beggars in Irish towns are indeed all heroin users or alcholics.

Ye can contest all ye like, doesn't make it true

There are dole payments and shelters for those who are bone fide. A bone fide homeless individual does not need to beg.

Ha Ha Ha, your a fcukin comedian, or you would be if this didnt sound so obviously stubid..... can you tell me how many beds are out there for "bone fide" homeless??? and who decides who's genuine and who's not??

Poor people begging happens in Asia, Africa, and S. America.

Good observation there sherlock

The ones begging here are addicts.

Mods, Im apologising for the sarcasm in advance, but I really feel this warrants it

DUH!!

What good are you really doing by throwing money in the paper cup apart from easing your own middle class guilt?

Now we're seeing what the problem is, its assumption based on fcuk all evidence or rationale......How the fcuk do you know hes middle class?
How do you know its motivated by guilt? And in answer to your question,
the money will help to feed the mythical homeless people who aren't alcos or junkies, ye know, the ones who dont exist :rolleyes:

Rev Hellfire · 20-04-2009 7:14pm

Regardless of whether they're worthy of our assistance or not, the real question is does giving them money for begging assist them in any meaningful way in getting out of their predicament. And the answer is it doesn't.

If you really feel the urge to help these people you'd be better of keeping your hand in your pocket and carry on walking past them. You can then give that money to one of the various homeless charities which might actually assist them rather than their dealers or local off-license.

Dexterm99 · 22-04-2009 2:23pm

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Regardless of whether they're worthy of our assistance or not, the real question is does giving them money for begging assist them in any meaningful way in getting out of their predicament. And the answer is it doesn't.

If you really feel the urge to help these people you'd be better of keeping your hand in your pocket and carry on walking past them. You can then give that money to one of the various homeless charities which might actually assist them rather than their dealers or local off-license.

That's one question, I don't agree that it's the real question. How do you make begging stop? or how do we eliminate homelessness? might be more apt questions. The OP highlighted an issue where a shop was displaying a 'don't give beggars change' sign. Is it right to display a discriminatory sign? There is no way that it is and apart from the OP's action, maybe some other customers thought that it was OTT. Anyway, who the fcuk are we to judge beggars? None of us are angels. Do unto others and all that....

If you don't like giving change them fine. Keep on walking.
The money they make from begging is not going to get them out of the situation they are in. However, it might take the sting out of being poor.

Thanks OP for posting.

"dont give change to beggars please"

Comments