Author Topic: Panhandlers vs. The Homeless  (Read 4465 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Kim Farm

  • Novice
  • Posts: 2
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Panhandlers vs. The Homeless
« Reply #58 on: December 28, 2011, 12:02:10 AM »
In every community, there are charities to help the homeless.  At-risk youth.  Abused wives.  Many are run by churches, but I don't really give a crap about that, if that's all there is, and they're not monstrous about it.

I don't give a crap either, but it is still a good thing that there are charities and programs that helps at-risk youths, homeless and abused wives. Its great to see them happy and smiling. Most charities help those truly in need and without control over the situation they find themselves in: youths, abused wives, victims of natural disasters, and etc. Each of us can choose which charity best expresses our desire to help make the world a better place.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2011, 12:06:20 AM by Kim Farm »

Offline pingnak

Re: Panhandlers vs. The Homeless
« Reply #59 on: December 28, 2011, 11:40:21 PM »
Or, as the case may be, not.

I've encountered and known first hand so many of the 'devil's poor' (people who simply exploit and live off charity).

It's very hard for them not to harden one's heart.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6645
  • Darwins +527/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Panhandlers vs. The Homeless
« Reply #60 on: January 17, 2012, 04:59:10 PM »
I've encountered and known first hand so many of the 'devil's poor' (people who simply exploit and live off charity).
In Victorian England, the Christian classes used to distinguish between the "deserving poor" and " those who brought it upon themselves." = the undeserving poor.

A couple of problems arose, (i) the line was hard to draw and was very subjective (ii) it was distressing to see the bodies of men, women and children lying in the street or floating down the river. (iii) it gave the idea that the undeserving poor could never be members of "our society", this led to a growing criminal underclass, as the only way they had of surviving was via crime (iv) Means testing people is very expensive, not everyone is honest and up-front.

Back in the 80s, I was in Hong Kong. The first thing I was told was never to give to a beggar, of any sort. It was impressed on me that beggars were in receipt of state money, just like any other unfortunate citizen. Do you know? I never saw a beggar, why? Because there was no distinction between deserving and undeserving poor.

In the US, why are there any people living on the streets? Do they do it from choice? Or do they do it because they are inadequate in some way? Does it matter in what way they are inadequate?

Is giving money to down and outs efficient? No. The state is far more efficient as it is disinterested and fair. It has no axe to grind. It does not require you to behave in a certain way, it is too bothered about your colour, education, disabilities, lack of hygiene, problems, sexual orientation - a lot of charities might be; a lot of charities are niche charities, children, women, the disabled, etc. Charities are not evenly spread; the state is, it can cover everyone fairly and evenly. A lot of charities require a lot of admin, and that costs money. One large one does not require such a percentage of admin staff.
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6576
  • Darwins +869/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Panhandlers vs. The Homeless
« Reply #61 on: January 17, 2012, 05:15:01 PM »
^^^^Tru dat. If only there was a non-judgemental computer that could dispense social services to everyone who needed them using some basic criteria...... barring that let ME be charge of everything! :angel:
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline kindred

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1115
  • Darwins +10/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Panhandlers vs. The Homeless
« Reply #62 on: January 20, 2012, 01:35:21 AM »
I find that the best way to determine who to help is by trying to find out who the most deserving is. If given the choice between helping a dying homeless 25 year old that got that way because he was in a poor family , couldn't handle the stress and used mental ability destroying drugs OR a 25 year old who is in a very poor family, working his ass off to improve his situation, I'd let the idiot die and help the more deserving man.

Help the most deserving, not the one the one that needs help the most and the problem will solve itself.
"Keep calm and carry on"

"I trust you are not in too much distress"

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Panhandlers vs. The Homeless
« Reply #63 on: January 20, 2012, 07:18:50 AM »
.....given the choice between helping a dying homeless 25 year old that got that way because he was in a poor family , couldn't handle the stress and used mental ability destroying drugs OR a 25 year old who is in a very poor family, working his ass off to improve his situation, I'd let the idiot die and help the more deserving man....

Yeah, me too.  But which IS the more deserving?  The one who is able to cope with his situation enough to be able to try to change it, or the one who is NOT able to cope enough to be able to do anything about it?  Should we not help the ones that cannot manage to help themselves?
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline changeling

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 663
  • Darwins +15/-0
Re: Panhandlers vs. The Homeless
« Reply #64 on: January 20, 2012, 08:32:42 AM »

In the US, why are there any people living on the streets? Do they do it from choice? Or do they do it because they are inadequate in some way? Does it matter in what way they are inadequate?


An interesting question greybeard.
This last summer we had a homeless man living at our radio control flying field. He literally moved into our little clubhouse.

Most of our members felt sorry for him so we looked the other way when he ate our food and never left the field. Some would bring a sandwich or breakfast for him when we went to the field. I talked to him about his situation since cold weather was approaching and there was no way that he could continue to stay in a freezing shed during the winter.

He indicated to me that he was homeless by choice. He was receiving aid from the state, but by not spending any of the money on housing he had more money to spend on things that he wanted, like cigarettes and an occasional beer. I felt less sorry for the man after that.
The level of dumb they have to sell, is only made remotely possible by the level of flocking their sheep are willing to do in the name of rewards for no thought. quote: Kin Hell

"Faith is the enemy of evidence, for when we know the truth, no faith is required." Graybeard

Offline kindred

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1115
  • Darwins +10/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Panhandlers vs. The Homeless
« Reply #65 on: January 20, 2012, 10:02:54 AM »
@Anfuaglir

I've been on this earth for 19 years and seen people who need help but are very undeserving of it.

Case in point, keep in mind this isn't even the worst case I know of:

My grandfather is a bum. He had 3 kids and never paid a cent to raise them. He lives in my grandmothers house. He had a job but only used it so he could by beer, hunting gear and other shit for himself. Heck he even expected my grandmother to be the homemaker(which my grandmother is) even though she is clearly the breadwinner for our family. My grandfather is also an emotionally immature man with about the same emotional needs a 10 year old and was barely smart enough to pass high-scool(he had to beg to be given grace enough for the lowest passing score). He clearly needs the help and wouldn't have been able to do much even if he did try.

Can you honestly tell me that needy people like my grandfather are more deserving of help over the exemplary people like my grandmother?
"Keep calm and carry on"

"I trust you are not in too much distress"

Offline pingnak

Re: Panhandlers vs. The Homeless
« Reply #66 on: January 20, 2012, 09:15:44 PM »
Sticky problem, that who 'deserves' a cut of the finite resources available to help out.

People who are smart enough, or smart enough to enlist the help of people who are smart or experienced enough, are more likely to get SSI benefits.

Most shelters have strict 'no drugs' (including alcohol) policies.  So sober people appear to deserve more help, no matter that many who are chemically dependent got that way from 'self medicating' because of the dual roles of mental health social stigma and lack of any available treatment options to get on necessary prescription drugs, before the alcohol or other drugs they turned to for relief burned holes through their brains.

Of course, a lot of the depressed/mentally ill/drug users/etc. would kill themselves without the other social stigmas against suicide, too.  'Suicide Booths' (ala 'Futurama') would get rid of a lot of the 'problem'... literally.  If every prison cell had a noose and friendly pictorial instruction plaque, there would be no prison overcrowding, either.  Yes, this is pure evil, but it makes a perverse kind of sense, too, and would certainly be more humane than a lot of social policy that is in place in America, that emptied and closed mental hospitals and turned their contents out on the street, and eventually over into prisons.  Better in the booth than 'by cop', with a gun in their hands, surrounded by a pile of corpses.

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=136575&title=suicide-booth

It's nothing we don't do to lost/homeless pets, every minute of every day.

May as well throw in for putting down excessively sick people, too.  After all, if it's good enough for the loyal family dog, why isn't it good enough for you?  Better than beggaring the family spending hundreds of thousands to stay alive, only to die in the most hideously prolonged, torturous (and additionally expensive) manner made possible by modern medicine.

Health issues are still the #1 cause of bankruptcy in America.  And that can easily lead to homelessness.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Panhandlers vs. The Homeless
« Reply #67 on: January 21, 2012, 03:19:24 AM »
My grandfather is a bum. He had 3 kids and never paid a cent to raise them. He lives in my grandmothers house. He had a job but only used it so he could by beer, hunting gear and other shit for himself. Heck he even expected my grandmother to be the homemaker(which my grandmother is) even though she is clearly the breadwinner for our family. My grandfather is also an emotionally immature man with about the same emotional needs a 10 year old and was barely smart enough to pass high-scool(he had to beg to be given grace enough for the lowest passing score). He clearly needs the help and wouldn't have been able to do much even if he did try.

Can you honestly tell me that needy people like my grandfather are more deserving of help over the exemplary people like my grandmother?

With the deepest of respect, yes - because of the sentence I'd highlighted.  If that sentence had been "he was an intelligent and able man, who deliberately chose to friter away what he had, then I'd say no.

Basically, I'm saying that "deserving" cases are those where the people are - for whatever reason - unable to help themelves, as opposed to able, but unwilling to help themselves.  Your example appears to fall more in the first camp, so yes - I would assist him.

There is of course the third option - those able and willing but who through curcumstance just can't make it.  The strugglers who are slammed down by the world rather than lack of ability or drive.  Yes, they deserve help too. 

But with finite resources, I reluctantly have to say that those "able triers" will at least have a chance on their own.  The "unable" won't have even that chance.  And so yes - they should be first port of call for assistance.

I'm a full-time Union Rep.  I see all three types in my office.  I have only a finite amount of time to help them.  So yes - I devote more of my time to the people who can't help themselves.  Then the people who can, but are failing.  Then - if anything is left - to the people who could help themselves, but choose not to.  Its a fine dividing line sometimes.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2685
  • Darwins +76/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Panhandlers vs. The Homeless
« Reply #68 on: January 21, 2012, 03:29:10 AM »
There is of course the third option - those able and willing but who through curcumstance just can't make it.  The strugglers who are slammed down by the world rather than lack of ability or drive.  Yes, they deserve help too.

I think I fall into this category. It all depends on perspective I guess. I feel like I get slammed a lot.
I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline kindred

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1115
  • Darwins +10/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Panhandlers vs. The Homeless
« Reply #69 on: January 23, 2012, 12:15:42 AM »
My grandfather is a bum. He had 3 kids and never paid a cent to raise them. He lives in my grandmothers house. He had a job but only used it so he could by beer, hunting gear and other shit for himself. Heck he even expected my grandmother to be the homemaker(which my grandmother is) even though she is clearly the breadwinner for our family. My grandfather is also an emotionally immature man with about the same emotional needs a 10 year old and was barely smart enough to pass high-scool(he had to beg to be given grace enough for the lowest passing score). He clearly needs the help and wouldn't have been able to do much even if he did try.

Can you honestly tell me that needy people like my grandfather are more deserving of help over the exemplary people like my grandmother?

With the deepest of respect, yes - because of the sentence I'd highlighted.  If that sentence had been "he was an intelligent and able man, who deliberately chose to friter away what he had, then I'd say no.

Basically, I'm saying that "deserving" cases are those where the people are - for whatever reason - unable to help themelves, as opposed to able, but unwilling to help themselves.  Your example appears to fall more in the first camp, so yes - I would assist him.

There is of course the third option - those able and willing but who through curcumstance just can't make it.  The strugglers who are slammed down by the world rather than lack of ability or drive.  Yes, they deserve help too. 

But with finite resources, I reluctantly have to say that those "able triers" will at least have a chance on their own.  The "unable" won't have even that chance.  And so yes - they should be first port of call for assistance.

I'm a full-time Union Rep.  I see all three types in my office.  I have only a finite amount of time to help them.  So yes - I devote more of my time to the people who can't help themselves.  Then the people who can, but are failing.  Then - if anything is left - to the people who could help themselves, but choose not to.  Its a fine dividing line sometimes.

Whatever happened to equity? Equal work deserves equal pay. Whether a man or a woman. Idiot or genius, if the output is the same they get given the same amount of reward.

I've been on the recieving end of the inequity. As a kindergarten student I had the emotional maturity of a high-school kid. Wanna know what that did? It made EVERYTHING my responsibility. Got bitten by a normal kindergarted student because he was being stupid? My fault for not expecting him to be stupid and also my responsiblity to teach him not to be stupid. Kindergarten idiots are irrationally jelous that I understand algebra and mock me for thinking "x" is a number? My fault because I shouldn't brag about how much smarter I am.

See where I'm getting at? I don't want the same to ever happen to anybody else. When a person is smarter/more industrious/has reached higher than you, it does not give you the right to "take them down a few notches" because they make you feel inadequate.
"Keep calm and carry on"

"I trust you are not in too much distress"

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Panhandlers vs. The Homeless
« Reply #70 on: January 23, 2012, 09:47:14 AM »
See where I'm getting at? I don't want the same to ever happen to anybody else. When a person is smarter/more industrious/has reached higher than you, it does not give you the right to "take them down a few notches" because they make you feel inadequate.

For what its worth, I suffered from "the tyranny of high expectations" as well.  But I disagree with your conclusion.  I don't feel that I'm taking anyone down a few notches at all - I'm saying let's give the limited leg-ups we can to the people who can't get there alone.

It ISN'T an easy decision - in your school example, its saying that I have enough money for just a little extra teaching support.  Do I give it to the promising student to help them even further?  Or give it to the struggling student to pull them up to "average"?  Either way has arguments for it, and either choice has issues for those left out - do we deny the good student the bit extra effectively because they can go it alone?  Or do we deny the struggler because we want to push the gifted child even further?

There is no easy answer - but I suppose my philosophy would be to try to drive the ends of the bell curve closer together (give aid to the weak, even if that means the strong get a bit weaker) rather than push them further apart (give aid to the strong and make them stronger, even if that means the weak get weaker).

Ultimately, I'd like everyone to move towards the mean, rather than everyone move away (in both directions).....

....on the understanding that I would prefer:
1) The mean to be always moving upwards, and
2) The "weak" to be those who are weak through lack of opportunity and resource, rather than lack of motivation or "am I bovvered?"
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline kindred

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1115
  • Darwins +10/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Panhandlers vs. The Homeless
« Reply #71 on: January 23, 2012, 09:09:40 PM »
@Anfuaglir

Why not divide the extra time between everyone?

Equity is a principle of mine. If I break my principle to try and better things, I have broken my principle with a 100% certainty but am only given a small chance at actually bettering things. So why compromise my principles?

Its what I would do, what would you do and why?

To qoute Rorschach "Never compromise. Not even in the face of armagedon."
"Keep calm and carry on"

"I trust you are not in too much distress"

Offline pingnak

Re: Panhandlers vs. The Homeless
« Reply #72 on: January 24, 2012, 04:08:09 AM »
I suppose there's also the perception, perhaps mostly on my part, that some in society deliberately keeps people dependent on 'services' meant to help the unfortunate.

Because being the one who metes out the 'help' gives one power, and greater dependence in this model is greater power.

Stand there with your hand on the lever.  Are you worthy of MY help?

One small problem with 'evenly spread', finite help is that it 'evens out' to pretty much no help at all. 

If you have a scholarship, you can put one person through college, or help a few people go to college, or give everyone a $1 off coupon for their books purchased through the hideously over-priced book store.

If you had enough funds, you might put ONE or TWO homeless families in an apartment.  Or you could feed a bunch of homeless people a few times, who will effectively remain homeless and hungry.  Of course, you're paying the deposit (or maintaining that apartment), and there is a lot of liability with putting people up like this.  You're taking a risk that these people won't flip the fuck out and trash the place, and disappear.

If you have enough water that three people can survive to walk out of the desert, out of nine people, you can guarantee that NONE will survive, if you distribute the water evenly, but if you give two people enough water, they might be able to find help before the rest die, sipping at the remaining ration.  And what would be the best strategy for selection, assuming you all wanted to survive?  Pick the strongest, most fit, honorable people, or choose randomly? 

BTW, if you're the adventurous sort, buy an EPIRB.  It will intermittently broadcast your GPS coordinates so that a satellite can pick it up, and ping at lower power on an emergency frequency so other people can zero in on you, until someone shows up.  Just the thing when your hike or 4WD trip into the back country becomes a bit more of an 'adventure' than you intended.  It could be the single best $500 (or less) that you ever spend.  Then you probably won't have to make terrible decisions like that one with the water.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Panhandlers vs. The Homeless
« Reply #73 on: January 24, 2012, 06:11:34 AM »
Indeedy.

And its not just material resources - TIME is an important commodity as well.  Ultimately, I've only got so many minutes to give to people. 

It takes a certain amount of time to do a good job, less to do an adequate job....but there comes a point when if I divided my time equally amongst everyone who needed it, I would be spending so little time with each person that I wouldn't be helping any of them.

So yes - I prioritise.  I wish I didn't have to, but I do.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline kindred

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1115
  • Darwins +10/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Panhandlers vs. The Homeless
« Reply #74 on: January 24, 2012, 07:43:13 AM »
@Anfauglir

So why prioritize people neediness over worthiness?

Wouldn't that create a snowball effect? You are exerting force on the system, straining the worthy. You are basically making more loads than there are load carriers.
"Keep calm and carry on"

"I trust you are not in too much distress"

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Panhandlers vs. The Homeless
« Reply #75 on: January 25, 2012, 09:11:32 AM »
So why prioritize people neediness over worthiness?

I have to direct resources somewhere.  I personally feel that it is "best" to help the people who are unable to help themselves.

I take your point about loads and load carriers - but the alternative seems to be to give help to those willing and able to help themselves, and to leave those unable to help themselves to sink.

Glad I said sink, actually - it's sparked a good analogy for how I think.

The ship sinks, and three people are in the water.  I can choose to support one of them.

Person A can swim, and is treading water (albeit with difficulty).
Person B can swim, but isn't - they are waiting for me to support them, and so they are drowning.
Person C cannot swim - they don't know how, and so they too are currently drowning.

I will give my support to C, to help them swim, even though this means person A has to struggle on alone for a while.  The alternative - to help person A - means that C will drown, and that's not a solution I am comfortable with, regardless of how unfair that may be to person A who is expected to help themselves.

Person B, I will happily let drown though!
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: Panhandlers vs. The Homeless
« Reply #76 on: January 25, 2012, 09:26:36 AM »
So why prioritize people neediness over worthiness?

I have to direct resources somewhere.  I personally feel that it is "best" to help the people who are unable to help themselves.
[snip]
The ship sinks, and three people are in the water.  I can choose to support one of them.

Person A can swim, and is treading water (albeit with difficulty).
Person B can swim, but isn't - they are waiting for me to support them, and so they are drowning.

Person C cannot swim - they don't know how, and so they too are currently drowning.

I will give my support to C, to help them swim, even though this means person A has to struggle on alone for a while.  The alternative - to help person A - means that C will drown, and that's not a solution I am comfortable with, regardless of how unfair that may be to person A who is expected to help themselves.

Person B, I will happily let drown though!

I agree with your rationale. We all have priorities, I get that.

Just wondering how you would know this? (the part in bold)


Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Panhandlers vs. The Homeless
« Reply #77 on: January 25, 2012, 09:33:54 AM »
Person A can swim, and is treading water (albeit with difficulty).

Person B can swim, but isn't - they are waiting for me to support them.....

Person C cannot swim - they don't know how.

Just wondering how you would know this? (the part in bold)

Ah yes - that's the trick, isn't it?  In practice, it will often work out that I will end up helping what I think is a "C", who is really a "B"...rather than risk misidentifying a C as a B and not helping someone who really needs it.  Either way, the "A" gets nothing, which I think is where kindred is in opposition. 

Ultimately, I'd rather help someone who didn't really need it, than NOT help someone who did.

It isn't perfect - and a lot of the mechanisms used to sort the Bs from the Cs (means testing, and so forth) are flawed.  But then again, how would you necessarily show that an A was an A, and not simply a B who could "talk the talk"?

I find in practice you gradually get better at telling the Bs from the Cs.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: Panhandlers vs. The Homeless
« Reply #78 on: January 25, 2012, 09:48:33 AM »
Yeah. And sometimes it's pretty easy to see a need.

President Reagan released all the non-violent people from the mental hospitals. Austin had it's share of the new homeless. They were pretty easy to spot, typically. The Viet Nam Vets  were their competition, and the good folks of Austin, Texas weren't too friendly with the "Loonies."

They slowly disapeared. Some went back in the hospital, some to jail, some died. It was a very sad thing to watch.
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline pingnak

Re: Panhandlers vs. The Homeless
« Reply #79 on: January 25, 2012, 04:25:50 PM »
Not many went back to the hospital, since a lot of those hospitals closed, there was no place for them to 'go back' to.

Basically it boiled down to death or prison, for the ones who couldn't 'cope' at all, and didn't have a VERY strong family to fall back on. 

And if they were in the 'loony bin', they probably couldn't cope.

You act crazy?  Go to prison... or the cops might kill you on the spot.  They kill deaf people who don't hear them.  Swinging a piece of rebar at 'demons'?  Yeah, tough luck for you.  Especially if you 'miss' a demon and hit a cop.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2065629/Police-killed-deaf-cyclist-stun-gun-failed-obey-instructions-stop.html

You self medicate, because the 'real' stuff that made you manageable is stopped.  The weed keeps you calm.  So you're on 'illegal drugs'.  Go to prison.  We'd rather spend those billions incarcerating sick people than treating them, and killing a LOT of innocent people, too.  That's the 'War on Drugs'.  That's America's 'War' on anything.

And of course, once in prison, and no medication, you act crazy, so you go to solitary.  Permanently.  Locked in a small, dark room, by yourself (and your demons), forever.

Otherwise suicide, the weather, street conditions, thugs who douse them in gasoline and set 'em on fire, etc.

Then there are the exploitive charities who run 'homes' for these people, that collect funds from the various levels of government for themselves... and do very little, or nothing for them.  Just kind of warehouse them.

There are very bad people who will 'take in' homeless people and make them panhandle to earn their keep.  Not just in India, and places like that.  In America.  Lots of mentally disabled people are very easy to manipulate.  As are children.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6576
  • Darwins +869/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Panhandlers vs. The Homeless
« Reply #80 on: January 25, 2012, 06:22:28 PM »
^^^That is sick, sad and unfortunately, very true. In my experience working in social services, prison has become the provider of last resort for everything poor people need. Esp. mental health and regular health care. Because voters are usually willing to fund prisons when they won't vote for any other kind of social services. We are sooo nice in Xtian Murica.

If a young guy is dealing/using drugs because he can't settle down enough to handle school or work a regular job, or because he can't read, or has some kind of hearing or vision problem, or he is mildly disabled and has the mental age of 6 and doesn't understand why he can't walk out of the store with a candy bar[1], he ends up in jail.  With hard-core criminals. Esp. if he is brown skinned. And can't afford a lawyer. Ironically, he may get the right meds or glasses or hearing aids or even counseling in prison. At ten times the price of doing it out-patient in the community. We are sooo efficient in Xtian Murica.

Although these days, the states are cutting back on "frills" like job training, mental health counseling and drug support groups. You know, the things that might actually help keep the prisoners from coming back. My SIL teaches violence prevention classes to women in prison and there are so many women on the wait list she can't reach them all.

The classes help women deal with their kids and relationships non-violently and show them how violence has affected their lives. This is to prevent them from getting into trouble again and to help their kids stay away from trouble in the future. These are women who want to change their lives,  and there is supposedly no funding to help them.  :(
 1. Actually happened to my mentally disabled brother...he ran out of a store with a pack of batteries to keep from missing his bus, and was arrested even though he had the money to pay for them. He was sent to jail.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline pingnak

Re: Panhandlers vs. The Homeless
« Reply #81 on: January 25, 2012, 07:00:19 PM »
Drug dealers LOVE retarded people and 'at risk' children.  They're so easy to get working, without any notion of the consequences of what they're up to.  Call the mule with the drugs to give (x) bags to the nice customer in the RED car, when they pull up.

And the best part, a lot of illegal drugs will MAKE YOU retarded, with routine use.

Besides, many prisons are privately run now, so they actually lobby for tougher laws and longer prison sentences. 

There is a WELL FUNDED interest in America to put more people behind bars.  And they lobby.  Very actively.

When they don't outright pay judges to send more kids up the river.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/us/13judge.html?pagewanted=all

And don't forget 'frills' like education, where no matter how much they spend, they can't educate, due to all of the crazy laws about putting insane/handicapped kids who scream and act out in the same classes as all the others.  There is supposed to be a dedicated person to manage EACH AND EVERY one of those kids, but there seldom is.  And 'no child left behind' keeps teachers training kids like pigeons to peck at the right bubbles on the 'standard' tests, because that is the ONLY metric that matters to their bosses, the 900 layers of 'administrators' needed to file all the paperwork.


BTW, remember that NAACP is demonized by the right wing.  How dare they pay attention?

Offline Jenny Penn

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Panhandlers vs. The Homeless
« Reply #82 on: February 01, 2012, 12:30:15 AM »
In every community, there are charities to help the homeless.  At-risk youth.  Abused wives.  Many are run by churches, but I don't really give a crap about that, if that's all there is, and they're not monstrous about it.  If you feel the impulse to give to assuage the 'guilt' of having a good upbringing and being financially and ethically upright, then GIVE TO A LEGITIMATE CHARITY that will ACTUALLY help people, such as the homeless, runaway children, abused wives, etc.

I agree. But not all charities run by churches or religious groups are not legitimate.  Most of them really aims at teenagers and adults with a tendency to drug abuse, alcoholism, suicide, and etc. They help at-risk youths and adults follow their automotive dreams and make better decisions that affect their lives.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2012, 12:37:20 AM by Jenny Penn »

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12247
  • Darwins +270/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Panhandlers vs. The Homeless
« Reply #83 on: February 01, 2012, 12:36:49 AM »
He acknowledged that in the first part of the text you quoted...
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Panhandlers vs. The Homeless
« Reply #84 on: February 01, 2012, 09:55:41 AM »
I agree. But not all charities run by churches or religious groups are not legitimate.  Most of them really aims at teenagers and adults with a tendency to drug abuse, alcoholism, suicide, and etc. They help at-risk youths and adults follow their automotive dreams and make better decisions that affect their lives.

and many churches use that to gain people for their flock, those who are vulnerable.  Just like drug dealers. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline pingnak

Re: Panhandlers vs. The Homeless
« Reply #85 on: February 01, 2012, 06:05:08 PM »
Well, yeah.  There are 'shelters' that require you to pray, and read the buybull to get fed, or sleep in a bed.

If you don't accept highly-conditional-love Jesus, you don't get help.

If you don't like being required to (at least pretend to) believe, go starve in the snow, you heathen abominations against my god!


Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6576
  • Darwins +869/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Panhandlers vs. The Homeless
« Reply #86 on: February 01, 2012, 06:11:31 PM »
This week there was a terrible fire in a low-income "rehab center" in Peru. Killed a lot of folks, because they were locked in. No visitors, and they were not allowed to wear shoes. Turns out the only "treatment" the addicts and alcoholics were given was a bible to read. And the families paid for them to be there, thinking it would help.

People ask why atheists get mad at religion..... >:(
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.