5 ms·

I understand what you're saying, but you're literally saying you feeling awkward is more important than someone having food that day. Sure, it's not the most e

by cujo 8y ago

I understand what you're saying, but you're literally saying you feeling awkward is more important than someone having food that day. Sure, it's not the most efficient or probably effective, but giving a little bit does make a difference.

PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
>you feeling awkward is more important than someone having food that day Have you ever spent any money on something that would make you feel less awkward that you could've donated to help feed the hungry? Have you ever bought new clothes when second hand would've worked and you could've donated the difference to feed the hungry? Have you ever spent money eating out when you could've saved money by cooking and donated the difference to feed the hungry? I wonder if there is anyone who could answer no to such questions?
Kalium 8y ago
Let's consider a proposal, then. A simple approach. Whenever you encounter a homeless person, stop and interact for a bit. Treat them as a human being, deserving of respect and dignity and humane treatment as a friend and neighbor. Find out what they need. Give the at least enough for a meal. I'm going to assume 5-10 minutes and $10 per person per encounter per day. Given that I pass at least 20 of my neighbors experiencing houselessness on each leg of my daily commute, I'm looking at $400 a day in donations and upwards of three hours. This may be sustainable for you, but it would quickly leave me unable to afford to eat myself. And that's assuming everything always goes perfectly, which my experiences living in an area with a sizable population of my neighbors being unhoused suggests may not always reliably be the case. With this pointedly ridiculous hypothetical in mind, it may be worth considering that people have to choose their own boundaries, in their own lives, and for their own reasons. Your heart is in the right place - compassion and kindness matter! - but it's possible that shaming people for choosing their boundaries might not be the most productive of all possible uses of your time and energy.
- Nomentatus 8y ago
  I choose one out of the many, and it doesn't have to be every day - or every week; and I do this only when I have some real time to spend to talk, in case a conversation gets deep, which can happen and is a good thing. At least a third of the time I bring say cherries or a couple of bananas (scurvy from Vitamin C deficiency is not uncommon for homeless people.) The food donations would be more common except that I don't always carry food, and I try to avoid theatrical and practiced begging, since that's more likely to be for drugs so won't stop for the first apparently homeless person I see. I don't feel weird "giving to one and not the many," since I've read some Kant and know that I have no moral obligation to do the impossible; I don't even think I have an obligation to do so much that I start to hate doing it, and might quit. I don't mean to be unkind, but "I can't help everyone." and "It might feel weird" do seem like rationalizations to me. The guy I've sat with most had a serious (obvious impact) brain injury, and when I last talked with him, he was drinking while contemplating whether he should go to a meeting that had been set up with his son, who he hadn't seen since his childhood. He was very worried his now-adult son might not like him. I told him (on the basis of previous our conversations) that he should be proud of himself; he was shouldering a huge burden better he would than most of us would. That it didn't really matter whether his son "got that" or didn't; he should go to help his son understand the world, and understand himself. I have no idea whether he ever met with his son or not. Break some boundaries, experiment a bit, you don't have to go overboard.
  - Kalium 8y ago
    Have you ever seen Schindler's List? There's a scene, near the end, where Oskar Schindler breaks down. He looks at all the little luxuries in his life, tallies their cost, and lists off how many more lives that could have saved. It nearly destroys him. To Schindler, "I have no moral obligation to do the impossible" would have come off as a self-serving rationalization for not doing as much as you can. For all that, you're absolutely right. Break some boundaries! Challenge yourself! Experiment! Just understand that some other people, having gone through similar processes, might arrive at personal conclusions that could in some instances perhaps differ slightly from yours. Perhaps you and I could be more careful in what we deem justified and what we deem a rationalization, knowing that those are intensely personal decisions.
closeparen 8y ago
It’s a fair criticism. But if that’s the social contract - that a pedestrian in an urban area is obliged to empathize with and offer support for all the destitution along his path - then we are doomed to drive around suburbia forever. Walkability is a compelling goal, but at that price, it seems impossible. So I reject the notion that it’s the price. I realize that’s flawed reasoning. It’s in San Francisco’s DNA to welcome the desperate and downtrodden from everywhere in the world. I don’t begrudge it that. But it means the streets will never be free of poverty until utopia reigns on every last inch of the earth. Which seems unlikely to happen soon. There’s got to be a pragmatic trade off for the next 50 years.

by cujo 8y ago

PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago

>you feeling awkward is more important than someone having food that day Have you ever spent any money on something that would make you feel less awkward that you could've donated to help feed the hungry? Have you ever bought new clothes when second hand would've worked and you could've donated the difference to feed the hungry? Have you ever spent money eating out when you could've saved money by cooking and donated the difference to feed the hungry? I wonder if there is anyone who could answer no to such questions?

Kalium 8y ago

Let's consider a proposal, then. A simple approach. Whenever you encounter a homeless person, stop and interact for a bit. Treat them as a human being, deserving of respect and dignity and humane treatment as a friend and neighbor. Find out what they need. Give the at least enough for a meal. I'm going to assume 5-10 minutes and $10 per person per encounter per day. Given that I pass at least 20 of my neighbors experiencing houselessness on each leg of my daily commute, I'm looking at $400 a day in donations and upwards of three hours. This may be sustainable for you, but it would quickly leave me unable to afford to eat myself. And that's assuming everything always goes perfectly, which my experiences living in an area with a sizable population of my neighbors being unhoused suggests may not always reliably be the case. With this pointedly ridiculous hypothetical in mind, it may be worth considering that people have to choose their own boundaries, in their own lives, and for their own reasons. Your heart is in the right place - compassion and kindness matter! - but it's possible that shaming people for choosing their boundaries might not be the most productive of all possible uses of your time and energy.

Nomentatus 8y ago
I choose one out of the many, and it doesn't have to be every day - or every week; and I do this only when I have some real time to spend to talk, in case a conversation gets deep, which can happen and is a good thing. At least a third of the time I bring say cherries or a couple of bananas (scurvy from Vitamin C deficiency is not uncommon for homeless people.) The food donations would be more common except that I don't always carry food, and I try to avoid theatrical and practiced begging, since that's more likely to be for drugs so won't stop for the first apparently homeless person I see. I don't feel weird "giving to one and not the many," since I've read some Kant and know that I have no moral obligation to do the impossible; I don't even think I have an obligation to do so much that I start to hate doing it, and might quit. I don't mean to be unkind, but "I can't help everyone." and "It might feel weird" do seem like rationalizations to me. The guy I've sat with most had a serious (obvious impact) brain injury, and when I last talked with him, he was drinking while contemplating whether he should go to a meeting that had been set up with his son, who he hadn't seen since his childhood. He was very worried his now-adult son might not like him. I told him (on the basis of previous our conversations) that he should be proud of himself; he was shouldering a huge burden better he would than most of us would. That it didn't really matter whether his son "got that" or didn't; he should go to help his son understand the world, and understand himself. I have no idea whether he ever met with his son or not. Break some boundaries, experiment a bit, you don't have to go overboard.
- Kalium 8y ago
  Have you ever seen Schindler's List? There's a scene, near the end, where Oskar Schindler breaks down. He looks at all the little luxuries in his life, tallies their cost, and lists off how many more lives that could have saved. It nearly destroys him. To Schindler, "I have no moral obligation to do the impossible" would have come off as a self-serving rationalization for not doing as much as you can. For all that, you're absolutely right. Break some boundaries! Challenge yourself! Experiment! Just understand that some other people, having gone through similar processes, might arrive at personal conclusions that could in some instances perhaps differ slightly from yours. Perhaps you and I could be more careful in what we deem justified and what we deem a rationalization, knowing that those are intensely personal decisions.

closeparen 8y ago

It’s a fair criticism. But if that’s the social contract - that a pedestrian in an urban area is obliged to empathize with and offer support for all the destitution along his path - then we are doomed to drive around suburbia forever. Walkability is a compelling goal, but at that price, it seems impossible. So I reject the notion that it’s the price. I realize that’s flawed reasoning. It’s in San Francisco’s DNA to welcome the desperate and downtrodden from everywhere in the world. I don’t begrudge it that. But it means the streets will never be free of poverty until utopia reigns on every last inch of the earth. Which seems unlikely to happen soon. There’s got to be a pragmatic trade off for the next 50 years.