3 ms·
They deserve sympathy, but not necessarily the same care. For maximum societal benefit it may be that it's better to spend more on kids in school than schizophr
by wang_li 7y ago
They deserve sympathy, but not necessarily the same care. For maximum societal benefit it may be that it's better to spend more on kids in school than schizophrenic meth addicts. We live in a world of scarcity, we can't do everything.
- girvo 7y agoBut if the original complaint is the implied threat of violence from said homeless addict, especially aimed at those kids in school, you can see why I find that a bit heartless. Besides, the school system needs more than just money, just like the "homeless problem". I don't feel comfortable passing judgement on one class of people vs another solely because of the circumstances they were born into.
- pitay 7y agoI absolutely agree with not passing a judgment on a class of people because of variability of how they respond to help. I've never heard of any reason that all 'schizophrenic meth addicts' as in GP's example will not respond well to help. If hypothetically they all show no positive outcome from the help they have received, then it is indeed fine to say helping them this way is a waste of time and resources, until a new method of helping is devised. The part 'vs another solely because of the circumstances they were born into' from the parent post does not reflect what the GP post actually says. The GP was solely arguing on the practicality and the costs and benefits of doing it; solutions to problems have trade-offs, it is no good wishing them away. That said, how the homeless are treated in a lot of rich nations today are a complete disgrace. Increasing a well off persons well being is worth far less than increasing a not so well off persons well being IMO.