5 ms·

Here's my answer to the "but they'll spend it on drugs" point: Well, the life of a person whose addiction (always stemming from spirals or depression, abuse, p

Here's my answer to the "but they'll spend it on drugs" point: Well, the life of a person whose addiction (always stemming from spirals or depression, abuse, physical or mental illness) has driven them to homelessness is horrible. Why shouldn't I give them the means to a brief escape from the pain? Yes, of course, escape from addiction and rehabilitation is the goal. But denying them temporary relief of the only kind they, in their addiction, are currently capable of, is just more cruelty. And nothing will drive them deeper into it than being ignored by everyone who walks past. Of course, if you have time and means, volunteer, donate to a homeless shelter or charity. But if you, like most people, are not going to do that, and you just get the occasional pang of conscience when walking by, then by all means, give!

jlkuester7 2y ago
Yes! I have never struggled with drug addition, but I have had personal experiences that showed me how sometimes in life "getting through today" takes a higher priority then "fixing the underlying problems". Looking back at my life, several unexpected highlights came from the kindness of random strangers who helped me out when I did not deserve it. Giving a homeless person $5 will not fix any of their underlying issues, but it might be the thing that gets them through the day.
gosub100 2y ago
> Why shouldn't I give them the means to a brief escape from the pain? Because they'll leave their Hep-C infected needle on the sidewalk when they're done with it?
- consteval 2y ago
  The argument is this will be done regardless of if you give them money.
  - fluoridation 2y ago
    Therefore don't give them money. Both courses of action lead to effects contrary to your interests, but in one of them you get to keep the money.
    - consteval 2y ago
      Not necessarily, the implication is that if you don't give them money they may obtain money through nefarious means. Certainly, if you or I were pushed to homelessness and addicted to hard drugs stealing wouldn't be off the table.
      - fluoridation 2y ago
        >the implication is that if you don't give them money they may obtain money through nefarious means. It sounds like you're saying that the fault of thefts is on the people who don't give money to panhandling addicts. >Certainly, if you or I were pushed to homelessness and addicted to hard drugs stealing wouldn't be off the table. "If you were different to the way you are, you would do things you wouldn't otherwise do" is a rather inane thing to say, don't you think? You don't need to argue for the fact that people steal; that's obvious.
  - gosub100 2y ago
    that's not the argument I responded to. They asked "why shouldn't I (let them do the thing)". If they were going to do it regardless, there would be no need for them to ask for money.
fluoridation 2y ago
>Well, the life of a person whose addiction (always stemming from spirals or depression, abuse, physical or mental illness) has driven them to homelessness is horrible. Why shouldn't I give them the means to a brief escape from the pain? What a terrible line of reasoning. Enabling is also a component of how people remain addicts. There is such a thing as misdirected empathy.
- consteval 2y ago
  Enablers refer to friends or family who continuously provide for their addictions. You, a stranger, giving money one time do not swing the pendulum. They will do drugs with or without your five dollars, because you as a person have zero influence in their life. If you died right now, not only will the homeless not care, but they also wouldn't even notice. You're not, and can't be, an enabler. Best case scenario your five bucks prevents them from stealing something.
  - fluoridation 2y ago
    If you make it a policy to give money to addicted strangers because they're addicts then you're taking part in a crowdfunded effort to enable their addition. Saying that it's not enabling because you don't know them personally is special pleading. There's no reason to accept that exception to the definition.
    - consteval 2y ago
      Since you have no personal influence over them, they will do the drugs regardless. I could easily argue by not giving them money you're actually enabling stealing or even murder. Certainly, a large part of why the homeless don't commit as many crimes as you'd expect is because they're able to self-medicate somewhat effectively. If you take that away, they're already in extremely desperate circumstances. The issue is more complex than you give it credit. If everyone followed your solution it would backfire catastrophically.
      - fluoridation 2y ago
HDThoreaun 2y ago
On the one hand you can enable the addiction that likely caused this person to be homeless. On the other you could donate to a homeless non-profit that could actually help them. I wonder which would be more beneficial?

jlkuester7 2y ago

Yes! I have never struggled with drug addition, but I have had personal experiences that showed me how sometimes in life "getting through today" takes a higher priority then "fixing the underlying problems". Looking back at my life, several unexpected highlights came from the kindness of random strangers who helped me out when I did not deserve it. Giving a homeless person $5 will not fix any of their underlying issues, but it might be the thing that gets them through the day.

gosub100 2y ago

> Why shouldn't I give them the means to a brief escape from the pain? Because they'll leave their Hep-C infected needle on the sidewalk when they're done with it?

consteval 2y ago
The argument is this will be done regardless of if you give them money.
- fluoridation 2y ago
  Therefore don't give them money. Both courses of action lead to effects contrary to your interests, but in one of them you get to keep the money.
  - consteval 2y ago
    Not necessarily, the implication is that if you don't give them money they may obtain money through nefarious means. Certainly, if you or I were pushed to homelessness and addicted to hard drugs stealing wouldn't be off the table.
    - fluoridation 2y ago
      >the implication is that if you don't give them money they may obtain money through nefarious means. It sounds like you're saying that the fault of thefts is on the people who don't give money to panhandling addicts. >Certainly, if you or I were pushed to homelessness and addicted to hard drugs stealing wouldn't be off the table. "If you were different to the way you are, you would do things you wouldn't otherwise do" is a rather inane thing to say, don't you think? You don't need to argue for the fact that people steal; that's obvious.
- gosub100 2y ago
  that's not the argument I responded to. They asked "why shouldn't I (let them do the thing)". If they were going to do it regardless, there would be no need for them to ask for money.

fluoridation 2y ago

>Well, the life of a person whose addiction (always stemming from spirals or depression, abuse, physical or mental illness) has driven them to homelessness is horrible. Why shouldn't I give them the means to a brief escape from the pain? What a terrible line of reasoning. Enabling is also a component of how people remain addicts. There is such a thing as misdirected empathy.

consteval 2y ago
Enablers refer to friends or family who continuously provide for their addictions. You, a stranger, giving money one time do not swing the pendulum. They will do drugs with or without your five dollars, because you as a person have zero influence in their life. If you died right now, not only will the homeless not care, but they also wouldn't even notice. You're not, and can't be, an enabler. Best case scenario your five bucks prevents them from stealing something.
- fluoridation 2y ago
  If you make it a policy to give money to addicted strangers because they're addicts then you're taking part in a crowdfunded effort to enable their addition. Saying that it's not enabling because you don't know them personally is special pleading. There's no reason to accept that exception to the definition.
  - consteval 2y ago
    Since you have no personal influence over them, they will do the drugs regardless. I could easily argue by not giving them money you're actually enabling stealing or even murder. Certainly, a large part of why the homeless don't commit as many crimes as you'd expect is because they're able to self-medicate somewhat effectively. If you take that away, they're already in extremely desperate circumstances. The issue is more complex than you give it credit. If everyone followed your solution it would backfire catastrophically.
    - fluoridation 2y ago

HDThoreaun 2y ago

On the one hand you can enable the addiction that likely caused this person to be homeless. On the other you could donate to a homeless non-profit that could actually help them. I wonder which would be more beneficial?