3 ms·

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

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
    Oh, never mind my other comment. It doesn't merely sound like you're blaming thefts and murders on people who don't give out free money, that is in fact what you're doing. Sorry, but I have no pity to spare for criminals, certainly not murderers. People who will take what they can't get by other means are not fit to live in society.
    - consteval 2y ago
      This is harsh, I'm merely using your own logic and definition of "enabling". If you don't think that's fair, then you must agree with me - you're not enabling anything by giving them money. > People who will take what they can't get by other means are not fit to live in society How revolutionary, did you come up with that all by yourself? We are looking for solutions. "They're bad people" isn't a solution. You CAN systemically discourage theft and other crimes. However, you don't do that by simply demonizing those people. If anything, that actually causes MORE crime because you put already impoverished people into even more dire circumstances. This is why "tough on crime" simply doesn't work.
      - fluoridation 2y ago
        >This is harsh, I'm merely using your own logic and definition of "enabling". If you don't think that's fair, then you must agree with me - you're not enabling anything by giving them money. I don't think it's not fair, I think it's a non sequitur. If I give money to someone who I know will use the money to buy drugs, I'm enabling them, because I know that they will buy drugs. If I don't give them money I'm not indirectly responsible for crimes they commit to get money, because I don't know if they will commit crimes. It's not a given, it's a decision they make. If we go by your logic then crime is not punishable, because no one is responsible for their decisions; we're all just flesh automata animated by neurotransmitters. I am no more responsible for the decisions I make than a drug addict on withdrawal, a starving man, a horny rapist, or a bloodthirsty psychopath. All of us are equally enslaved to the physics of our brains. >"They're bad people" isn't a solution. Did I say they're bad people, or did I say they're not fit to live in society? Did I exclude the possibility of reformation? Hm...
        consteval 2y ago
        > because I don't know if they will commit crimes. It's not a given, it's a decision they make This ALSO applies to drugs. You don't know if they'll use drugs, you just assume. And it's a fair assumption. Symmetrically, you can't claim you don't know they'll turn to crime to fuel their addiction. It should be a fairly straight forward conclusion. It's a matter of cause and effect. Your own personal moral code is irrelevant. We know, whether we want it to be this way or not, that it's extremely difficult for drug addicts to stop using, particularly those with zero resources like the homeless. It's just the reality, and we have to live and operate within that framework. Because any other framework is make believe. > because no one is responsible for their decisions; we're all just flesh automata animated by neurotransmitters I'm not claiming this, you're doing the typical thing where you take my argument to the furthest extreme and then claim that is actually my argument, so it's easier to disprove. The truth is choice is tricky. It's not binary, it's continuous. There's infinite levels of influence we have in each and every aspect of our lives, even the smallest ones. I can choose to, for example, not brush my teeth this morning. Would it be easier, or harder, to choose to not do heroin, provided I'm an addict? You know the answer. My main argument is that you're not an enabler by giving them money because ultimately your influence is minimal. You're also not an enabler by NOT giving them money. Their "choice" (loose) to use drugs is due to societal, biological, and economic factors, which you cannot control. If you simply do not provide them money, even if everyone did this, you would not rid the world of drug addiction. In addition, you have to understand there's a reason these people do drugs. They live very hard lives. It's pretty easy for us in comparison. I can't blame them for craving an escape from the reality they live in. It's hard to look to the future you can build when you have no present.

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
  Oh, never mind my other comment. It doesn't merely sound like you're blaming thefts and murders on people who don't give out free money, that is in fact what you're doing. Sorry, but I have no pity to spare for criminals, certainly not murderers. People who will take what they can't get by other means are not fit to live in society.
  - consteval 2y ago
    This is harsh, I'm merely using your own logic and definition of "enabling". If you don't think that's fair, then you must agree with me - you're not enabling anything by giving them money. > People who will take what they can't get by other means are not fit to live in society How revolutionary, did you come up with that all by yourself? We are looking for solutions. "They're bad people" isn't a solution. You CAN systemically discourage theft and other crimes. However, you don't do that by simply demonizing those people. If anything, that actually causes MORE crime because you put already impoverished people into even more dire circumstances. This is why "tough on crime" simply doesn't work.
    - fluoridation 2y ago
      >This is harsh, I'm merely using your own logic and definition of "enabling". If you don't think that's fair, then you must agree with me - you're not enabling anything by giving them money. I don't think it's not fair, I think it's a non sequitur. If I give money to someone who I know will use the money to buy drugs, I'm enabling them, because I know that they will buy drugs. If I don't give them money I'm not indirectly responsible for crimes they commit to get money, because I don't know if they will commit crimes. It's not a given, it's a decision they make. If we go by your logic then crime is not punishable, because no one is responsible for their decisions; we're all just flesh automata animated by neurotransmitters. I am no more responsible for the decisions I make than a drug addict on withdrawal, a starving man, a horny rapist, or a bloodthirsty psychopath. All of us are equally enslaved to the physics of our brains. >"They're bad people" isn't a solution. Did I say they're bad people, or did I say they're not fit to live in society? Did I exclude the possibility of reformation? Hm...
      - consteval 2y ago
        > because I don't know if they will commit crimes. It's not a given, it's a decision they make This ALSO applies to drugs. You don't know if they'll use drugs, you just assume. And it's a fair assumption. Symmetrically, you can't claim you don't know they'll turn to crime to fuel their addiction. It should be a fairly straight forward conclusion. It's a matter of cause and effect. Your own personal moral code is irrelevant. We know, whether we want it to be this way or not, that it's extremely difficult for drug addicts to stop using, particularly those with zero resources like the homeless. It's just the reality, and we have to live and operate within that framework. Because any other framework is make believe. > because no one is responsible for their decisions; we're all just flesh automata animated by neurotransmitters I'm not claiming this, you're doing the typical thing where you take my argument to the furthest extreme and then claim that is actually my argument, so it's easier to disprove. The truth is choice is tricky. It's not binary, it's continuous. There's infinite levels of influence we have in each and every aspect of our lives, even the smallest ones. I can choose to, for example, not brush my teeth this morning. Would it be easier, or harder, to choose to not do heroin, provided I'm an addict? You know the answer. My main argument is that you're not an enabler by giving them money because ultimately your influence is minimal. You're also not an enabler by NOT giving them money. Their "choice" (loose) to use drugs is due to societal, biological, and economic factors, which you cannot control. If you simply do not provide them money, even if everyone did this, you would not rid the world of drug addiction. In addition, you have to understand there's a reason these people do drugs. They live very hard lives. It's pretty easy for us in comparison. I can't blame them for craving an escape from the reality they live in. It's hard to look to the future you can build when you have no present.