4 ms·

You are arguing against a very insulting straw man, and I would ordinarily not consider you not worth addressing except that a lot of people apparently think al

You are arguing against a very insulting straw man, and I would ordinarily not consider you not worth addressing except that a lot of people apparently think along the same ridiculous lines. Panhandlers in major cities are at low risk of not having food available to them. The idea of the 'starving homeless' is another counterfactual myth, just as much as the 'deserving homeless'--but if it really concerns you, there are far more directly expedient ways of helping them than giving away money. Services and shelters for the homeless are pretty terrible, but I've never heard anyone credible say that these services are worse than the shortsighted, feel-good solution of giving people money they are fundamentally incapable of spending correctly. By contrast, it is common for the homeless to die of exposure--not because they had no shelter available, but because they are mentally ill and fell into a pattern of denying it to themselves, even on the coldest days.

foldr 12y ago
Speaking of straw men, please note that I didn't say anything about people starving. By all means, give money to shelters etc. But why not also give money to homeless people? The two are not mutually exclusive. You are repeating the usual mean-spirited argument that we shouldn't give homeless people money because they might spend it on things we don't approve of. But so what? It's their life, not ours. Charity with strings attached isn't charity. I find it a useful exercise to imagine applying the same logic in dealing with comfortably well-off middle class people. If such a person has an alcohol problem, the usual reaction amongst reasonably enlightened people is to try to find that person help. We don't try to cut off all of their sources of income on the grounds that they'll just spend it all on booze. Now, perhaps some of them will spend all of their income on booze, but since we aren't so much in the habit of completely dehumanizing them, we recognize that this is still their choice to make. The bottom line here is that drug and alcohol habits don't cost infinite amounts of money. You can perfectly well spend some of your money on drugs and the rest on food, etc. Unless you have some kind of moral objection to people using drugs, why should you care if a homeless person is spending some of their money that way? It's judgmental and mean to refuse them money because you suspect that they might be going to do this.
- cynicalkane 12y ago
  Enabling the patterns of mental illness and addiction is linked to negative outcomes, not positive ones. These negative outcomes include death from voluntary exposure.
  - foldr 12y ago
    So would you apply the same logic in the case of middle class people? Should we also try to ensure that they receive no income if they are drug addicts? If you are absolutely sure that you know what's best for homeless people, and that they don't, then don't give them your money. Personally, I am not so sure.
tptacek 12y ago
Look. If you want to give cash to homeless people, do that. If you want to give to shelters instead, do that. If you want to send your money to Partners in Health to provide medical care for innocent people in other countries far worse off than homeless in the US, do that. If you want to give your money to the Republican party so they can pass legislation restricting same-sex marriage because that is truly what you believe in, do that. If instead you want to save your money and ensure your children have an easy time getting through college: fine. If instead you want to keep it for yourself for your retirement to ease the burden on the rest of us: also OK. Want to buy 6 PS4 consoles so you can use an HDMI switch to select different games without reloading them or physically getting up to insert a disk in their drive? Fine too. Nachos. Fine. Guns. Fine. Meth. Sandwiches. Ferrets. Lightbulbs. Nobody cares. Where you lose people is telling other people that they're wrong to give cash to homeless people. What's worse is, this thread kicked off with someone laying out in very simple terms --- terms you didn't really address --- the logic behind giving money on the street despite not knowing the purposes to which the money would be put. You can argue however you want, including that people are wrong to give money on the street, and that it's not OK for them to give to homeless people or buy ferrets or whatever. But you shouldn't act hurt when people argue back at you.
- TulliusCicero 12y ago
  > Where you lose people is telling other people that they're wrong to give cash to homeless people. Why not? We encourage other people to do things all the time. I certainly encourage people to vaccinate their kids. Donating money to people who will immediately spend it on substance abuse is harmful to them. You're making yourself feel better about how you're SUCH a compassionate person at their long-term expense. I laugh at people going, "b-b-but they're still human!!!" Like, do you donate cash on the street to non-homeless/non-panhandlers too? Yeah they're still human, why does that mean it's bad if I think about what they'll use my money for before >>donating<< it? Now if they want to earn money by working for me in some capacity, sure, they can spend it however they want. That's a completely different type of transaction.
  - tptacek 12y ago

foldr 12y ago

Speaking of straw men, please note that I didn't say anything about people starving. By all means, give money to shelters etc. But why not also give money to homeless people? The two are not mutually exclusive. You are repeating the usual mean-spirited argument that we shouldn't give homeless people money because they might spend it on things we don't approve of. But so what? It's their life, not ours. Charity with strings attached isn't charity. I find it a useful exercise to imagine applying the same logic in dealing with comfortably well-off middle class people. If such a person has an alcohol problem, the usual reaction amongst reasonably enlightened people is to try to find that person help. We don't try to cut off all of their sources of income on the grounds that they'll just spend it all on booze. Now, perhaps some of them will spend all of their income on booze, but since we aren't so much in the habit of completely dehumanizing them, we recognize that this is still their choice to make. The bottom line here is that drug and alcohol habits don't cost infinite amounts of money. You can perfectly well spend some of your money on drugs and the rest on food, etc. Unless you have some kind of moral objection to people using drugs, why should you care if a homeless person is spending some of their money that way? It's judgmental and mean to refuse them money because you suspect that they might be going to do this.

cynicalkane 12y ago
Enabling the patterns of mental illness and addiction is linked to negative outcomes, not positive ones. These negative outcomes include death from voluntary exposure.
- foldr 12y ago
  So would you apply the same logic in the case of middle class people? Should we also try to ensure that they receive no income if they are drug addicts? If you are absolutely sure that you know what's best for homeless people, and that they don't, then don't give them your money. Personally, I am not so sure.

tptacek 12y ago

Look. If you want to give cash to homeless people, do that. If you want to give to shelters instead, do that. If you want to send your money to Partners in Health to provide medical care for innocent people in other countries far worse off than homeless in the US, do that. If you want to give your money to the Republican party so they can pass legislation restricting same-sex marriage because that is truly what you believe in, do that. If instead you want to save your money and ensure your children have an easy time getting through college: fine. If instead you want to keep it for yourself for your retirement to ease the burden on the rest of us: also OK. Want to buy 6 PS4 consoles so you can use an HDMI switch to select different games without reloading them or physically getting up to insert a disk in their drive? Fine too. Nachos. Fine. Guns. Fine. Meth. Sandwiches. Ferrets. Lightbulbs. Nobody cares. Where you lose people is telling other people that they're wrong to give cash to homeless people. What's worse is, this thread kicked off with someone laying out in very simple terms --- terms you didn't really address --- the logic behind giving money on the street despite not knowing the purposes to which the money would be put. You can argue however you want, including that people are wrong to give money on the street, and that it's not OK for them to give to homeless people or buy ferrets or whatever. But you shouldn't act hurt when people argue back at you.

TulliusCicero 12y ago
> Where you lose people is telling other people that they're wrong to give cash to homeless people. Why not? We encourage other people to do things all the time. I certainly encourage people to vaccinate their kids. Donating money to people who will immediately spend it on substance abuse is harmful to them. You're making yourself feel better about how you're SUCH a compassionate person at their long-term expense. I laugh at people going, "b-b-but they're still human!!!" Like, do you donate cash on the street to non-homeless/non-panhandlers too? Yeah they're still human, why does that mean it's bad if I think about what they'll use my money for before >>donating<< it? Now if they want to earn money by working for me in some capacity, sure, they can spend it however they want. That's a completely different type of transaction.
- tptacek 12y ago