On 25 Oct 2017 at 9:21am Blatant Liar wrote:
I saw Belinda Chapman feeding a beggar once
On 25 Oct 2017 at 9:22am Tom wrote:
I have the right to spend my money how I choose too. And I oppose that article's opening command
On 25 Oct 2017 at 9:54am Non beggar wrote:
Utterly stupid article
On 25 Oct 2017 at 10:44am Deja Vu wrote:
It's not food for thought at all, it's garbage.
"Give your cash directly and unconditionally to homeless people."
"They have the right to spend their money as they choose"
I am obliged to unconditionally give away the money my hard work has earned, yet the recipients are free to spend it on drugs and alcohol?
"Don’t second-guess whether people are “really” homeless."
Like the "homeless" guys that live next street over from me in Landport, given cheap housing by the council and choose to spend their days begging for drinks money?
"Give to the woman who’s blind drunk", this is a serious piece of journalism?
On 25 Oct 2017 at 11:05am Clifford wrote:
What a strange set of comments. Nobody is telling anyone they have to give their money to beggars. What the article says is that once we've given the money away it belongs to the beggar and it's for him or her to decide how to spend it. If you don't like that, don't give the money.
On 25 Oct 2017 at 11:20am endoftheouse wrote:
They never seem to have change for my £50 note when I go to give them 20p.
On 25 Oct 2017 at 12:00pm @Clifford wrote:
The entire article is about everyones moral obligation to "give money directly and unconditionally to homeless people".
On 25 Oct 2017 at 12:16pm Pedro wrote:
Yeah, its a perfectly reasonable moral obligation to help others in need, but not a legal one so cool your jets, whiners. The article is thoughtfully written, in a time where homelessness is notably increasing (and pointing out the correlation with the cuts in mental heath services et al). The article is well-meaning and trying to suggest to people not to judge those in these difficult circumstances. Funny how some people just choose to see the worst/chaos in things and utterly missing the point in doing so.
On 25 Oct 2017 at 12:59pm Deja Vu wrote:
Don't be moronic Pedro, it's not perfectly reasonable to "Give to the woman who’s blind drunk" money as the article suggests.
Obviously that person needs helps and assistance, not morons feeding her habit. Society need to spend funds on helping theses people long term, not getting them smashed so their day is more bearable.
Maybe you should take your vape down there Pedro, you can all get smashed together...
On 25 Oct 2017 at 1:10pm Clifford wrote:
Did you read the article Deja Vu?
On 25 Oct 2017 at 1:40pm Pedro wrote:
Ahh quel surprise, deja vu begins with a personal attack against me and brings up something entirely unrelated about cannabis. You realise how poorly crafted your post is now when summarised?
The only part I agree with is that society does need to invest more into helping people with mental health issues and addictions. The government must realise that their cutbacks have unsettling consequences which increase other costs elsewhere in the long run. Its totally counter-productive and the huge rise in homelessness in this country is demonstrating that. This alone can't be solved by random donations to individuals, so must be funded and organised by local authorities/government. An individual good-will gesture though can at least make someones day a bit more bearable.
Homeless drunks still buy and get food. They may spend a disproportionate amount of their money on booze and fuel their own habit which is in no way ideal, but that is their ultimate choice. They will get booze by other means if they don't have the money which could ultimately be a bigger burden to everyone else anyway. The key is the support networks to help with their addictions are in place.
On 25 Oct 2017 at 1:49pm Deja Vu wrote:
Yes Clifford I did...
And I actually couldn't disagree more strongly with the entire thing, money should never be given to people on the street except in the direst of circumstances (and I would still buy him , a homeless person needs a long term solution NOT the change from your pocket).
What is it they say "give a man a fish and he can feed himself for a day, teach him to fish and he can feed himself for a lifetime".
Well the same applies, give a homeless man your spare change he can buy a hot drink, give it to a homeless charity and they can give the man a bed.
I particularly like the poignant ending but I spectacularly fail to see how giving a wasted homeless person more money for alcohol is "saving lives".
On 25 Oct 2017 at 2:01pm Deja Vu wrote:
@Pedro, you're seriously right?
"Homeless drunks still buy and get food. They may spend a disproportionate amount of their money on booze and fuel their own habit which is in no way ideal, but that is their ultimate choice." (not with my money it isn't).
It doesn't benefit ME giving my money to a homeless person to get wasted, it doesn't benefit THEM.
And as I said, take your vape down there, you clearly think everyone has the right to be wasted, go help them indulge. Meanwhile I will continue to give the money to the charity not to the wasted idiot on the street.
On 25 Oct 2017 at 2:42pm Pedro wrote:
Firstly, as you wish to get personal once again, I don't vape to get "wasted", just as I don't occasionally drink a glass of wine to get wasted. You realise that not all strains of cannabis or quantities used are the same (rather like alcohol)? Its not a binary option of being sober, or "mashed off your face" after one puff or even many? I hope you understand this rather basic concept right? I quite like the idea though of easing a homeless persons day by a mild few draws of weed - its certainly not going to have any negative consequences, and perhaps when it gets finally de-criminalised and legalised, I'd consider being bold enough to try that. But yeah, its still a vastly superior option to alcohol, even if I'm defending everyones right to buy and consume alcohol as well.
Secondly, you have no idea of individual circumstances. A visibly drunk homeless person may not even have an addiction, just as a pissed-up lady stumbling outside a club on a friday night doesn't necessarily have an addiction to alcohol. Many with serious addictions hide it very well or have strong alcohol tolerance to do so. Having alcohol to ease the short term suffering of a bad day may not be ideal, but you are not in their situation and cannot begin to understand what is and what isn't ultimately good for their well-being at that moment, and lets face it, most people are only donating a couple of quid, not donating a brewery.
But personal donations are just small comforts for those in need (sometimes spent wisely, sometimes not). This is in no way any sort of replacement for state led assistance getting people back on their feet, or private charities. But we shouldn't discourage people in still giving directly to beggars, as its quite possible for all financial options to co-exist.
On 25 Oct 2017 at 3:31pm Deja Vu wrote:
Pedro, firstly there is only one reason to take a mind altering substance (to alter your mind).
Secondly I don't need to know about individual circumstances, I am talking about the article and the article clearly lays out examples:
"the woman who’s blind drunk"
"the guy with meth-rotted teeth"
"the spice addict who can’t look you in the eye"
I made it perfectly clear my opinions are about the article...
"This is in no way any sort of replacement for state led assistance getting people back on their feet, or private charities"
Oh excellent, we're both in agreement that this article is completely wrong and the money should be given to charities not direct to drunken people on the street.
On 25 Oct 2017 at 4:29pm Pedro wrote:
@ deja vu - alcohol and cannabis are both "mind-altering", just as coffee is, food and sex too. All of them in moderation are completely normal choices for adults to make. The primary reason people drink alcohol or vape/smoke/eat weed is to relax (some may do it to get wildly smashed, but clearly not everyone), although many may also medicate with cannabis, as it evidently helps a rather long list of conditions. I'm far more in control of my mind though under the influence of cannabis than I am under alcohol, irrespective of quantity consumed (sadly the latter legal substance is more addictive and damaging to the brain and every other organ). You are pursuing a deliberately negative narrative on cannabis though in a childish attempt to troll me or undermine me, and I will bite, but I'll still win the argument as facts outweigh daft ignorant emoting and exaggerating.
We both agree that people should ALSO donate to charities, but you seem to shy away from it being government/LA support (perhaps you can clarify whether the state should help, given that when state-support was minimised, the increase in homelessness rose sharply), but also I just go that one bit further and can also accommodate people directly donating to people on the street who are asking for help there and then. Yeah, we all know that money can be unwisely spent at times...but this can apply to charitable organisations and government as well. But giving someone a few quid is not necessarily going to push them into oblivion, but more likely give them a sense of hope that people do care. Genuine addicts needs will be met somehow (usually by far more costly means to the individual or society in general), so its hardly useful for people who's stories and backgrounds you know nothing about, denying them the time of day or some loose change.
On 25 Oct 2017 at 5:00pm Oh ffs wrote:
Please shut it
On 25 Oct 2017 at 5:01pm Deja Vu wrote:
The thing you don't realise Pedro is I have smoked Cannabis for the best part of 30 years and look forward to the day it is legalised.
No it's not a deliberate attempt to troll you, I just fundamentally don't agree with the article and as per fricking usual you're vocal that everyone who has a differing opinion to yours is a "whiner" and "see the worst/chaos in things and utterly missing the point ".
On 25 Oct 2017 at 7:32pm Pedro wrote:
@deja vu - you were, and still are, whining, so I merely pointed that out. You made your first post, and it was one of a few posts in the thread I disagreed with, so responded at the general tone of responses that seemed so cynical and dismissive of the article. I also purposely pointed out there was no legal obligation to help beggars on the street. None of your subsequent posts convinced me that your point of view was any more valid. I still think you are cynical and missed the point of the article.
Glad you have smoked cannabis for 30 years and agree it should be legalised. I'm surprised you'd be so ignorant on the subject though and feel it has anything to do with this thread, but hey, I'm happy to have it discussed openly in any thread, particularly if its been raised by someone else as in this case. Least I can't be accused of being the source of the thread de-railing!
On 25 Oct 2017 at 8:02pm Whiner wrote:
Please stop pedro. You are the most irritating egotistical windbag known to man.
On 25 Oct 2017 at 8:04pm Hamid Barr wrote:
Pedro - always the victim. What a t o s s e r
On 25 Oct 2017 at 10:26pm Pedro wrote:
@ Hamid Barr. Oh please pipe down. Shouldn't you be in a pub brawl around this time?
On 25 Oct 2017 at 11:19pm Hamid Barr wrote:
Add big girls blouse to t o s s e r
Mind your nails dearie