Originally posted by cool_ghostUntil they hock that sandwich for vodka. I hear liquor stores accept anything as currency these days.
I dont mind giving a bum a couple dollars here or there but if i get the feeling the bum is going to buy liquor with it.... then no. its easier just to give them food, so you know they are getting something worthwhile out of it.
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
What does any of this have to do with homeless bums on the street asking you for money?
Exactly! Told you inimalist we should have started a seperate thread!
Back on topic: how about bum fights?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumfights
Or bumvertising:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumvertising
Exploitation of the homeless or good, clean charitable fun?
Originally posted by theICONiac
Exactly! And they tend to be rather rude/aggressive about it.Case in point, I took my father last year to a Leafs game at the ACC. After the game we get out in the parking lot; my father guides me as I back my car out of a tight space with no visibility. A homeless person approaches him:
Bum: Hey bud got any change?
Daddy ICON: Nope, sorry, nothing.
Bum: Got any bills?
Daddy ICON: Pffft. I'm not giving you any bills
Bum: Your a f@cking @sshole!
Daddy ICON: F@ck you
Bum: NO, F@@@@@@@CK YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOUUU!!!I hear this exchange going on, and step out of the car in fear this was going to turn physical. Homeless person takes off.
If I had had a bottle of Listerine or Brut 33 I could have given it to the guy...would have made his night 😄
and he will also be back on the streets looking for more money if you did give him any money, 🙂
Originally posted by dadudemon
But you do admit that you're using it as an argument tool or a persuasion, tool, right?
in so far as something being a robust and consistent finding is convincing, sure
Its more of a stand in for "just take my word for it", though I think a little bit more intellectually honest
If you really want I can probably dig this stuff up, like I said though, its social psych and not my area, so it would be harder than most of the stuff we discuss, however, I don't see you really questioning the validity of the claim...
Originally posted by dadudemon
But, wait, #1....
I see this is a conflation again.
This is not "pay a person to get an education", this is, "pay a person to escape a shitty situation and an education sweetens the deal".
we actually already do that entirely. Native people can collect welfare. This is, literally, "paying someone to escape a shitty situation", as all the person need do is fog a mirror to get money, and yet still, still, money does not motivate people to improve their situation. In fact, the ability for native people to collect welfare and live without paying property tax on the reserve produces a terrible cycle. If you look up the research on learned helplessness (not that I think it is entirely relevant here) you see organisms will adapt to terrible situations such that, even if presented with the ability to escape, they wont. They learn to make do in the environment they are in. Or, at the very least, just giving people money doesn't motivate them to escape that environment. Money helps, and is the tool or mechanism through which those who are already motivated to leave will, but it is that core motivation that we need to address, not the mechanism.
A terrible comparison would be with pharmacological treatment of psychological issues. It treats the symptoms, it produces a mechanism through which people can get through day to day life, but it doesn't motivate them to deal with the issues that cause their problems. In fact, pharmacological approaches to mental health often leave people with either a literal or perceived dependence on their medication to feel good, as it never addresses the things making them feel bad.
and the policy isn't "education sweetens the deal of 'give-them-money-to-improve-their-condition'", the policy is "money sweetens the deal of 'give-them-education-to-improve-their-condition'". Just as a point of reference, do you know about the "native schools" issues we had a few decades ago? where we would take natives from their homes and put them in, what we thought were, good schools? Its the same ideological motivation behind both of these policies, basically: "we need native kids in school". The best proof of this is that, even if it were $100 a week to attend, that isn't enough to live off of. They aren't saying "here is the money you need to get off the reserve, oh, and by the way, here is some education", they are saying "you need to go to school, but for some reason [sic] you wont, so lets pay you to do it"
The way you ask it, money isn't really even relevant to the question. Escaping a toxic environment like that should, according to "rational actor" theories of human behaviour, be incentive enough to leave. Natives should look at their situation and go "gee, I need to go to school/save money/do whatever I can to make it off the reserve", but they don't, for a myriad of reasons I'm sure we don't disagree much on.
The money isn't the key, education is. The government is under the mistaken idea that money will incentivize people to get education, which is demonstrably false, through experimental studies and from just the fact that the policy doesn't really make native kids graduate highschool at a rate comparable to any other group.
I used to give panhandlers money on semi-regular basis when I was younger, but I stopped doing so many years ago when one of them got indignant that I didn't give him enough (I rarely carry cash) & he said, "That's it?" It made me sick - he should have been glad I was giving him anything at all.
So, now I don't give to anyone. As far as I'm concerned, giving to panhandlers is just enabling them anyway.
However, note that there are at least three types of panhandling:
1) People carrying signs & not verbally asking for money. This is the least intrusive form of panhandling, and doesn't bother people too much. I've mainly seen this in NYC - an area that has really cracked down on panhandling (fortunately for those who live there & tourists).
2) People asking for money, and then moving on if you say No.
3) However, this last one really pisses me off: Aggressive panhandlers. It really burns me up when I see them demand money from passerby, and then get abusive/threatening if they're not given any $. F$%#%$# low-lifes.
What also pisses me off is when I see these junkies with Smart-phones/I-phones. So, these people have enough money to pay an expensive Smart-phone/I-phone bill, and yet they're still begging?!! WTF?! I don't even have an I-phone/Smart-phone - and I work full-time. What a joke.
No. I grew up in south florida where a lot of the bums migrate to because it's warm, and where there was also a huge crack problem when I was growing up. I have given to them in the past but after a while you get approached so much that I just sort of developed a standard "no" answer for anyone who asks because I don't have the money to be handing out to every down on their luck crackhead/mental case.
My dad was also in the sobriety programs so we knew quite a few of these people personally, and occasionally we would come across one of them and then we would give them money because we knew them. But the problem really is that you are almost certainly just helping them fuel their addiction by giving them cash. I remember one time I went to the ghetto corner store next to my house first thing when they opened at 7 am and I saw a homeless man pay for a single steel reserve 211 beer with all pennies.