Having strangers bugging me for stuff annoys me a lot, no matter if it is girl scouts, bums, people who want me to sign petitions, whatever. They annoy me so much that I feel that doing anything to encourage them even slightly would be hypocrisy. So I always say no and go about my buisness. I don't even care if it is a good cause or if they will buy booze or whatever, I just want to be left alone. I have done volunteer work and given to charity in the past but I prefer to be the initiator. I'll admit I'm not the worlds nicest guy though, and I'm fine with that.
I never give money to homeless people. I will never give any money to beggars. I have several reasons why.
First off, I've seen far too many beggars and homeless use blatant lies to get sympathy, the aforementioned 'out of gas in the ramp' being similar to this, but I've seen worse. In Bangkok, there's a shitload of beggars, that bug anyone that looks like they might have money, but they are brought there every morning in a van, and leave the same way in the evening. Not to mention that I've seen one speaking in a mobile phone that he stashed when he saw people approaching. I've also seen a woman with two walking sticks, her legs bent hideously, begging for money. I just happened to see the same woman a while later, carrying the walking sticks on her shoulder and her legs looking pretty normal, meaning she was faking it. Such blatant abuse of people's sympathy disgusts me to no end. Also, it seems to occur quite often that beggars bring small children with them to get sympathy, but I think that is even worse than faking, as it subjects the children to long hours, in usually shitty weather for a few coins. These people should have their kids taken by the social services.
Another reason why I do not give beggars is, that if I were in the same situation, getting coins sure as hell wouldn't motivate me to get a job and put my life in order. There are far better ways to get up from the bottom, and if people give lots of easy money, it would only encourage me to continue begging, instead of trying to improve my condition. It might seem harsh, but what do I know, I have never been homeless.
I never liked the idea of giving money to beggars, and dind't, but always felt kind of guilty about it afterwards. Then one day I saw a group of people talking about the price of VB, and 5 minutes later they asked me for money. This was just so obvious, like they weren't even pretending to be in desperate need of my change, that I feel (at least a little bit) justified in not giving beggars any money.
There seem to be a lot of different opinions about giving money, but what about giving goods? Is giving a pint of blood to the Red Cross better than giving a cash donation, since it has a specific purpose?
Just about the only people I won't give at least some change to is the rude ones. You're plying me for money, at least be nice about it you fucking punk kids.
I'm almost tempted to buy a small stack of bus tickets and maybe some sort of food stamps (that can be purchased?) and then when someone begs for gas money or change, I just ask what they want, food stamp or bus ticket.
Only problem is the damn transit keeps raising fare, which means eventually I would have to provide multiple tickets or something.
Also, not sure that you can purchase food stamps to redistribute, but it would make it easy.
begs the question of whether we have the right to dictate what other people do with money we give away, although I don't neccessarily disagree with you. I'd love to be able to force my supermarket to be more efficient and stock less horribly unhealthy things, I'd love to be able to force my rental agency to hire staff that made it through 8th grade, and I'd love to force my gym to kick the people who hog the hand weights...
It's basically the same reason why people get upset about televangelist financial scandals - money specifically directed toward improving XYZ ministry is instead diverted into the leader's pocketbook, and two months later he has a brand new personal jet.
I personally think we have every right to (attempt to) dictate to what purpose our money goes, especially when the prospect of our money being used toward certain undesirable outcomes would prevent us from giving.
Then again, I suppose it's got parallels to those churches that withdrew support for Indonesian flood victims when they were told they couldn't send Bibles as well.
I never give money to beggars, but I'll often give leftovers if I just finished eating out and took some home with me. When I donate money, I do it to organized charities.
Also, lol at Feral's first post.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I do give to charity from time to time, but if I'm going to help somebody I'd rather send a care package to a friend or relative I know is down on their luck. There are plenty of people close to me who need help.
I'm... not sure why I'm liming this. I agree with it but I don't know what the logical extension of this thought is. It seems disingenuous to say that most people are not contributing nearly as much to the people in their lives as they should, but that's how I do feel.
I reversed you because the fact that I'm acquainted with someone doesn't make them more deserving of a decent life.
I think the idea is that if you're going to help someone out, why not make it someone you actually have an emotional investment in?
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I do give to charity from time to time, but if I'm going to help somebody I'd rather send a care package to a friend or relative I know is down on their luck. There are plenty of people close to me who need help.
I'm... not sure why I'm liming this. I agree with it but I don't know what the logical extension of this thought is. It seems disingenuous to say that most people are not contributing nearly as much to the people in their lives as they should, but that's how I do feel.
I reversed you because the fact that I'm acquainted with someone doesn't make them more deserving of a decent life.
I think the idea is that if you're going to help someone out, why not make it someone you actually have an emotional investment in?
Obviously, if it came down to helping out some random guy on the street, or my cousin, I'd help my cousin. It's pretty much natural for people to look out for their own first and foremost.
Most people here wouldn't pick up a tv or pc without putting a little effort into getting the most value for their money. Charitable donations shouldn't be any different. I never give money to beggars, but I donate to soup kitchens and the like. I had to work my ass off for that money so I want to make sure it goes to feeding people rather than heroin and hand jobs.
I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
The matter is complicated further by professional beggars, which despite their reasonable financial situation choose begging on the streets as their preferred vocation. Some people are very good at pulling on people's heartstrings, and appearently can pull down quite a tidy sum by running the local bus and train terminals. I have actually seen a "beggers" buying x-boxes and other items we would consider "luxury" before.
I do give to charity from time to time, but if I'm going to help somebody I'd rather send a care package to a friend or relative I know is down on their luck. There are plenty of people close to me who need help.
I'm... not sure why I'm liming this. I agree with it but I don't know what the logical extension of this thought is. It seems disingenuous to say that most people are not contributing nearly as much to the people in their lives as they should, but that's how I do feel.
I reversed you because the fact that I'm acquainted with someone doesn't make them more deserving of a decent life.
I think the idea is that if you're going to help someone out, why not make it someone you actually have an emotional investment in?
It's partly that.
It's partly that I feel like helping somebody out directly has a slightly greater impact than simply giving to charity, where part of my donation is going to be eaten up by overhead. That said, I am much more sympathetic towards charities that fulfill a specific purpose that I can't (say, cancer research) or that can tell me specifically where the money is going (example: once a year the local Whole Foods have a charity drive where you can buy a toiletries kit for a woman in a nearby abused women's shelter, I know it doesn't sound like much but sometimes those places lack even basic toothpaste or shampoo).
Also, IRT MrMister's use of the word 'deserving:' there are more people in the world who deserve help than I have capacity to give. Simply because I help one person (or group) other another doesn't mean I think the recipient 'deserves' it more than somebody else.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
It's partly that I feel like helping somebody out directly has a slightly greater impact than simply giving to charity, where part of my donation is going to be eaten up by overhead.
Giving to a good charity will have a much larger impact than almost any effort you could undertake to help the people immediately around you. Your money will go farther and do more for more people in Peru than people in Palo Alto. Furthermore, by virtue of the fact that they are living in worse conditions, relief for the Peruvians is more pressing.
A dispassionate analysis of where your money will do the most good for the most people points here.
This is not to say that participating in local charities is bad. Any giving or charity work is good--it's just that some is even better than the rest. I feel about local charity efforts in much the way I feel about giving money so that sick dogs can get chemotherapy. It's nice and all, but while there's so much need out there that's so much more pressing, it's highly questionable.
People don't give because of the need to satiate phantom ethical compulsions. They are not measuring themselves against quotas. People who donate even constantly, and even in great amounts, to 'the most deserving' charities will likely never see a result of that in their lifetime, much less a direct result. For some people, filling out the slip of paper and mailing it away is enough to satisfy whatever motivated them--
for others, their own pressing demands push them to contribute locally or interpersonally. If you ignore this conflation with personal satisfaction, then people's entire lives very quickly become entirely ethically invalid unless you are also going to paint a lot of exceptions.
When you start talking about giving on a larger scale then change on a street, whether it be money or time and effort, is there a point where it becomes more effective to donate to a larger red cross type organization then a smaller local charity? While I'm not sure myself really, it would seem like larger global charities can be more effective with larger scale donations then smaller local voluntary soup kitchens or what have you.
And on the same lines, is it more effective to give smaller amounts locally? Right down until we're back on the high street. If I give a couple pounds to a homeless person, and I know that they're going to buy food with it, is that more effective then giving that £2 to a larger charity?
I do give to charity from time to time, but if I'm going to help somebody I'd rather send a care package to a friend or relative I know is down on their luck. There are plenty of people close to me who need help.
The problem with that is that idea is that most of the homeless you see on the street are disconnected from everyone. Many of the people who really need help don't have relatives/friends around. If they did, they probably wouldn't be where they are.
Personally, I give to charities. Like a billion other things in life, this sort of thing works best when we pool our resources.
People don't give because of the need to satiate phantom ethical compulsions.
Well, yeah, some really do. Not that it makes their money or time less helpful.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Hopefully someone here is more familiar with this than me, because I can't recall the author/discussion, but there was a thought experiment where you would attempt to define the "perfect" (perfect meaning more fair than Utopian) society, with the caveat that your place in this society would be chosen at random: you would have no idea whether you'd be a business owner, a janitor, a mayor, etc.
When it comes to charity, I prefer to take a similar approach: if I woke up tomorrow with a hangover in a box on main street, with no name, no past, and no future, what tools would I need to get from there to here? Where could I go to get a bite to eat, a clean pair of jeans and a t-shirt, and a reasonable chance at a job washing dishes somewhere? Where could I get shelter while I saved up a deposit to get a low-income apartment somewhere?
If I'm going to contribute to the "community", I want my time or my money spent on services that do what I described above - help people get on their feet on their own. I want to help people help themselves.
For that reason, I actually like Oxfam as a global charity, because they seem to focus on much more than simply ferrying food to people that are hungry - they have a "teach a man to fish" mentality. The idea that my money is providing training or solving actual problems that will help a village or community feed itself is attractive to me. The idea that my money will "provide a family with food for a whole month" does not attract me in the slightest.
Vrtra Theory on
Are you a Software Engineer living in Seattle? HBO is hiring, message me.
Posts
I submit that gifts of pocket change accomplish very little in fighting homelessness.
But yeah - there are better ways to actually fight homelessness the condition, rather then temporarily alleviate the suffering.
First off, I've seen far too many beggars and homeless use blatant lies to get sympathy, the aforementioned 'out of gas in the ramp' being similar to this, but I've seen worse. In Bangkok, there's a shitload of beggars, that bug anyone that looks like they might have money, but they are brought there every morning in a van, and leave the same way in the evening. Not to mention that I've seen one speaking in a mobile phone that he stashed when he saw people approaching. I've also seen a woman with two walking sticks, her legs bent hideously, begging for money. I just happened to see the same woman a while later, carrying the walking sticks on her shoulder and her legs looking pretty normal, meaning she was faking it. Such blatant abuse of people's sympathy disgusts me to no end. Also, it seems to occur quite often that beggars bring small children with them to get sympathy, but I think that is even worse than faking, as it subjects the children to long hours, in usually shitty weather for a few coins. These people should have their kids taken by the social services.
Another reason why I do not give beggars is, that if I were in the same situation, getting coins sure as hell wouldn't motivate me to get a job and put my life in order. There are far better ways to get up from the bottom, and if people give lots of easy money, it would only encourage me to continue begging, instead of trying to improve my condition. It might seem harsh, but what do I know, I have never been homeless.
God damnit it annoys me.
Only problem is the damn transit keeps raising fare, which means eventually I would have to provide multiple tickets or something.
Also, not sure that you can purchase food stamps to redistribute, but it would make it easy.
MWO: Adamski
I personally think we have every right to (attempt to) dictate to what purpose our money goes, especially when the prospect of our money being used toward certain undesirable outcomes would prevent us from giving.
Then again, I suppose it's got parallels to those churches that withdrew support for Indonesian flood victims when they were told they couldn't send Bibles as well.
Also, lol at Feral's first post.
I think the idea is that if you're going to help someone out, why not make it someone you actually have an emotional investment in?
Obviously, if it came down to helping out some random guy on the street, or my cousin, I'd help my cousin. It's pretty much natural for people to look out for their own first and foremost.
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
It's partly that.
It's partly that I feel like helping somebody out directly has a slightly greater impact than simply giving to charity, where part of my donation is going to be eaten up by overhead. That said, I am much more sympathetic towards charities that fulfill a specific purpose that I can't (say, cancer research) or that can tell me specifically where the money is going (example: once a year the local Whole Foods have a charity drive where you can buy a toiletries kit for a woman in a nearby abused women's shelter, I know it doesn't sound like much but sometimes those places lack even basic toothpaste or shampoo).
Also, IRT MrMister's use of the word 'deserving:' there are more people in the world who deserve help than I have capacity to give. Simply because I help one person (or group) other another doesn't mean I think the recipient 'deserves' it more than somebody else.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Giving to a good charity will have a much larger impact than almost any effort you could undertake to help the people immediately around you. Your money will go farther and do more for more people in Peru than people in Palo Alto. Furthermore, by virtue of the fact that they are living in worse conditions, relief for the Peruvians is more pressing.
A dispassionate analysis of where your money will do the most good for the most people points here.
This is not to say that participating in local charities is bad. Any giving or charity work is good--it's just that some is even better than the rest. I feel about local charity efforts in much the way I feel about giving money so that sick dogs can get chemotherapy. It's nice and all, but while there's so much need out there that's so much more pressing, it's highly questionable.
for others, their own pressing demands push them to contribute locally or interpersonally. If you ignore this conflation with personal satisfaction, then people's entire lives very quickly become entirely ethically invalid unless you are also going to paint a lot of exceptions.
And on the same lines, is it more effective to give smaller amounts locally? Right down until we're back on the high street. If I give a couple pounds to a homeless person, and I know that they're going to buy food with it, is that more effective then giving that £2 to a larger charity?
The problem with that is that idea is that most of the homeless you see on the street are disconnected from everyone. Many of the people who really need help don't have relatives/friends around. If they did, they probably wouldn't be where they are.
Personally, I give to charities. Like a billion other things in life, this sort of thing works best when we pool our resources.
Well, yeah, some really do. Not that it makes their money or time less helpful.
When it comes to charity, I prefer to take a similar approach: if I woke up tomorrow with a hangover in a box on main street, with no name, no past, and no future, what tools would I need to get from there to here? Where could I go to get a bite to eat, a clean pair of jeans and a t-shirt, and a reasonable chance at a job washing dishes somewhere? Where could I get shelter while I saved up a deposit to get a low-income apartment somewhere?
If I'm going to contribute to the "community", I want my time or my money spent on services that do what I described above - help people get on their feet on their own. I want to help people help themselves.
For that reason, I actually like Oxfam as a global charity, because they seem to focus on much more than simply ferrying food to people that are hungry - they have a "teach a man to fish" mentality. The idea that my money is providing training or solving actual problems that will help a village or community feed itself is attractive to me. The idea that my money will "provide a family with food for a whole month" does not attract me in the slightest.