I'm tired. If you read my last post (this one about the knife) before I edited it, please disregard. I should have read all of what you said first. Sleepiness makes me punchy.
toldailytopic: "Soup kitchens": Do they help or hurt the homeless?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
A pastor friend of mine used to have a lot of people stopping by his small church asking for money to pay the heat bill, gas to get to the next town...
He would lead them to a room in the church where he had a ladder and some painting supplies set up. Then he told them if they painted the room he would help them out. If the person started getting ready to do the work, he said "never mind" and gave them some money. If they refused he sent them away without! :up:
He would lead them to a room in the church where he had a ladder and some painting supplies set up. Then he told them if they painted the room he would help them out. If the person started getting ready to do the work, he said "never mind" and gave them some money. If they refused he sent them away without! :up:
In such a case, you should tell him that he'll "still hear her complain."
lain:^ The above is a reference to "Used to Love Her" by Guns N' Roses.
It's just like my children.
If they had their way, I would do everything for them. Obviously I love them very much, but if I did everything for them, I would be doing more harm than good.
How would they learn? How would they grow up to be valuable members of society?
It is easy to hand a homeless guy a sandwich or a $5 bill, but it takes more courage and genuine interest in their welfare to give them advice that has the potential to help them for the rest of their lives. I am not afraid of helping them, nor am I against it, but it is the type of help that is at issue.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Ok. Fair point. Age itself isn't relevant to predicament. Overall I would argue that the younger one is the less ability to cope through inexperience comes into play but that doesn't mean a fully grown mature adult is any less deserving of help.
I think if we're ever to reach a truly 'civilized' society then we have to have a system in place where nobody is forced out on the streets without chance of shelter, although I'm cynical enough to accept it's hardly likely to happen.
True but I was merely highlighting the everyday dangers that being homeless brings. Obviously the soup kitchens can't prevent that done outside.
Then you're presuming that the individual has a choice to clean up the mess which isn't always the case. Surely if someone is cast onto the streets there should be a lifeline afforded by the state that ensures they're not starving or without shelter? At the very least on an interim basis? As far as I'm concerned nobody should have to 'live' rough in this age and yet it happens. I don't pretend that anything I donate or give is anything but a temporary short term measure and I'd like to see something done to address the problem overall. But where do you draw the line as to where responsibility lies?
Unfortunately I relate all too well. Thanks to the recession I lost my job in the city and as a result had to move back to my home town and prospects here ain't great at the minute. That being said it's still a world away from the destitution of other towns in nearby areas.
Unless you develop a real trust and bond with someone then no. You can't get that after just a few meetings because that kind of relation takes time IMO, especially when it starts on an unequal footing of need/help.
Despite our disagreements, I think I must be your friend after that sentence. Using the words lass, merry old yarn, and sqaulid in the same sentence is an admirable thing. And I am not being facetious.
Give it time and I'll bring skullduggery and shenanigans into the same sentence as well.
:e4e:
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Um, no. If I know that any money I give is going towards drugs then I'm not being kind to that person. I'd prefer to give someone a meal (and have done if Macdonalds burgers and coffees count) than cash although I've done that as well and hope it helps them.
Yeeeesss!! I win, I win!!
K:No! That was a great and valiant effort, but I must disagree. Not with the fact that people need or deserve help, but with the notion that it is in any way, shape, or form the STATE's responsibility to provide the help. Leave government out of it. It shouldn't be their concern.
Yes, yes...it's tragic and it happens far too often, but that is life. We don't all have the same opportunities. We don't all have 12 cars and homes on each continent. But as cliche as it probably sounds (get ready for a Hallmark moment), it is what we do with what we are given that shapes us and makes us who we are. As much as I hate the trials that have been placed before me in my life (and yes, I've had my fair share - including a wife who is dying - as we all have), I wouldn't give them up for anything. All the bumps and hills and mountains that I have fought my way over (to support myself, my wife, my children) have given me experience that I would be remiss to say I could do without. There are plenty of powerful and moving stories by people who were once homeless who fought and kicked and screamed their way out of their situations and are great, great people because of it. It wasn't easy for them, but they did it. They had help along the way, but it was the right kind of help; the kind that enabled them to make something of their lives and not the kind that kept them in the cycle of misery. Does that work for everyone? No. Would it work for FAR more people than currently try to make it work? Yes. I'll say it again...give a man a fish...
Exactly...where do you draw the line? Give a man a inch and he'll take a mile. Give him the information and tools to succeed and then let him work for it. How much greater will be his reward if he works for it, with assistance, than if he has it handed to him?
Give it time and I'll bring skullduggery and shenanigans into the same sentence as well.
:e4e:
Throw in tomfoolery and hooliganism and we have a deal!
Seattle City council member Tim Burgess has a plan that if implemented will hurt Girl Scout cookie sales and categorize the Girl Scouts as panhandlers.
Understandably, even those who donate to their church and other organizations involved in providing for the needy, sometimes find panhandling bothersome. And it is often harmful to businesses.
Councilman Burgess' plan "restricts behaviors used by individuals to threaten and intimidate people into giving money." One of the restrictions is the proximity to grocery store entrances, ATM's, etc.
KOMO NEWS is reporting that there are those now suggesting the panhandling plan should apply to the Girl Scouts and their cookie sales. Girl Scouts are panhandlers? I don't think so.
http://blog.faithandfreedom.us/2010/03/is-constitution-god-less-document.html
Liberalism is truly a "mental disorder".
Understandably, even those who donate to their church and other organizations involved in providing for the needy, sometimes find panhandling bothersome. And it is often harmful to businesses.
Councilman Burgess' plan "restricts behaviors used by individuals to threaten and intimidate people into giving money." One of the restrictions is the proximity to grocery store entrances, ATM's, etc.
KOMO NEWS is reporting that there are those now suggesting the panhandling plan should apply to the Girl Scouts and their cookie sales. Girl Scouts are panhandlers? I don't think so.
http://blog.faithandfreedom.us/2010/03/is-constitution-god-less-document.html
Liberalism is truly a "mental disorder".
I am sure there is a government program that can be implemented to deal with disorders of this kind. They can require businesses to pay for it for their employees, too. And then, of course, we're going to need to fund a billion dollar committee to study the short and long term results of how the program is or is not helping. :chuckle:
Lon
Well-known member
The 'least of these' were children. We are to care for the orphan and fatherless. Only by implication could you see homeless able-bodied men as falling under that compassion umbrella. I'm with Knight on this one, I say if they are in a homeless shelter and getting food, put them to work doing something they are able to do, in the community for it. Cleaning highways during the day, helping out carrying stuff on a construction site, volunteering at a food bank, working in a park. There is nothing wrong with giving a man dignity as well as food. For me, the answer isn't doing away with those kitchens, it is using them as stepping stones toward productivity rather than shutting them down.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Yeeeesss!! I win, I win!!
Considering the appalling grammar in that paragraph I'd be inclined to afford you the win regardless. Tiredness is my excuse! Although seriously I concede that age is irrelevant.
The trouble with this approach is that it relies on the charity of others and as such would likely result in even more destitution IMO. As much as I prefer to refrain from over cynicism I fail to see how relying on contributions from the church to help would actually alleviate the situation. At least if there's a system in place that protects all then it's not open to the whims of whether people contribute to the well being of those in need.
Well it's certainly life where some are better off than others, from the outright starvation of the third world through to the glitzy razamatazz of Beverly Hills. It comes down to what's best to do about it, especially from a moral perspective.
Before I go further I'm sorry to hear about your wife. That goes beyond a trial and my best wishes to both of you here. Words are inadequate on this from me.
Regarding triumph from adversity then yes indeed. I've encountered the same. I have no disagreements with you there and kinda ascribe to trials and tribulations often having a place in life for a reason. In short I think that soup kitchens in themselves don't address the actual problem but in conjunction with affirmative aid they help in their own way. In themselves they can do nothing but supply a bit of food and shelter for a while, which taken in itself is still a positive.
Well if you could give each person in need a meal to alleviate their hunger and the means to work out of their situation then that's great. But realistically it's hardly as simple as that. Is it?
:think:
Too easy sir. I was once involved in all sorts of skullduggery including underage alcohol consumption and occasional hooliganism during a misspent youth, combined with all manner of tomfoolery and juvenile shenanigans involving chalk.
Gimme a difficult one next time?
You would say that, being an old timer and all.
That's very kind of you. I don't normally bring that up, but in some instances I do. There are some (not you) who have accused me of not understanding what it means to go through trials, so when the topic of tribulation scratches its way to the surface, I will sometimes mention this particular aspect of my life.
Unrealistic, yes. But this isn't the main reason I object. For some it would be enough to try (a little like the starfish on the beach story, yes?) even if it made little difference to the big picture. No, my real reason for objecting to this is that it is a little like an emergency room doctor putting a bandaid over a gun shot wound. It stops the problem for a while, but...
Cicero once said, "When you wish to instruct, be brief; that men's minds take in quickly what you say, learn its lesson, and retain it faithfully. Every word that is unnecessary only pours over the side of a brimming mind."
:scripto:
Ok, ok, who am I kidding. I am the same way. My mouth runneth over. I can't help it.
You have issued the challenge, and a challenge you shall receive. (Please stay tuned...)
:maxi:
Lon
Well-known member
Whiteboards, no chalkboards anymore... all manner of tomfoolery and juvenile shenanigans involving chalk.
Gimme a difficult one next time?
Can and will do not mean the same thing.
But the truth is there is no such thing as cannot work for those who are do not need to be in the hospital.
There is always someone willing to give them some kind of job.
In that case the government is most likely throwing money at them already.
ragTagblues
New member
Uhhh yes there is . . .
How about literacy being a huge problem, the literacy level for homeless people is well down then on others in a more fortunate position. Ever been to a job interview where you didn't have to read and sign a bit of paper?
How about someone who is paranoid schizophrenic? I mean voices in your head and distortions on reality are not conducive to a working environment. In majority sufferers do not get hospital treatment.
How about the fact I found it very hard to change jobs, when I had the skills and experiences for the jobs I was applying for? How is someone who is homeless going to manage even a basic role?
Yeah sure their are many training schemes around to give someone these basics skills; but do the homeless get told about them, will they be judged with impartiality to get on such a courses and the ones specifically for homeless people there are not enough of.
You would be surprised . . in this economic climate would you give someone who has a roof over there heads and access to basic needs a job over someone who has to fight for it daily?
There are schemes out there to educate and train; but I know of very few employers, none in fact, that would give a homeless person a job.
My job is to support kids who have come out of prison and such to do that, some of whom are poorly educated and not very capable. I cannot find an employer that will offer them work to suit their abilities . . it isn't at current possible because no one wants to take the chance.
Idiot.
Not every job requires these things. You don't need to know how to read to nail two boards together, etc.
Are you saying they don't need to be in a hospital? And who says they have to work with other people?
I have a friend who is diagnosed schizophrenic, and if not for his dad he would be homeless. I pay him to mow my lawn. As do a lot of people. And if he needs more money he mows more lawns. If his dad was not helping him he would mow even more lawns. Etc.
My brother mows lawns and does dishes in exchange for money and shelter.
Try again.
You have a job and judging by this paragraph you are mildly illiterate.
No. I would prefer the one who needs it to the one who does not. Of course if the one who has it has no job at the moment and will lose what they have without a job then that would be a tougher choice.
You need to look up the definition of "job." Or at least "work."
Why were they in prison? And you need to stop looking inside your little proverbial box.
Last edited:
ragTagblues
New member
Classy.
Ahhh but it requires you to fill out forms such as - contracts, health & safety forms, equal opportunities and the like. These are simply needed to get the job, not to do it.
I'm saying that they don't get hospital treatment.
Brilliant and that is genuinely pleasing to hear.
That person is part of a community that knows him and is willing to help. How many homeless people have this? How many people with serious mental health issues actually have this support network?
How many people out there would actually let some random stranger regardless of his or her issues mow there lawn for a meal or a couple of quid, not many. Yet we would quite happily pay strangers with business cards to do the same for a lot more.
I think you are suggesting that anyone is capable of work, what I am suggesting is that many are not capable of getting or holding down a job.
I have a job because of my skills and experiences and that I take a lot more care when writing anything for an application.
Mainstream business does not have those morales, it wants the worker who is going to be secure and able to work all the time. He cannot waste money on the chance that this person has nothing and will maybe turn it around and be a valued contributor over someone who has security and a higher percentage of becoming a valued contributor.
Because they broke the law.
Sadly the box is not little.
If you say anyone is capable of work who isn't in hospital, then yes that is not entirely correct but more accurate.
Not everybody is capable of getting and holding down a job.
There are people whose illness is fear. They fear other people. They cannot function in society because of the necessity of being able to continually interact with other people on a relatively civil basis.
Many so called "bag ladies" will not accept help which has strings attached. They will accept food, clothing and minimal shelter but they will not give up their freedom. Who knows what has happened to these women to cause them to be so fearful? Perhaps a genetic glitch, perhaps illness, perhaps severe abuse?
They will never be able to be integrated into society in any productive way.
I believe that they deserve, as children of God, a portion of my resources.
Many so called "bag ladies" will not accept help which has strings attached. They will accept food, clothing and minimal shelter but they will not give up their freedom. Who knows what has happened to these women to cause them to be so fearful? Perhaps a genetic glitch, perhaps illness, perhaps severe abuse?
They will never be able to be integrated into society in any productive way.
I believe that they deserve, as children of God, a portion of my resources.
- Status