Topic: Arrested for feeding homeless people - page 6. (Read 8330 times)

+1 on this (maybe not less homeless people, but less people who don't have money to eat). If you cut off a person's lifeline then they will find a way to get the money to support themselves which will generally mean to get a job and/or spend less money on frivolous things.

True enough,
A lack of social services and support mechanisms for those who need it to get back from there will just result in increased crime rates
Or the American model where people go to jail for being poor in essence and well at least in jail they get their meals
Otherwise they would have been more productive to society if something was there to help them.

Until they start helping themselves, muggings and burglary and street crime will all go up if they stop feeding the crazys in any western city

If we stop feeding them there will be less homeless than ever in your lifetime.  Survival of the least lazy.   

Not sure why a city thinks they need to regulate this man's charity. There seem to be more homeless now than ever in my lifetime. Keeping them out of site isn't going to make them go away.

Open your eyes.

If everyone else has to give away a little bit extra fish to compensate for the one stuffing the whole one down his gullet, yes.


I don't disagree with you, but should we pay taxes or not in the first place is beyond the scope of this thread.


Again I don't disagree, let's hope the situation improves.
What I was trying to point out is that it isn't always society's fault for a person being homeless as you claimed in your statement.
Another example: A gambling addict gambles away his possessions and eventually his home, now he's left on the street. Is this society's fault or his?

Every homeless person will have a different tale to tell, sometimes it's their fault for the situation, others it was out of their control.
Either way, it's a sad situation and they need all the support we can give them to get them back on their feet.

No we haven't. It all has to do with what people are willing to put up with because of their ignorance.

From http://www.unkommonlaw.co.uk/

----------

Sick of taking Orders and earning no money from complying with the Orders?

Buy an Invoice Pad today, to BILL the next Public SERVANT that Orders thou [You] !

(thou = singular cf. Ye - Nominative / You - Objective which are Plurals... i will explain later)

Example:

When A[NY] Public SERVANT stops thou at the side of the road and Orders a PERFORMANCE of and/or from thou by way of the use of His (or Her) Voice, these  UTTERANCES are defined as HIS (or HER) Wishes AND Orders delivered upon thou (placing a Burden Upon thou!)

 Example(s) :

    ORDERS thou as a [wo]man to get out of YOUR car !
    ORDERS thou, as a [wo]man  to "GIVE-UP" up his or her  "GIVEN-name"!
    ORDERS thou, as a [wo]man to perform ANY task (such as hand-over a Licence)!
    et ceteras, et cetaras, et ceteras...

Deliever Upon HIM (or HER) a BILL (an INVOICE) !

(BILL / INVOICE: c. 1400; that of "order to pay" ( technically 'Bill of Exchange' is from 1570s)

Example:

When "HE" or "SHE" ( a Public Servant) makes their WISHES to perform known and ORDER(s) Upon thou ( a man or woman) make sure to require of Him or Her to remember "Fair-and-Just" COMPENSATION, is now due for carrying-out His or Her Wishes and ORDER(s)!

----------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ae4nLVs98RM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjlPFU8mx00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nR-URtdjaH8

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5duR4OvEHHxOSdEZhANETw

You see, the fallacy there is that it assumes the outcome is only dependent on the person's own actions, and nothing else - which is nonsense, of course. Among other things, that mentality ignores the circumstances the person is in, as TaunSew's post alluded to, but it also ignores the environment that person grew up in and the opportunities it was afforded. I mean, just look at the studies for social mobility in developed countries and see how the US is doing.

wrong there are always more choices, only yourself limit it.

6) Bring some kinetic tools to tell the ones wanting to steal the others half of your fish whom it belongs to, and what are the costs associated with an attempted theft...

and this lie in your 2) and 3) about dishonest and honest is just lazy... I expected more from you.

Dank - just fuck off...

I hope they're happy when the crime rate rises because an army of homeless people who have had their food supply removed from them will more than likely start helping themselves and I would rather live in a neighbourhood that feeds the crackheads than one that doesn't

And in regards to your last statement, there are not enough jobs for everyone, it is that simple.  Regulations constrict the economy to the benefit of the present establishment.

Robotic integration results in a system that values growth of the system without any regard for the well being of humans.  Sorta like a virus, leaching off the life of humanity.

And how could a system as such tolerate sharing?  That devoids the power of the system completely.

Oh?  It's dishonest for people to eat the whole fish they catch?

That's a new one.

Yet it's honest for thugs to threaten violence if you don't give them a cut of your fish?

Hmm..

There's only a few choices to pick:

1) Have no fish.
2) Earn an honest half a fish.
3) Earn an dishonest whole fish.
4) Steal a full or half fish.
5) Expect others to give you a free whole or half fish.

I've picked #2 in life. What about you?


I don't really agree with this blanket statement you've placed on every homeless person. Everyone homeless will have their own reasons for their situation.
Example: Let's say a blacksmith refuses to admit that the world doesn't need blacksmiths anymore, he stubbornly refuses to move with the times in another career. No work, no money, loses house etc...
Now, is this society's fault or the ex-blacksmiths?

It is quite disturbing the contempt some people here have for the homeless.  

Nobody in a rich society should have to sleep on a cold pavement or go hungry.  Food and shelter are things you can provide to people, if you removed the middle men bureaucrats through a basic income, for probably $800 per adult and indexed to inflation.
 

The recent bailout in the US is said to be between $16-$30 trillion.  Why is it ok for corporations to get corporate welfare but it is bad when people get welfare?   $30 trillion is such that you could fund 100 million people on a basic income for 30 years.  While that $30 trillion in the bail out has gone to CEO bonuses, art collections and yachts.

If i want to give something to somebody for free, it's not your business. It's MY BUSINESS. Sue the cops. Fuck capitalism. "File sharing" economy right now!!!

The alternative though is that if everyone shares no one has an incentive to innovate.
Unless they get a reward
Ah capitalism

Can you not look any deeper for the reason of homelessness?

Homeless people are not the problem.  The problem is our greed based society that makes people homeless when they can no longer offer the system anything.

Teaching a man to fish doesn't mean shit if you're going to take half of his fish away as a tax for teaching him.

This sort of contempt is why the middle class is disappearing.  I know a lot of good middle class jobs that were made redundant after 2000, the corporation changed the title and tried to pass it off as 'unskilled labor'.