Don't feed the homeless.

[Gina B]

http://www.khon2.com/news/local/story/Abercrombie-Stop-feeding-homeless/QsQwAGeAK0GRLG-Nmf1TCQ.cspx

Sounds like a sign you'd see at a zoo, not something you'd hear someone say about other humans.

 

[annsni]

I guess the issue is that you can feed all you want but it's not helping the actual issue. I didn't read the article fully but I'd guess they want to try to actually address the homeless issue more than just giving out sandwiches.

 

[Jim1999]

I remember a man in the 30's who fed the homeless, but first they were given an hour's work to do. The same load of firewood was moved countless times.

Nil sine labore! Nothing without labour.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[billwald]

(If the point is work, useful or not, then)

Say a way to access zero point energy is discovered and robots do all the work. On what basis might new forms of discrimination develop?

 

[targus]

(If the point is work, useful or not, then)

Say a way to access zero point energy is discovered and robots do all the work. On what basis might new forms of discrimination develop?

How about discrimination based on the frequency of inane questions, posts and comments?

 

[Salty]

I remember a man in the 30's who fed the homeless, but first they were given an hour's work to do. The same load of firewood was moved countless times.

Nil sine labore! Nothing without labour.
Jim

I wonder what the Bible has to say about Jims thinking:
For even when we were with you,this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. II Thes 3:10

 

[Jim1999]

unlike to-day where there are plenty of places to find food and handouts, I was talking about the years we had nothing, including jobs. During the war years, we did well to have 3-4 meals a week.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[TC]

I guess the issue is that you can feed all you want but it's not helping the actual issue. I didn't read the article fully but I'd guess they want to try to actually address the homeless issue more than just giving out sandwiches.

I did read the entire article and what I got out of it was this: We know how to help the homeless better than you, so quit trying to help the homeless and send the money to our state agencies because we can do it better than you.

 

[targus]

I did read the entire article and what I got out of it was this: We know how to help the homeless better than you, so quit trying to help the homeless and send the money to our state agencies because we can do it better than you.

Actually, the article said that they were being asked to take the food to the local homeless shelter for distribution there.

That would seem to make sense rather than have the homeless gather at a public park - where there are probably not adequate dining tables, restrooms and staff to clean up afterwards.

There may also be a concern about the homeless staying in the park for the night once they were drawn there for the food.

A shelter is set up for that very purpose.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

http://www.khon2.com/news/local/story/Abercrombie-Stop-feeding-homeless/QsQwAGeAK0GRLG-Nmf1TCQ.cspx

Sounds like a sign you'd see at a zoo, not something you'd hear someone say about other humans.

Treat people like animals and they'll act like animals. Human beings are not pigeons to be fed in the park. They're not stray cats. To merely give them food or money without holding them responsible for their own betterment is to enable bad behavior and to subsidize their poverty.

You may now procede with the inevitable nonsense about how I hate poor people.

I remember a man in the 30's who fed the homeless, but first they were given an hour's work to do. The same load of firewood was moved countless times.

Nil sine labore! Nothing without labour.

We help to run three rescue missions that help the poor, the homeless, the elderly and pretty much anybody who needs help.

We make it clear at the outset that this is not a charity program, but a program by which we help people with their immediate needs while helping them create and execute a long term plan to climb out of poverty and to become self-sufficient.

As such, we do require that they work for the food and vouchers we give them. We simply believe that anything less would only be subsidizing their poverty and would be just as corrupt and inefficient as government welfare programs.

As a result, we see tremendous success, seeing people get back on their feet to the point that they no longer need our help, but are, in turn, able to help others and contribute to society.

Incidentally, lest you think that all we are is another social agency, all of this is intertwined with the Gospel through the preaching and teaching of the Gospel, nouthetic counseling, and one on one mentoring.

 

[Gina B]

Treat people like animals and they'll act like animals. Human beings are not pigeons to be fed in the park. They're not stray cats. To merely give them food or money without holding them responsible for their own betterment is to enable bad behavior and to subsidize their poverty.

You may now procede with the inevitable nonsense about how I hate poor people.

I've seen plenty of operations where they give out food in the parks to the homeless.

I have no problem with it. If someone wants to give a homeless person food and not charge them, nobody should be able to criminalize or fine them for such.

I noticed in the last park/area I lived where this was done, many of those that came for food were drug addicts. As such, they couldn't get into the homeless shelter without going for treatment and some didn't want to or were kicked out for using.

When there are plenty of people out there who need jobs and are not drug addicts and they're on the verge of becoming hungry and homeless themselves, I support putting them first. People who are addicted made bad life choices and the ones I saw were reaping natural consequences. When time, money, and resources are limited, why not use it to help people with better decision making skills?

But if someone has it on their heart to feed them a hotdog and a few chips and some water or other drink, why should anyone tell them no? That's charity, pure and simple, without asking for anything in return. And quite frankly, most addicts don't have a lot to offer in return. They're sick. They're not in their right mind. So, sick and hungry, and someone wants to give them something to eat? No, I have no problem with it. I often wonder about people I have known and loved who were addicts. I sure hope that when they were hungry, someone took pity on them.

Goodness. If Christ waited until I did something for him before he took pity on me, he'd never have been crucified for me. It woulda never happened because I never would have wondered why someone would do that for me and why they thought I was worth anything, let alone THAT. And I started thinking about that because one day at work, a Christian couple came in and noticed I work long hours and the place had no windows and they expressed concern. Made me wonder why they did, which made me start thinking about why He did what he did and that's what reached me and gnawed at my heart. Maybe that small kindness without anything expected in return has that affect on a few other souls.

So no, I'm not gonna accuse you of hating poor people. It wouldn't be my problem if you did anyhow, it would be yours. I do think you feel you're better than the homeless since you don't think they're worthy of being fed and I'm curious as to what makes you better than them. Maybe because you have a job? Because you don't have addictions that some homeless people may have? Because if you had no job and were hungry and someone asked you to work, you'd do it? Does that really make you better? And does that count anyhow? I don't know. I think it's your heart that counts. And I don't know what's in your heart, I just know what you type on here and what you typed on here simply says you think people shouldn't give the homeless any free meals unless the homeless person gives something in return.

And I understand that to a point, but disagree with it for the above stated reasoning.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Hear Hear Gina:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[JohnDeereFan]

double post

 

[JohnDeereFan]

I do think you feel you're better than the homeless since you don't think they're worthy of being fed and I'm curious as to what makes you better than them. Maybe because you have a job? Because you don't have addictions that some homeless people may have? Because if you had no job and were hungry and someone asked you to work, you'd do it? Does that really make you better? And does that count anyhow? I don't know. I think it's your heart that counts. And I don't know what's in your heart, I just know what you type on here and what you typed on here simply says you think people shouldn't give the homeless any free meals unless the homeless person gives something in return.

And I understand that to a point, but disagree with it for the above stated reasoning.

I guess my favorite part is where you lie about my motives, my beliefs, and my actions and then try to play innocent by saying, "Oh, but I don't know your heart".

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Actually, the article said that they were being asked to take the food to the local homeless shelter for distribution there.

That would seem to make sense rather than have the homeless gather at a public park - where there are probably not adequate dining tables, restrooms and staff to clean up afterwards.

There may also be a concern about the homeless staying in the park for the night once they were drawn there for the food.

A shelter is set up for that very purpose.

Right. I have no doubt that their motives are good and that they mean well, but treating the homeless like stray cats not only doesn't help them, it makes matters worse. All they've done is to keep them poor for one more meal, rather than helping them get back on their feet.

 

[Salty]

Right. I have no doubt that their motives are good and that they mean well, but treating the homeless like stray cats not only doesn't help them, it makes matters worse. All they've done is to keep them poor for one more meal, rather than helping them get back on their feet.

"If you give a man a fish you feed him for a day.
If you teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime."

It is better to teach someone how to do something than to do it for them. Giving someone a fish is good for the short term, but it is better to teach them how to do it so that in the long term they can take care of themselves. For example, a mother could cook for her children, but if she never teaches them to cook, they will always be dependent on her for meals. If she teaches them how to cook they will be able to take care of themselves in the long term.​

- Chinese Proverb​

(added by Salty) - then the kids can cook for mom, when she is not longer able - and she will not be required to depend on the government​

 

[Gina B]

I guess my favorite part is where you lie about my motives, my beliefs, and my actions and then try to play innocent by saying, "Oh, but I don't know your heart".

So what was your LEAST favorite part?

 

[JohnDeereFan]

So what was your LEAST favorite part?

Watching you sin and knowing that you don't have the least bit of remorse for it.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

"If you give a man a fish you feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime."

It is better to teach someone how to do something than to do it for them. Giving someone a fish is good for the short term, but it is better to teach them how to do it so that in the long term they can take care of themselves. For example, a mother could cook for her children, but if she never teaches them to cook, they will always be dependent on her for meals. If she teaches them how to cook they will be able to take care of themselves in the long term. - Chinese Proverb

(added by Salty) - then the kids can cook for mom, when she is not longer able - and she will not be required to depend on the government

Right. Over and over, the Biblical model is one of helping the poor out of poverty, not merely subsidizing their poverty, as some here would suggest.

Unfortunately, when you do that, some are going to try to impugn your motives and slander you. One thing I learned loud and clear when I was a social worker in Philly is that liberals need the poor to be poor. To a liberal, the poor are just a commodity, no more than job security. This is why liberal, government-based programs are such failures. They're designed to fail and to keep the poor in poverty, making it extremely difficult for them to climb out of poverty.

Simply feeding the homeless as if they were stray cats may feed them for one day, but what about the next day? Or the day after that? How does it make them any closer to self-sufficiency? How does it help to get them out of poverty? It doesn't. All it does is make them dependent upon the ones feeding them.

Evidently, helping the homeless to get on their feet and out of poverty is bad, but making them dependent upon day to day care is good.

 

[Gina B]

Watching you sin and knowing that you don't have the least bit of remorse for it.

Oh good grief, quit with the victim mentality already. You survived when you dropped your blue crayon in kindergarten and were convinced someone stole it to be mean and now you'll survive a discussion about the ethical expectations of charity as well. If you really feel you're being attacked, sinned against, and whatever other evils are being perpetrated against you by those who don't see eye to eye with your views, you're free to simply walk away unless you feel you feel this is important enough to martyr your mental health for. Guess everyone's gotta feel like a hero at least once in their life, but usually they don't start out by declaring they're going to be attacked when no enemy is in sight and then start fighting the first person who comes along.

Weirdo. If you were in the park I'd not give you a hotdog. LOL

Okay I would, but I'd be really reluctant.

Okay maybe just slightly reluctant.

But I'd definitely not bother to make it organic. :laugh: