Rimbaud III wrote:My way of dealing with this has been to buy the individual some food, rather than throw them a few coppers.

This approach hasn't always been appreciated.

Mate, you know a lot of people don't always appreciate it when you throw the chips at them.

But seriously... Buying the individual food is a good thing. It has a more human interaction side to it to. I should try this.

Surely when a person is begging for money, the ability to briefly determine their own fate/economic future is as significant as the monetary value of the donation.

Adam CR wrote:Surely when a person is begging for money, the ability to briefly determine their own fate/economic future is as significant as the monetary value of the donation.

I suppose it's patronising to suggest this, but I don't see that someone that's in an unfortunate cycle of impoverishment and bad fortune should be encouraged to stay there. Too many word for that sentence there, but I think you get my point. I know that alcoholism and drug abuse aren't the only factors that lead to/perpetuate a life on the streets, but I believe that it is possible to at least minimise your contribution to this by being smarter about the way you help.

Adam CR wrote:Surely when a person is begging for money, the ability to briefly determine their own fate/economic future is as significant as the monetary value of the donation.

Do they have this ability, though? I mean, if I understand you correctly and you stating that the act of begging gives them a degree of control.

Ultimately, when someone begs, they are putting themselves in a position where someone else has this influence (in a grossly simplistic version, eat tonight/not eat tonight). In this way, I say that when someone begs, they are putting their fate beyond their own control in the psychological sense.

Rimbaud III wrote:Too many word for that sentence there, but I think you get my point.

Do you explain your thinking to these people though?

As I see it, your choice to give, but to simultaneously rob them of momentary empowerment within a society that alienates them daily/hourly is only justifiable (if one considers oneself to be taking part in charity) if one makes plain one's reasoning.

If not then what is the purpose of the transaction?

Adam CR wrote:

Rimbaud III wrote:Too many word for that sentence there, but I think you get my point.

Do you explain your thinking to these people though?

As I see it, your choice to give, but to simultaneously rob them of momentary empowerment within a society that alienates them daily/hourly is only justifiable (if one considers oneself to be taking part in charity) if one makes plain one's reasoning.

If not then what is the purpose of the transaction?

I don't see handing money over for what may possibly be a short fix as empowering. I also accept that making that decision may be a tad patronising, but as I said, trying to avoid the perpetuation of their misery takes precedence for me. The purpose of this transaction (that I take nothing but the warm glow of smug self satisfaction from) is to service a basic human need - food. I'm not sure that the person on the recieving end is particularly concerned with feeling of empowerment 50p brings, no?

Adam CR wrote: I'd say that giving money to those who find it impossible to operate comfortably within society as supported/designed/promoted by the majority is the correct response.

Wow, this pretty much describes me. I operate in it but I certainly wouldn't say 'comfortably'

Can I have some money now please?

Adam CR wrote:Let the recipient concern him/herself with the intricacies of the transaction.

Doesn't transaction imply some kind of exchange. What do you feel you are getting from giving them some money?

Adam CR wrote:Surely it's infinitely preferable to be the kind of person who is occasionally duped by those not truly in need than the kind of person who greets the superficial face of need with cynicism.

I reckon anyway.

I don't.

Here's a question. All these panhandlers - if you lot stopped giving them money and sandwiches (got yelled at for doing this once) then do you think they would start robbing people or do you think they'd go and get a job?

As far as online/mail-in donations go, imagine you are a man on the street with nothing. You ask for change and someone says "no I gave online, go find it" like here's a magic Easter egg full of cash somewhere, just waiting for holmes behind a dumpster.

Buying someone food when they ask for money = prejudicial. Just give them as much as you would pay for their food (unless you only have a credit card).

Getting pissy when someone gives you something for free = obnox. Take the offer or leave it, you fucking bum.

Giving the guy in Prague your whole loaf when you are on your uppers and starving = ridiculest. You should rip it in half and share! Then not only are you feeding 2 people, you are treating the man as an equal.

At periods in my life, 50% of my friends were homeless, flying signs and spangeing. Nothing like life in Calcutta though.

"You have to take a broad general view of things" WB

There's nothing wrong with saying no if you'd say the same thing to your brother or sister.

Earwicker wrote:Here's a question. All these panhandlers - if you lot stopped giving them money and sandwiches (got yelled at for doing this once) then do you think they would start robbing people or do you think they'd go and get a job?

Getting a job isn't easy when you don't have an address.

Rimbaud III wrote:

Earwicker wrote:Here's a question. All these panhandlers - if you lot stopped giving them money and sandwiches (got yelled at for doing this once) then do you think they would start robbing people or do you think they'd go and get a job?

Getting a job isn't easy when you don't have an address.

And/or are mentally ill.