Central Square

blade_bltz said:
Mmm...so all that dimness and black ice...guess Central Square just isn't white *COUGH* I mean light enough.
Click to expand...

Excuse you (both the cough and the comment). Aren't we past silly, immature color jokes here?
 
Yeah well you'd also expect a mature adult male not to profess outrage at the existence of homeless people in the modern urban environment. I spent a summer working in Central Square and walked along Mass Ave every single day. Suffice it to say, my well being was not threatened in the least bit by the aggressive panhandlers nor the various packs of rowdy teenagers.
 
Outraged or not, he referenced homelessness and not race. You made that connection for yourself.

I've got an open heart, and I'll do anything and everything I can to help someone down on their luck help themselves-that doesn't mean I have to give money out of my pocket. I think that's what he meant by being troubled by beggars.
 
blade_bltz said:
Yeah well you'd also expect a mature adult male not to profess outrage at the existence of homeless people in the modern urban environment.
Click to expand...
I'm a mature adult male, and I'm outraged at the existence of homeless people in the modern urban environment.


(Shouldn't be hard to fix with a little good will.)


kennedy's right about the race bit. Poor taste.
 
First off NONE of the homeless who have pestered me in Central Square have had dark pigmented skin, so put away your bait. They have all been middle aged winos or the occasional college age punk trying to be an 'urban outdoorsman' to get back at mummy and daddy for enforcing some ground rules.

Secondly given my age, background, and stature, I am not the least bit threatened by the typical homeless person.

Thirdly, I find anyone whom attempts to stop me in the street for surveys, money, and pretty much asks for anything else other than the time or directions rather annoying.

Fourthly of course "I'm outraged at the existence of homeless people in the modern urban environment". The mentally ill should be care for in proper facilities and the able bodied lazy bums, whom are disinclined to labor, need to grow the hell up. Taking responsibility for oneself is a given as an adult. The public at large isn't responsible for being the surrogate parents handing out allowances to every person whom doesn't feel like working.
 
Lurker said:
The mentally ill should be care for in proper facilities and the able bodied lazy bums, whom are disinclined to labor, need to grow the hell up.
Click to expand...

How can you tell which is which? Mental illness covers a very wide scope. One could argue that anyone who choses to live in abject poverty over working for a living is in some form mentally ill.
 
I'm referring to those whom are fine when medicated, released to nothing on the streets, go off their meds, and start acting looney-toons. Those people need to live in supportive group housing or hospitals when there is no family to tend to them. This also includes those with severe mental illness, which includes chronic alcohol and drug abuse.

Those who choose out of pure laziness to live in poverty, and beg for money, shouldn't be given a dime. Eventually they'll decide sitting behind a desk or counter, which is heated and air conditioned unlike the outdoors, and receive a paycheck for some simple task 8-12 hours a day, is better than starving.
 
I still think if you 'chose' to live in abject poverty, there is something seriously wrong with you and are probably in need of some sort of assistance.

Try it sometime. I imagine it's not quite the easy, laid-back lifestyle some seem to think it is. Those who have a real choice to get away from it probably do. Quickly.
 
Statler, I agree people who choose that lifestyle have something 'wrong' with them in terms of common sense.

However, beyond those who illogically take laziness to the point of distress when work would actually be easier than being lazy, there are those who carry a sense of entitlement. It's a childlike mindset that no matter what someone is supposed to take care of them. Clinically and psychologically this particular group of people pass standard examinations, as a lack of common sense isn't considered a disability.

In all honesty I wish vagrancy was illegal to push the homeless into treatment or productive paths in life, however such laws arguably go against one's constitutional rights. The only legal grounds for dealing with the homeless are based on private property and public safety, in most cases of which one's case for enforcing them is weak.
 
With the exception of the severly mentally ill that were left to fend for themselves, I have very little simpathy for the homeless. Drug addicts and alcholocis get no simpathy, its all self inflicted. Most homeless had to make a lot of mistakes to get there and then just gave up. There are saftey nets like shelters, housing projects, food stamps, and job centers out there to get you back on your feet. If I were homelss I'd go to a shelter and apply to a lot of jobs that don't require you to be very presentable (laborer, garbage man, etc) . It's a simple fact that with 6.5 billion people, some are just total fuck ups. Thats life.
 
ablarc said:
(Shouldn't be hard to fix with a little good will.)
Click to expand...

Good will is hard to come by, as evidenced by the last few posts in this thread.

I suppose we shouldn't feel any simpathy for drug addicts and alcholocis whose parents were addicts as well, to give one example.

Whatever. I guess this is what the internet is for - bitching, moaning and sacrificing ones rationality at the altar of Ayn Rand.
 
If no one is responsible for their actions then I guess there's no point in having a legal system. Those whom utterly lack self responsibility deserve no sympathy. The only exception to that, is when someone is medically disabled outside the result of their own deliberate actions.

"I suppose we shouldn't feel any sympathy for drug addicts and alcoholics whose parents were addicts as well, to give one example."

You're right, we shouldn't, those people saw the consequences of those actions and went down the same path anyway.
 
Freud says we're pretty much who we are by age three, and he's right.

Jesus says we can change anytime we really want to, and he's right.
 
Since we're no longer on Central Square but on Jesus and Sigmund Freud, this is as good a time as any to remind you all that it's the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin's "The Origins of Species".

Discuss.
 
If no one is responsible for their actions then I guess there's no point in having a legal system.
Click to expand...

Would that anyone actually felt responsibility for economic injustice. In fact, making someone poor (even if that someone is oneself) is not a crime.

Why? The capitalist system has winners and losers - inevitably, and independent of their own initiative, some will lose. And if you were looking to attribute blame, wouldn't you look to the designers of the system?
 
Who are the "designers of the system"?

And if there are winners and losers, does that mean it's a zero-sum game?
 
Sadly one has two choices in life:

Capitalism where there are winners and losers. Thus giving an incentive to excel to get something out of life, but you could still potentially work hard and wind up with nothing.

Or

Socialism/Communism where everyone is 'equal' despite talent or effort. Thus giving one no incentive to do anything, as the most hardworking person on the factory floor is rewarded as much as the drunkard passed out in the back room.

Competition, which brings out the best and worst out of people, or a legislated lack of competition which fails to engage the human spirit in any way.

Pick your poison & bottoms up, as they say
 
Lurker said:
Sadly one has two choices in life:

Capitalism ...

Or

Socialism/Communism where everyone is 'equal' despite talent or effort.
Click to expand...
If you choose the latter, your options are down to North Korea and Cuba.
 
Are we discussing whether or not homeless people deserve to be homeless still? Or just debating government?

As for self-responsibility and such, I agree with ablarc:

Freud says we're pretty much who we are by age three, and he's right.

Jesus says we can change anytime we really want to, and he's right.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top