Who's nicer? Left or Right?

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

You have to decide which is nicer:

1. Giving a man a fish

2. Teaching him how to fish for himself so you don't have to provide him fish any longer and so he won't be held hostage by your continued providence

Build a man a fire and he is warm for one night. Set a man on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by BYU71

I guess we all have experiences that shape our feelings. After my divorce and collapse of my business I got heavy into reading self help and positive attitude books. A few years later while still in a positive attitude mode, I gave a guy, age about 30, on the street 5 bucks. I told him to wait and I would come back with something worth more than the $5. I went up and brought back the book, Think and Grow Rich. He handed it back to me and told me to F-off. I haven't given a dime to someone on the street since.

That seems like a pretty intelligent stance to take on the issue. A guy on the street who likely needs to eat in the next 24 hours or so....so you give him a book and wonder why he tells you to F-off.

Any other segments of society you have completely alienated based off dealings with one member?

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

That seems like a pretty intelligent stance to take on the issue. A guy on the street who likely needs to eat in the next 24 hours or so....so you give him a book and wonder why he tells you to F-off.

Any other segments of society you have completely alienated based off dealings with one member?

This was back in the early 80's. If your intent had been to understand what I was conveying instead of lawyering up and trying to debate, you would have noticed I first gave him $5. Back then $5 would have bought you a damn good lunch. I guess you would have preferred I just give him $100 and say have a nice week of eating. I am sure he would have spent the money all week on that, maybe not.

By the way your guess that he needed to eat over the next 24 hours is as big a supposition as a guess that he was just some lazy guy trying to make money the easy way.

Of course, I took the high road and gave him the $5 even if I suspected he was just scamming folks.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

That seems like a pretty intelligent stance to take on the issue. A guy on the street who likely needs to eat in the next 24 hours or so....so you give him a book and wonder why he tells you to F-off.

Any other segments of society you have completely alienated based off dealings with one member?

Who doesn't need to eat in the next 24 hours or so?

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by BYU71

This was back in the early 80's. If your intent had been to understand what I was conveying instead of lawyering up and trying to debate, you would have noticed I first gave him $5. Back then $5 would have bought you a damn good lunch. I guess you would have preferred I just give him $100 and say have a nice week of eating. I am sure he would have spent the money all week on that, maybe not.

By the way your guess that he needed to eat over the next 24 hours is as big a supposition as a guess that he was just some lazy guy trying to make money the easy way.

Of course, I took the high road and gave him the $5 even if I suspected he was just scamming folks.

I think it is great that you gave him $5. I think it is odd that you were taken aback by his lack of enthusiasm for the self-help book. Have you ever known any beggar to want a book in lieu of cash? He probably thought you were patronizing him.......just like you thought he was scamming people.

I guess it is of no concern anymore since you no longer give to people on the street...all because this one guy 30 years ago didnt want to read your free book.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Tex

Who doesn't need to eat in the next 24 hours or so?

Most likely do, which only reinforces my point. Why give a beggar a book? Odds are that even pretend beggars will eventually use some money to buy a meal.

If some guy goes through the trouble of getting dirty and smelly all in an effort to be a fake beggar for the day, I think he has earned the buck or two.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

I think it is great that you gave him $5. I think it is odd that you were taken aback by his lack of enthusiasm for the self-help book. Have you ever known any beggar to want a book in lieu of cash? He probably thought you were patronizing him.......just like you thought he was scamming people.

I guess it is of no concern anymore since you no longer give to people on the street...all because this one guy 30 years ago didnt want to read your free book.

I indicated at the time I was kind of high on the self help stuff. You know like the Og Mandino story where he was about to take his life and read a book and it turned his life around. These kind of books had helped me get through some really tough times too.

I am sorry. I had this vision of the guy getting the book, reading it, turning his life around and finding me and telling me how I had changed his life with the gesture. Silly me. I was going through the liberal, pie in the sky, phase in my life.

I am now in the conservative, I will pay taxes and give to charity and let them figure out who needs it and who doesn't part of my life and I am not looking for anyone to come and thank me for changing their lives around.

[il Padrino Ute]

I never give panhandlers money. I can think of only two times that they were grateful that I would buy them something to eat. I've offered to buy a meal for many, but they want the cash. Odds are that it's for booze and I won't do that.

[MikeWaters]

there's a panhandler near where I live who dresses up in pants, white shirt and tie. He has a bucket with some indecipherable cause taped on it.

I'm pretty sure he is a fraud. He looks dumb as hell.

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by BigFatMeanie

One thing that has always fascinated me is the tendency of people that want certain social benefits (e.g. eduction, healthcare, housing, etc.) to want them on a federal, or sometimes even a global, level. Why not do things on a smaller level and let those that are interested in those social benefits move and those that aren't can leave? I've never understood this need to do everything on a national level.

Because, ultimately they want to control you and your choices. Statism, the opposite of individualism.