I gave money + food to a homeless guy. Is that normal?

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

↑ View this comment's parent

← View full post
Comments ( 4 ) Sort: best | oldest
  • Good points. Brag? I'm anonymous. Just curious.

    You must be in a European country, I take it? They make a point keep people from becoming economically idle (not that its perfect). IMO, people can't exactly get back on their feet without obvious food/shelter stuff. I think these people need to feel hope and purpose. Fact is, richer people fall into the same problems, but they have resources (monetary/social) to slack off if life gets too be too much. They also have easier connections into self-sustaining opportunities. Most truly homeless people don't have such advantages. Thinking about this? Homelessness shouldn't even exist in a first world country, nowadays.

    Now, vagabonds? That's a different story. I'm okay with that. No one has to follow the same life paths. Maybe the guy was a vagabond? I don't know. Maybe he was intending to score drugs? Fine, whatever, not that I think addiction is a good option. Like, as long as my little gift gave someone a happy reprieve, kewl. :-)

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • Yeah, people can still brag about their random acts of kindness. Anonymity makes no difference.

      I'm in the UK, so yeah, Europe. Our welfare system is a pretty secure safety net, in general. It's rare to slip through and end up destitute without a little (or a lot) of self-destructive behaviour.

      Homelessness isn't something you can ever get rid of entirely - there will always be people who fall out of 'the system', or choose to leave it.

      I'm the opposite of you, in so much as I think charities often provide a brilliant function in society. The best ones let you know exactly where your money is going.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • Aha, the UK! No wonder you are the opposite of me. I'm not you, but I think the UK is open to this idea of public welfare. A major number of people agree that it takes community effort to take care of people because the life quality + economic benefits go up. There are monetary costs. They get shared through taxation. That is a huge dirty word in the US even if that action evidently can create a very stable, healthier community. We still don't have universal healthcare. In the UK? I figure it is a lot easier to get help. Here? It is truly sink or swim.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
          -
        • "Here? It is truly sink or swim."

          I confess to not knowing the intricacies of the system in the US - but I thought some kind of provisions were available for the poor; food stamps, welfare payments, social housing etc.?

          And isn't Obamacare - or whatever it's actually called - supposed to support those that can't afford health insurance?

          Excuse my ignorance if I'm totally wrong :/

          Comment Hidden ( show )