The Funny/Stupid Pics Thread

[Hoplite]

This makes me think of the panhandlers I see daily on the median strips and on the sides of traffic intersections here. Not to paint all panhandlers with a broad sweeping brush stroke, but there is a high percentage that the money you give will end up buying drugs and alcohol, especially when you know there are established social services available that you can contribute to instead. It is not so different from the Yunkers's case in that it is participating in what is called enabling. Still, it is within everybody's right to be hoodwinked and give money to poor taste causes.

[Art Vandelay]

[PosthumanHeresy]

So, let me get this straight.  Magus and Posthuman, you guys are saying that when someone willingly and with knowledge of the possible consequences, does something stupid that results in painful, but not permanent damage, they are entitled to beg random strangers for help WITH RENT AND LIVING EXPENSES, NOT MEDICAL EXPENSES and we should all consider this perfectly acceptable and we should consider this donation as we might consider a donation to an animal shelter or orphanage?
Really?

Sure, if this girl was permanently/long term physically or mentally damaged then aid would be perfectly appropriate and highly acceptable REGARDLESS of how it happened.

Lets not forget that we are talking about a temporary injury, no loss of employment and an available home to go to if evicted.  She will be off work for 6 weeks, not six months, not six years.

Does the same principle apply if I get a really bad flu and have to be off work without pay for two weeks and can't afford my rent?  Is it then also okay to beg for donations?  Is 1 week okay?  What about if I don't have to miss work at all, but I dunno, just felt like quiting my job (an action with foreseeable consequences, taken by me anyway)?

I agree with Chitoryu12 that this girl should accept the consequences of her actions JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE ON THE PLANET.  If her family want to assist her financially with what will basically amount to ONE MONTHS RENT, the go for it, but to beg internet strangers for help is in severe poor taste.

On the other hand, anyone has the right to beg complete strangers for money for any reason they want.  If you don't like it, don't donate!

Yes, you should consider it perfectly acceptable. Additionally, it's a lot less than those places need, so it is equivalent in my mind, due to helping less people but costing less. And, if you were off of work without pay for two weeks and can't afford rent due to the flu, yes, it does. Quitting? No, you aren't ill or injured.

[chitoryu12]

This makes me think of the panhandlers I see daily on the median strips and on the sides of traffic intersections here. Not to paint all panhandlers with a broad sweeping brush stroke, but there is a high percentage that the money you give will end up buying drugs and alcohol, especially when you know there are established social services available that you can contribute to instead. It is not so different from the Yunkers's case in that it is participating in what is called enabling. Still, it is within everybody's right to be hoodwinked and give money to poor taste causes.

I don't think about them being drug addicts or alcoholics. What I'm more concerned about is the disturbingly large number of panhandlers who are actually living quite comfortably and are trying to play on the pity of passerby to deceive them into handing over more cash.

The worst part is that these people end up making it harder for those who are actually unemployed and/or homeless to get charity, as you're constantly afraid that you're giving money to some asshole scam artist instead of someone who actually needs it. You have to make a decision between giving nothing to anybody (which doesn't help the actual people who need it), giving money to every panhandler you see (which means you lose a lot of cash unless you only hand over a dollar or a few cents, and you could be fueling a drug addiction or giving to a scammer), or try and analyze every single beggar you see and determine whether or not they're faking (which is nearly impossible).

[Bezron]

What I'm more concerned about is the disturbingly large number of panhandlers who are actually living quite comfortably and are trying to play on the pity of passerby to deceive them into handing over more cash.

Citation needed here.  While I'm fairly certain that this does happen occasionally, I have never seen any kind of credible (or any at all) that this is a widespread thing, r a "disturbingly large number".  Mostly, this is trotted out by conservatives and the like to prove that we don't need safety nets.  You know, like the "welfare mom" myth

[Witchyjoshy]

What I'm more concerned about is the disturbingly large number of panhandlers who are actually living quite comfortably and are trying to play on the pity of passerby to deceive them into handing over more cash.

Citation needed here.  While I'm fairly certain that this does happen occasionally, I have never seen any kind of credible (or any at all) that this is a widespread thing, r a "disturbingly large number".  Mostly, this is trotted out by conservatives and the like to prove that we don't need safety nets.  You know, like the "welfare mom" myth

That gives me an idea for a social experiment.

Go to various cities at various times.  Have two "homeless people" begging for money.

The control would be someone who looks like a standard beggar of the area.  Someone who lost his ability to work, then his family, then his home.

The other beggar would be dressed in nice clothes (perhaps make it look like he's been dressed in those clothes for awhile, though, as if those nice clothes are the only clothes he has) and his story would be that he invested everything into his company, which then tanked because a bigger company viciously undercut him.  When he tried to apply for jobs, every single one of them would say that he's "too experienced" and refuse to hire him.  Eventually, he's homeless, and has nobody to stay with.

I'm curious to see which one would actually get more money.

Of course, there would be cameras monitoring who gives how much, so that the people can later be tracked down and have their money returned.  Or donated to the local soup house, I'm not sure which.

Also keep track of people's reactions to the beggars, the words they say, etc.

[chitoryu12]

What I'm more concerned about is the disturbingly large number of panhandlers who are actually living quite comfortably and are trying to play on the pity of passerby to deceive them into handing over more cash.

Citation needed here.  While I'm fairly certain that this does happen occasionally, I have never seen any kind of credible (or any at all) that this is a widespread thing, r a "disturbingly large number".  Mostly, this is trotted out by conservatives and the like to prove that we don't need safety nets.  You know, like the "welfare mom" myth

Have you noticed how twice in one thread, someone's pulled the "Gosh, you sound like a conservative who hates the poor!" thing? It's almost like our own version of Godwin's Law.

Snopes has a good article detailing a large variety of scams dating back to the 90s and includes a guide to identifying if you're being scammed. This guy last year was making $60,000 a year by begging. This one is making $100,000 a year and admits to faking mental and physical disability to scam people. A reporter recently found two people working together to scam folks.

I personally end up seeing large amounts of panhandlers, especially near the local Walmart. I often run into the same ones multiple times, sometimes delivering the same story and sometimes with different ones. A family friend has actually followed one of them from his post to see him getting into a rather expensive and perfectly maintained, brand new truck.

I think the problem is that you're taking "disturbingly large" to mean me saying something like "There's thousands of these people!" There are stories from all across the nation that are very easy to find and cite of scammers. A lot of us have probably been targeted by them personally. The fact that you ever have to deal with them in the first place ends up being too many for comfort and makes it difficult or outright impossible to trust that you're actually giving money to someone who needs it.

[Damen]

I think I'm going to pop off with my own two cents on this.

First, she may have been an adult (late teens) but adulthood doesn't flip the Dumbass Moment switch from On to Off. If it did, we wouldn't have had these "lets laugh at home movies of people being dumbasses" shows since the early '90's. She may have been on a roof and going to jump off it, but in a moment of "maybe this ain't such a hot idea" she hesitated and that flash of lucidity is what cost her. Some would say that because she was in the process of a dumbass moment then she is undeserving of help but I can't exactly throw stones from my own glass house. I've done some really dumbass things and they seem to have only gotten more common as I grow older, though, granted, I've never tried to jump off a roof. I can't stick my nose up at this girl without taking a long hard look in the mirror. As for the comments of others being obligated to help her? No one is obligated; that's why it's a donation and not a tax. And the "entitled to help" comment? Really?

Second, she's employed but she's going to be flat on her back and out of work for 6 weeks. I've seen a lot of "it's only six weeks, she won't be out of work by the time she recovers!" being thrown about and I have to say; I'd love that kind of job security. I live in a Right-to-Work state and if I was laid out for six weeks then right after I'd have hung up with my boss they'd be on the phone with their boss figuring out of there's a way they can fire me without having to pay out unemployment. Often, calling and telling your boss you're going to be out for longer than it takes to get over the flu is the same as calling and saying "I quit."

Third, it has been pointed out (often) that the girl's mother set up a donation to help cover living expenses. So what? Do you think that just because the donations are going to go to living expenses that the medical bills that just appeared are going to go unpaid? There is only so much money to go around, so more needs to come in to take up the slack. And even if I didn't get fired from my shithole job after being hospitalized, I'd have, at most, three paid sick days. Per year. After that? I was on my own. So if you're trying to make it just paying for food, rent, gas, utilities and car insurance and then get slammed with medical bills for two shattered feet do you really think you'd be able to make it without asking for help? And because the cost of a broken foot can be anywhere for $250 dollars to $13,600+ in the great old USA, and if we use my old jobs model of "four paid days per year and then fuck you" where do you think the money just to eat and keep a roof over your head is going to come from while you're out of work and unpaid for five and a half weeks and the rent is due? The average paid sick days is 11 days, that still leaves a fucklot of unpaid time off for her during which time she is still going to need to make ends meet. A dumbass moment shouldn't ruin a person's life.

These are just my opinions, take them or leave them.

[Hoplite]

What I'm more concerned about is the disturbingly large number of panhandlers who are actually living quite comfortably and are trying to play on the pity of passerby to deceive them into handing over more cash.

Citation needed here.  While I'm fairly certain that this does happen occasionally, I have never seen any kind of credible (or any at all) that this is a widespread thing, r a "disturbingly large number".  Mostly, this is trotted out by conservatives and the like to prove that we don't need safety nets.  You know, like the "welfare mom" myth

No bullshit GI. This has been front page news in this city here. Well, it is the biggest city in the state, but it is a small town compared to the big cities of the country. The city had a good reputation for social services for homeless people and the word got around and pretty soon, just about every homeless person on the East Coast (figuratively speaking) moved there. Accourse, they will be gone for warmer climes when the cold, hard, biting winter arrives. I could give you the city name, and you could google it, but what would be the point? Anyone would find an article that suits one's beliefs and philosophy, be it liberal, centrist or conservative and use that to justify their thoughts. That is how many such arguments are out there on this topic. All I am prepared to say is that this is an ongoing issue, with people still stopping to give money, and enough people have objected to too many near rear-end collisions at traffic intersections caused by the interactions of the panhandlers and automobile givers, to the point the city has just banned panhandlers from standing in the middle of the medians. They can however be on the side of the roads, that has not changed. This has not been exaggerated in any way, I can tell you - the letters to the editor are rife with opinions on this subject from liberals, centrists and conservatives, although it is more fun watching conservatives being blowhards about this.

As or the how and why behind panhandling, what chitoryu said. I try not to give money to known substance abusers or obvious scammers, but I probably have been taken in at some time, who knows. I volunteer sometimes at a soup kitchen and at a detox, so I get around and know a number of the unfortunates. It could just as easily be me in their place.

[RavynousHunter]

Since everyone's made my arguments against Chitoryu for me, I'll just leave this here:



Also, anyone think I should rustle up a F&B thread to take this shit to, so it doesn't overload a completely unrelated thread?

[Witchyjoshy]

(click to show/hide)

I think I'm going to pop off with my own two cents on this.

First, she may have been an adult (late teens) but adulthood doesn't flip the Dumbass Moment switch from On to Off. If it did, we wouldn't have had these "lets laugh at home movies of people being dumbasses" shows since the early '90's. She may have been on a roof and going to jump off it, but in a moment of "maybe this ain't such a hot idea" she hesitated and that flash of lucidity is what cost her. Some would say that because she was in the process of a dumbass moment then she is undeserving of help but I can't exactly throw stones from my own glass house. I've done some really dumbass things and they seem to have only gotten more common as I grow older, though, granted, I've never tried to jump off a roof. I can't stick my nose up at this girl without taking a long hard look in the mirror. As for the comments of others being obligated to help her? No one is obligated; that's why it's a donation and not a tax. And the "entitled to help" comment? Really?

Second, she's employed but she's going to be flat on her back and out of work for 6 weeks. I've seen a lot of "it's only six weeks, she won't be out of work by the time she recovers!" being thrown about and I have to say; I'd love that kind of job security. I live in a Right-to-Work state and if I was laid out for six weeks then right after I'd have hung up with my boss they'd be on the phone with their boss figuring out of there's a way they can fire me without having to pay out unemployment. Often, calling and telling your boss you're going to be out for longer than it takes to get over the flu is the same as calling and saying "I quit."

Third, it has been pointed out (often) that the girl's mother set up a donation to help cover living expenses. So what? Do you think that just because the donations are going to go to living expenses that the medical bills that just appeared are going to go unpaid? There is only so much money to go around, so more needs to come in to take up the slack. And even if I didn't get fired from my shithole job after being hospitalized, I'd have, at most, three paid sick days. Per year. After that? I was on my own. So if you're trying to make it just paying for food, rent, gas, utilities and car insurance and then get slammed with medical bills for two shattered feet do you really think you'd be able to make it without asking for help? And because the cost of a broken foot can be anywhere for $250 dollars to $13,600+ in the great old USA, and if we use my old jobs model of "four paid days per year and then fuck you" where do you think the money just to eat and keep a roof over your head is going to come from while you're out of work and unpaid for five and a half weeks and the rent is due? The average paid sick days is 11 days, that still leaves a fucklot of unpaid time off for her during which time she is still going to need to make ends meet. A dumbass moment shouldn't ruin a person's life.

These are just my opinions, take them or leave them.

....DAMN I am glad you stayed.

[Hoplite]

[Art Vandelay]

[Askold]

These are comedy gold:
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7kkVYSbXVc" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7kkVYSbXVc</a>
The beginning is just hilarious and it keeps on getting better.
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbXweVJryo8" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbXweVJryo8</a>
"I don't eat beaver!" "That makes two of us." *Aside glance*

[Trillian]

So, let me get this straight.  Magus and Posthuman, you guys are saying that when someone willingly and with knowledge of the possible consequences, does something stupid that results in painful, but not permanent damage, they are entitled to beg random strangers for help WITH RENT AND LIVING EXPENSES, NOT MEDICAL EXPENSES and we should all consider this perfectly acceptable and we should consider this donation as we might consider a donation to an animal shelter or orphanage?
Really?

Sure, if this girl was permanently/long term physically or mentally damaged then aid would be perfectly appropriate and highly acceptable REGARDLESS of how it happened.

Lets not forget that we are talking about a temporary injury, no loss of employment and an available home to go to if evicted.  She will be off work for 6 weeks, not six months, not six years.

Does the same principle apply if I get a really bad flu and have to be off work without pay for two weeks and can't afford my rent?  Is it then also okay to beg for donations?  Is 1 week okay?  What about if I don't have to miss work at all, but I dunno, just felt like quiting my job (an action with foreseeable consequences, taken by me anyway)?

I agree with Chitoryu12 that this girl should accept the consequences of her actions JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE ON THE PLANET.  If her family want to assist her financially with what will basically amount to ONE MONTHS RENT, the go for it, but to beg internet strangers for help is in severe poor taste.

On the other hand, anyone has the right to beg complete strangers for money for any reason they want.  If you don't like it, don't donate!

Yes, you should consider it perfectly acceptable. Additionally, it's a lot less than those places need, so it is equivalent in my mind, due to helping less people but costing less. And, if you were off of work without pay for two weeks and can't afford rent due to the flu, yes, it does. Quitting? No, you aren't ill or injured.

Okay then.  We can just agree to disagree then.  I'd much rather give my money to an animal shelter, but whatever floats your boat!

I guess the reason this sort of thing really irritates me is the sense of entitlement it could potentially cause.  For example, what acts are considered too stupid or unacceptable?  What are these people learning when they are "bailed out" every time they cause themself physical or job related harm.

Growing up under apartheid, and living in a post apartheid era, I can tell you with great certainty that an unchecked sense of entitlement amongst your work force is a really bad thing.

Under apartheid, the Afrikaner was entitled to a Government job.  All government jobs went to white, Afrikaans speaking South Africans.  This included postal services, TV, police, administrative positions at government hospitals.  All of it, and it was usually with nepotism.  Today, in post Apartheid South Africa, most government positions have been given to black South Africans.  It's the way that it is, so be it.  Despite what many people say, the service you receive from a government department today sucks just as much as it did under Apartheid.  The only thing that has changed is the color of the face looking at you with zero interest, and mostly disdain.

The following two very damaging things have happenend in the course of our freedom :

1.  White Afrikaners want to know why the cannot be given high paying jobs simply because they exist?  Why do they now have to learn a skill and provide an honest days work, with good service?  These are the same people who were given government jobs after dropping out of school at 16 simply because they knew someone.  During their years at work they never bothered to garner skills, or learn anything, or work their way up the ladder.  They just sat and did (nothing) all day.

2.  There is a faction of black South Africans, especially the younger generation, who have been told, and now believe that they are entitled to a job.  Trust me when I tell you that they will steal, lie, show up drunk to work or simply not show up at all.  And when they are fired, you are accused of unjustifiably firing them and have to end up paying out several months pay simply to make it go away.  They do not care if they are fired because they are entitled to another job.  This happens ALL THE TIME.

I am not saying that this is the way all Afrikaners or blacks in SA, but these people exist in large numbers.

I am fortunate enough to be in a very financially strong position, and have done so by working 45 hours a week for twenty years.  I've taken a handful of sick days over those twenty years and never, for one moment in my life have I ever felt I was entitled to anything from anyone.  I know that I have been fortunate in having a good job with a stable company and never being ill or seriously injured in my life.  Do you know why that is though?  I have never tried to jump off a roof into a swimming pool. I have responsibilities and obligations in my life.  I've felt this way since my first day of full time work when I was 17 years old.

Sorry, I got a bit (way) off track there, but I feel really strongly about personal responsibility, and that when every little thing becomes a "cause", it distracts from REAL causes.