Re: Re: Helping others [was: Things I don't understand]

October 3, 2002

>>>How fucking dare you say this about me?! You know nothing about me,

lady. As a matter of fact, I *have* been close to homeless. More

than once. Starving and wearing rags, too. And I never went to any

government agency for a god damn handout, either. Yes, I leaned on

my friends for help, but that was because they *were* my friends and

wanted to help me. That's entirely different from insisting that I'm

entitled to any money from Q. Taxpayer in Duluth.

------------Okay, so you have experienced this. Ånd fortunately for you you

*did* have friends who were there for you as your safety net. Thankfully, you

had this.

But if you were in need of some assistance why did you not turn to the

sources from which your own taxes previously went into, for help? Pride? For

what? So you could be 'better than thou'? For what purpose?

>>>You are way, way, WAY out of line with this comment, lady. You know

nothing about me... nothing.

----------And you just enlightened me. And I found your comments/attitudes

regarding women with children and public assistance to be highly insulting and

ignorant.

Nanne

October 3, 2002

Parrish wrote:

>> ----------So let them all be homeless and let them eat cake. How

> wonderful for you that you have never been close to being nearly

> homeless or needed any kind of assistance at all.

>

> How fucking dare you say this about me?! You know nothing about me,

> lady. As a matter of fact, I *have* been close to homeless. More

> than once. Starving and wearing rags, too. And I never went to any

> government agency for a god damn handout, either.

That is foolish. I used to think that way too, but there is no need to sit

there and

suffer when you are hungry. That is the purpose of society, after all. The

conservative

philosophy you espouse is terribly convenient for those that have money, and the

means to

make more, but evinces little concern for those that don't. I have typically

been rather

compassionless with regard to the people less fortunate than me; when I was

under the

illusion that someday I would be able to work and support myself, I used to go

on and on

about how no one had the right to my tax dollars, blah, blah, blah. And when

asked what

to do with those that could not fend for themselves in the social darwinism that

would

come as a result of that, I said to let them die.

That would not be society. That would be a survival of the fittest kind of

animal

existence, where those with the power (the rich, the able, the ones with the

social skills

to manipulate the masses) have all they want and the rest of us are serfs, or

are left to

die.

I used to be a College Republican. I used to parrot their beliefs. I listened

to Rush

Limbaugh, and used to glower at people that used food stamps in the grocery

store. You

see, while I was not a fat cat, I thought I was going to be one... I was going

to have a

good paying job and be one of the haves, not one of the have-nots. I was the

perfect

conservative in training. I already had the requisite total lack of concern for

those

less fortunate... try as they may to deny it, I have been inside the Republican

party... I

was a delegate to their convention in 1991 (hosted by UC Berkeley, of all

places). The

assertions the libs make about their lack of caring about the poor are right on.

I was

one of them... we all just kind of wanted them to wither and die, although none

but me

would admit it publicly.

I now realize what a load of crap so much of it was. While I am still more or

less a

supply-sider, I no longer go for the social darwinism theory, that those with

money are

endowed with greater social worth and societal value, and thus deserving more of

life and

privilege. People like me are at a big disadvantage... we're not going to be

able to

compete effectively with those with the NT neurology for which the society was

designed.

Not that long ago, I did work... I spent six years delivering newspapers. At

the end, I

was working 35 hours a week... getting stressed to the point that it was

intolerable,

being taken for all I was willing to give, and being paid piss in return. I

actually got

disability WHILE I was employed and working 35 hours a week-- that was how much

money I

was making after expenses. The thoughts that I was going to be above the

working class

caste were wrong... I was in the group that my Republican former friends loved

to hate.

As long as they insist on making the work world so incompatible with my

neurology, I hsall

cheerfully accept their involuntary donations in the form of SSI, section 8,

food stamps,

and any other entitlement I can get. And I shall sneer at them and tell them to

enjoy

filling out their tax forms and to be sure to get them in by April 15th... I

need not

worry about that. I shall make my contribution on my terms, not theirs, subject

to my own

whims and parameters, not theirs.

> Yes, I leaned on

> my friends for help, but that was because they *were* my friends and

> wanted to help me. That's entirely different from insisting that I'm

> entitled to any money from Q. Taxpayer in Duluth.

Well, you're just so special. Not all of us have friends that can/will help

like that.

Having social programs is part of a society that has not decided that certain

people are

worthless... if they cannot compete in the game that the people with the money

have

crafted for themselves, then they shall fall by the wayside and die. The fact

that you

say you have been there yourself, and that you are better off now, shows that

people who

are down are not out. What if you did not have any friends when you were in

trouble?

Would you then be able to be so pleased with yourself for not taking handouts?

> You are way, way, WAY out of line with this comment, lady. You know

> nothing about me... nothing.

I concur with Nanne's comment... I don't know you either, but from what you have

written,

I definitely see the " let them eat cake " mentality. You are correct in that she

does not

know you, so she can only judge by what she has seen, as is the case with me.

And can you clean up the language a bit? I do not mind swearing here and there,

but when

it is directed at another list member, it is getting a little close to a

personal attack,

and that is not a good thing.

October 3, 2002

Private charities, however, are another matter: they tend to be much

better run, and they are supported by people who *want* to support

them. Ditto for individuals helping other individuals. In addition,

this is more personal -- it comes from your friend, your neighbor, or

at least someone in your local community. I can tell you that

whenever *I* ask for help (in any area) I always feel a lot better

about going to someone I know or like or feel a connection with

rather than some marble building in Washington -- maybe others are

different, I don't know. Capisce? Please take my word for it

----------Completely disagree here. I'd rather receive the cash/food stamp

benefits and pick out my food on my own..... we cannot eat a lot of pre-packaged

crap with a ton of additives that come in a lot of boxes from the charities.

Also, while I know I am doing a 'job' in providing something to make a

certain church or group 'feel good' about themselves, its more belittling than

the anonymous check: the church that makes you sit down and listen to their

sermon for fifteen minutes before you get the food and try to guiltily force you

to join their church; the church that refers to the people in line by a number,

etc. etc.

Now, don't I sound like a spoiled brat? Just send me my check and let me

decide for myself what to eat and leave the damn sermons out of it!

Nanne

because I know from experience: there's a big emotional difference

between getting an envelope of food stamps from the government and

receiving a " care package " from someone who cares about you as an

actual human being and is trying to be helpful.

October 3, 2002

Yuck! OK, I agree with you on that, then. If this has been your

experience, I can certainly understand your being turned off. I

would be, too. Apparently, even among those who are trying to do

good (or at least think they are), there is still a widespread lack

of understanding that caring and support must be given freely, with

no strings attached, and with absolutely no expectation of anything

in return -- otherwise, it isn't compassion, it's something else

(probably some form of self-interest) disguised as compassion. No

ethical credit.

----------I truly wanted to be able to tell 'Jim', at the Lester Sumrall

Christian Center, when he asked whether I had a church home.....that indeed I

had a large phallus symbol carved from a tree trunk in my back yard around which

I danced around during every full moon...... but I really needed the food.

Maybe next time.

Nanne

October 3, 2002

Parrish wrote:

> No, I'm not, not really. Any more than *I* am special for being

> there when my friends and family need *me*. It's simply the right

> thing to do, that's all. Admittedly, a healthy proportion of the

> human race doesn't realize that we have a moral obligation to our

> fellow man, but that doesn't mean the obligation doesn't exist -- and

> it doesn't mean that the few who *do* acknowledge the obligation are

> any more " special " than anyone else.

And if we have obligation to our fellow man, and the only way that this

obligation can

realistically be satisfied is through taxation and redistribution of a

percentage of the

tax revenue (really, only a small percentage of your taxes pay for

entitlements)... then

what is the problem? We seem to agree on the obligation to help others, and

undoubtedly

you also realize how few of the people are willing to voluntarily act upon that

obligation... so as flawed as governmental programs inherently are, it is the

only way to

take care of our own. The Mormons take care of their own, and are not in need

of

governmental intervention to take care of their own... but few of the rest of us

live up

to the obligation. And if I worked, I would donate a dime of it to charity, and

would do

all I can to legally dodge paying my taxes too. I realize the obligation, and

yet when it

comes time to pony up, I would rather let someone else pay for the obligation.

>> What if you did not have any friends when you were in trouble?

>

> I would almost certainly be dead today. What's your point?

That it is silly to let yourself die rather than take a service that is designed

to help

people that are down but not out. You bounced back-- as you would have if you

had been in

the " safety net " for a while. You would have been back in the work force,

contributing to

the tax base, and ultimately paying much more than you took out. And there

would not have

been anything morally wrong with that. What is wrong is the idea that it is so

wrong for

people to take tax money to help themselves when they need it, that they should

die instead.

>> Would you then be able to be so pleased with yourself for not

>> taking handouts?

>

> No, because as I said, I would probably not be alive to have any

> emotions at all. *shrug* And besides, I am *not* " pleased with

> myself for not taking handouts " . I considered it my moral obligation

> not to do so, and I did what I thought was my duty. Ethical behavior

> should not be a source of pride... are you proud of yourself because

> you've never murdered anyone?

No, but then I really do not do pride anyway. I can be pleased with myself, but

I do not

think it rises to the level of pride. I do as I do because I want to, not

because of some

societal obligation-- so there is no need for pride, since I just did what I

wanted, not

what others wanted, anyway.

I would demur that it was your duty not to take handouts to the point that you

would let

yourself die. That would deprive the economy of your future work efforts, and

that would

cost more in the long run than your short lived draining of the federal coffers.

Though

the multiplier effect, the dollars you have earned and spent since then have

caused much

econonic benefit to all-- not enough to where the economy would be measurably

worse if you

had died, but certainly more than a few months or years of taking a pittance

would have

done. Most people that get on welfare of some sort are not on it permanently

(note that I

exclude social security here, as it is more or less presented as old-age

insurance, not

welfare). Those that have kids as a career move to get more AFDC are abusing

the system,

but that does not mean that the whole safety net should be scrapped.

> OK, I guess I can understand why you'd think that, so let me expand a

> bit: I am opposed to *publicly funded* assistance of this kind, not

> private organizations or individual help.

Well, look around-- there is not enough money to go round privately.

Collectively,

society cares about the less fortunate, in the form of supporting politicians

that do not

want to eliminate social services. Individually, there are not enough

contributions to go

round, and there would not be that much more if people had the reduced tax

burden of

having less entitlements. I remember when I was arguing on your side, in 1990--

I saw how

small a percentage of the national budget is in entitlements, and I could see

that the

average person's tax burden would change only a tiny amount. People would not,

on an

individual basis, have so much more money that they would suddenly go out and

donate to

charity-- they would buy a bigger SUV or a bigger house, and people that are not

as

fortunate as you to have friends when they are down-but-not-out would just have

to commit

suicide to avoid starving.

Of course, the slightly lower tax rates could conceivably cause the economy to

do a bit

better too, thus increasing wealth and reducing all of the negative economic

indicators,

but I seriously doubt if people would be donating all of that extra money to

charity to

help the less fortunate. In the 1980s, when the rising tide of the economy

caused

personal income to rise across the board, the trend was of conspicuous

consumption and of

ignoring the less fortunate. Even if conspicuous consumption has passed from

favor, the

fact that charitable donations are ephemeral and unreliable must never be

forgotten. I

mean, look at how much blood banks need donations, how many people are waiting

for organ

donations for transplant. Neither costs anything-- the former costs the donator

no

opportunity cost other than an hour of time, and the latter only happens after

you are

dead (with a few exceptions, of course)... and still there is not enough.

Expecting

people to pony up the cold hard cash to support the less fortunate is

unrealistic. When

the burden is shared across 100% of the work force, the burden per individual is

miniscule, but to get the same benefits to the people that need them, but only

from those

that are willing to make donations... well, they would have to make some rather

painful

contributions. People, self included, are too selfish to ever allow voluntary

contribution workable reliably.

> Governments are

> notoriously bad at most of the things that they try to do, and they

> are also notoriously bad at wasting tremendous amounts of money when

> they do it.

Very true, and if there was a better way, I would be all for it.

> Also, I have a problem with people being required to

> support causes or programs to which they object, which is what

> happens when tax dollars are used toward publicly funded programs.

This is why I do not support the NEA or publicly-funded political talk... but

try to

curtail either of those and the accusations of censorship fly. I am not in

favor of

censoring them, but I do not consider them to be a justifiable use of tax

revenue.

However, the actual burden of those is less than entitlements.

> Private charities, however, are another matter: they tend to be much

> better run, and they are supported by people who *want* to support

> them.

And as such, regularly run out of money and turn away people that need help,

because they

have no other choice.

> Ditto for individuals helping other individuals. In addition,

> this is more personal -- it comes from your friend, your neighbor, or

> at least someone in your local community. I can tell you that

> whenever *I* ask for help (in any area) I always feel a lot better

> about going to someone I know or like or feel a connection with

> rather than some marble building in Washington -- maybe others are

> different, I don't know.

I much prefer it to come from an impersonal government. I do not like that

personal touch

in general. I hate it when I must run the gauntlet of a fossilized oldster

trying to

greet me as I enter a Wal-Mart. I hate being called by name, especially by

people that do

not know me. That personal crap is horrible, and I do not want some charity or

friend

looking over my shoulder to see if I am spending their donation wisely.

> Capisce? Please take my word for it

> because I know from experience: there's a big emotional difference

> between getting an envelope of food stamps from the government and

> receiving a " care package " from someone who cares about you as an

> actual human being and is trying to be helpful.

There is no difference for me, other than with food stamps, I can choose what I

want to

buy, and with a gift of food, I end up having to take whatever they give. And

the gift

from friends or family ultimately comes with strings attached, and I would

rather not

worry about that. I do not feel obligated to reciprocate if someone gives me

something.

I make it abundantly clear that I will not give Christmas or birthday gifts, but

I will

cheerfully accept them if offered. And I do get gifts from people, and if I

return them,

it is because I wish to give a gift, not out of a sense of obligation. I simply

do not

feel obligation... I feel little gratitude and no compulsion to do nice things

for people

simply because they have done them for me. If I do something for someone, it is

because I

want to, which is not related to whether they have given anything to me. This

is

maddening to people like my parents who have done a lot for me, and whom I have

often

turned down when asked to do favors that were not convenient for me. I need not

have that

same strife from friends or family instead of a cold governmental entity that

knows me as

xxx-xx-xxxx.

> You will likely object at this point that there is not enough

> compassion in the world to go around. You're probably right, and I

> don't know what to do about that.

Fortunately, others did know, and it is governmental entitlements. It is the

least of the

evils as far as this issue is concerned. It is the only way to cover the

monetary needs

of the less fortunate. Voluntary contribution will not be enough, and will tend

to drop

at the worst possible time-- when the economy drops, when the need of the

unfortunate is

greatest.

> I suspect that it would involve --

> ahem -- raising our children well and instilling them with strong

> values. However, I am not a parent and never will be, so that's not

> much more than speculation.

Perhaps, but the western culture is moving in the opposite direction. It is not

terribly

likely to make entitlements unnecessary any time soon.

> My apologies to you and to anyone on the list I may have offended

> with my vehemence. I very rarely lose my temper in this manner -- I

> haven't done it in over six years, in fact -- and will endeavor not

> to do so again.

Thank you. I know it is hard to stay civil when you are passionate about

something... I

have messed up in this area too, certainly.

October 3, 2002

I think more along the lines of socialism or communism. I have been a

" have " (with rich parents... Dad very stingy but Mum would give me

anything I wanted no matter the cost really.. she was abusive in her own

ways)... and I have been a " have not " , living in homeless youth refuges

and staying longer than strictly necessary in state psychiatric

hospitals because I had nowhere else to go.

Private organisations giving social security would be a really screwed

up idea. They would run out of funds quickly and I fail to see how they

would do better at sifting out who really does or does not need the

payments. If it was up to individual friends and neighbours or family...

well all my " family " has either been jailed for child abuse or deserves

to be, I have not one single " friend " other than people from autism/AS

lists, chronic illness lists (who I met via discussion about physical

illnesses) or a schizophrenia chat room that I co-manage. I have not

even met the people who live next door to me and I am sure none of them

would give a damn if I starved or moved out back to the nuthouse or into

a refuge. They would probably be glad that the weird disabled girl with

all the home help services and respite carers coming round has gone.

I agree that sex should be done with responsibility, but that is a lot

bigger subject than just making judgement calls on those who happen to

have gotten pregnant. It comes down to education as well... and depsite

the fact that America and Australia are affluent enough countries to

have citizens that are educated about STDs and pregnancy and stuff, not

everybody has the opportunity to access that education.

Personally I think the fact that despite her mental illness and lack of

supportive family she kept her son and cares for him and gives him a

life worth living is admirable. So what if it is on social security. She

would get that anyway because of her medical state.

I see nothing wrong with the " haves " spending a little of their money on

taxes to help out the " have nots " . I do object to social security fraud

and people who do not need it claiming it, but I have no objection to

ill women getting financial support if they have children.

CZ

Parrish wrote:

>>>Yes, I leaned on

>>>my friends for help, but that was because they *were* my friends

>>

> and

>

>>>wanted to help me. That's entirely different from insisting that

>>

> I'm

>

>>>entitled to any money from Q. Taxpayer in Duluth.

>>

>>Well, you're just so special.

>

> No, I'm not, not really. Any more than *I* am special for being

> there when my friends and family need *me*. It's simply the right

> thing to do, that's all. Admittedly, a healthy proportion of the

> human race doesn't realize that we have a moral obligation to our

> fellow man, but that doesn't mean the obligation doesn't exist -- and

> it doesn't mean that the few who *do* acknowledge the obligation are

> any more " special " than anyone else.

>

>>What if you did not have any friends when you were in trouble?

>

> I would almost certainly be dead today. What's your point?

>

>>Would you then be able to be so pleased with yourself for not

>>taking handouts?

>

> No, because as I said, I would probably not be alive to have any

> emotions at all. *shrug* And besides, I am *not* " pleased with

> myself for not taking handouts " . I considered it my moral obligation

> not to do so, and I did what I thought was my duty. Ethical behavior

> should not be a source of pride... are you proud of yourself because

> you've never murdered anyone?

>

>>I concur with Nanne's comment... I don't know you either, but

>>from what you have written,

>>I definitely see the " let them eat cake " mentality.

>

> OK, I guess I can understand why you'd think that, so let me expand a

> bit: I am opposed to *publicly funded* assistance of this kind, not

> private organizations or individual help. Governments are

> notoriously bad at most of the things that they try to do, and they

> are also notoriously bad at wasting tremendous amounts of money when

> they do it. Also, I have a problem with people being required to

> support causes or programs to which they object, which is what

> happens when tax dollars are used toward publicly funded programs.

>

> Private charities, however, are another matter: they tend to be much

> better run, and they are supported by people who *want* to support

> them. Ditto for individuals helping other individuals. In addition,

> this is more personal -- it comes from your friend, your neighbor, or

> at least someone in your local community. I can tell you that

> whenever *I* ask for help (in any area) I always feel a lot better

> about going to someone I know or like or feel a connection with

> rather than some marble building in Washington -- maybe others are

> different, I don't know. Capisce? Please take my word for it

> because I know from experience: there's a big emotional difference

> between getting an envelope of food stamps from the government and

> receiving a " care package " from someone who cares about you as an

> actual human being and is trying to be helpful.

>

> You will likely object at this point that there is not enough

> compassion in the world to go around. You're probably right, and I

> don't know what to do about that. I suspect that it would involve --

> ahem -- raising our children well and instilling them with strong

> values. However, I am not a parent and never will be, so that's not

> much more than speculation.

>

>>And can you clean up the language a bit? I do not mind swearing

>>here and there, but when

>>it is directed at another list member, it is getting a little

>>close to a personal attack,

>>and that is not a good thing.

>

> My apologies to you and to anyone on the list I may have offended

> with my vehemence. I very rarely lose my temper in this manner -- I

> haven't done it in over six years, in fact -- and will endeavor not

> to do so again.

>

> --Parrish

>

October 3, 2002

Parrish wrote:

> Yuck! OK, I agree with you on that, then. If this has been your

> experience, I can certainly understand your being turned off. I

> would be, too. Apparently, even among those who are trying to do

> good (or at least think they are), there is still a widespread lack

> of understanding that caring and support must be given freely, with

> no strings attached, and with absolutely no expectation of anything

> in return -- otherwise, it isn't compassion, it's something else

> (probably some form of self-interest) disguised as compassion. No

> ethical credit.

Most " compassion " ceases to be as genuinely compassionate when it comes

to giving money or food.

I have gotten food parcels and packages as well many times. I also

experienced that living in youth refuges, most of them are run by

churches and most of them have as a house rule that you go to church.

They are generally run by the more weirdo churches like the pentecostals

or other charismatic type churches and imho they do a lot more harm than

good. Usually the homeless girls staying in these places with me (they

were single-sex places thank goodness) and I used to sneak out of the

services and go around the back to smoke marijuana. Some of the girls

got sucked into the religions and I always was glad I was not one of them.

As for what is in those food parcels... generally stuff that the rich

people do not want. When I have attended churches that collect stuff for

these types of things, people will toss in stuff that is nearly out of

date or that cost them 50 cents like pasta snack mixes and all kinds of

stuff that I cannot eat. Psychiatric hospitals (the ones paid for by the

taxpayer ) were preferable to all that.

> My own experience with this kind of thing is fairly limited and

> consisted mainly of " community dinners " and the like when I was

> living in small-town Vermont (e.g., the free Xmas breakfast at St.

> 's Presbyterian) and I was never treated anything remotely

> like this. I was always treated politely, seated, and served, and no

> one ever banged a Bible at me or anything. And it was a community-

> building event to be able to spend time talking to other folks who

> lived in the area while we ate -- hey, even an Aspie gets social

> *once* in a while...

In my experience, churches are only like that while you are a member of

the congregation. As soon as you " fall " or lose your faith they will try

to get you back and if that does not work they stop pretending to care.

Of course, I never had faith to lose, but they did not know that. I

tried very hard to emulate and fit in with the surroundings and I was

given accomodation by one of the congregation members (in return for

clandestine sex and free use of my pharmaceuticals so as to avoid having

to buy his own). I hardly thought much of those people.

Of course, there are different kinds of churches and not all of them are

full of assholes, but most are full of hypocrites.

CZ

October 3, 2002

ViridianThumm@... wrote: