i am not sure where your link was to sorry sw.

the get out of jail card refers to a "monopoy" game rule that pretty much gets you out of all kind of trouble. you accuse people of something like not caring about others and then try to step aside by saying it is a generalization. you are leaving the door open so when anyone disagrees with your point you can say "well that particular case is not included in my generalization" or "i did not mean to include such people/events" etc. when i say we do not care about beggers because we cannot trust that they are not trying to con us instead of pointing out that that is still a sign of ambivalence in modern society regardless of my motivation you instead turn the point to a lack of caring for "personal" family and friends. to avoid bieng pulled up on this however you stick to reminding us that it is a "generalization" so if i retort you can simply say that you did not include me or my particular "care" for friends and family in your statement.

everyday millions of people around the world do nice things for others from the obvious to the innane. not least we avoid doing others harm when possible which in itself is a sign of caring. yet you still wish to cling onto individual examples of selfishness to sum up the nature of humanity as a "generalization". people do naturally protect themselves and their loved ones first no question, that does not logically extend to say that they do not care about others.

perhaps if we all gave up our nice warm houses, p.c.'s, and broadband connections and went out to save the world instead of helping we instead would join the ranks of the starving. it is easy to say i do not care because i have not sold my house and donated the procedes to charity but the benifit would be short lived and soon i too would be asking for your help. instead i work hard and do the little i can while keeping my own head above water but that does not mean i do not care.

No, I would actually argue that the majority of people really don't care. If compassion was a common trait, there wouldn't be nearly as many homeless and impoverished as there are now. People are just selfish (I don't mean ALL people, I mean people in general), too lazy to think about people in positions lower than them or people who are suffering--internally or externally. The fact that there are people who earn multi million dollar salaries and still give nothing to charity is mind boggling.

Statistically some homeless people have somewhere to go. It was on the news about 5-6 years ago. They just choose to live on the streets. With this knowledge, would you always be so quick to help someone who voluntarily puts themselves there in the first place? I think not.

Needless to say, there are some who are there for some reason or another. The underlying issue is, what put them there in the first place.

I'd give them the benefit of the doubt though. It's only fair.

Kinda got up to speed, but may have really missed some points Forgive any incorrections/already addressed areas

Sure - most people will save a baby from a fire, try and protect the weak and innocent - but that could simply be down to instincts 'built' into our brains. Its not our thought actions, its a reflex action, no real thought process involved.

Why do we scream or cry if not to attract attention and help? What would be the point in tears if not to alert others to our distress. These basic signs are inbuilt - and they have some basic reactions in all of us - only those with the pyschotic mind will ignore them! So when faced with extremes to others of our own, we will respond to aid in any way possible.We even respond to other animals distress cries, and try to aid those as well. Its a natural compassion for other living beings when they are in states of great distress or pain.

However, homeless people often do not have the screams and agony shouts of imminent life threatening situations going on, but if they do - they would certainly generate the same response to anyone else - because they are human. When it comes to a compassion of a different time, the trouble isn't imminent danger - its a long way off. If you knew a homeless person who you were walking past would die if they didn't get food - nearly every single person would help them out. However, they are not necessairly dying with an imminent threat to their lives (well, not the homeless round here in Leeds anyway, they are all beggars - and earn up to £150 a day begging on the streets - and it all feeds their drug addictions. There are charities, and services that help them out - but they tend to shun it instead....so some do chose to stay this way, because its what they want).

The reason why some don't give money - simply because we either do not believe their plight (as in Leeds!), or alternatively, its probabily more along the lines of 'someone else will sort it' - which unfortunately is a human trait worldwide.

The homeless will receive the short term help when in extreme danger - same as everyone else - its the longer term charitability that is needed which they probabily won't get. It also requires a long term commitment to help themselves as well, which many do not seem to do!

Chips, I wish you were right, I really do. But things I've seen indicate that people won't help even when there's imminent danger. Indeed, often people will not help but join in the hurt.

@ Codename - Unfort where I live, there is a real high percentage in the young homeless - who beg. It has been documented that they make enough money in 4 hours to get their drugs, and then hide out in there 'dens' and what not. Some aren't homeless, they have 'squats' or council flats.

The real homeless are no-where to be seen. I know there is a fairly good council here, who take care of the needy with shelters and such....


@Taw - guess your usual forums hangout must be down then?

They do seem to be experiencing technical difficulties.

>>But things I've seen indicate that people won't help even when there's imminent danger. Indeed, often people will not help but join in the hurt.

Couldn't agree more--speaking from experience with the ****s and assholes in high school...

@chips:

---

Sure - most people will save a baby from a fire, try and protect the weak and innocent - but that could simply be down to instincts 'built' into our brains. Its not our thought actions, its a reflex action, no real thought process involved.

---

if you retrace some of my posts (i understand you are trying to get up to speed...i hate when i come into a jucy thread half way through and have to play catch up...of course there ain't bin many of them lately) i think you might see that your point and mine are very similar. yu see i do believe that basic instinctual human nature is to help others in need, more so however is the instinct for self protection. we react naturally in an instinctive way to help save someone in a split decision but when we are given time to reflect we are more cautious simply because given the time we start to think on a less subconcious level about the various ways we have been hurt in the past and try to protect ourselves from a repeat injury.

so do we wish to help instinctively but not at our own expense?



"Time wounds all heels!"

@Druid I see what you mean.
It wasnt intended as that, I just felt that everyone is adressing only one level, and wanted to go further than that...or something I'll look at it again the weekend and confirnm


@Taw leave my typos alone P

well it seems the deleting fairy has been to visit again. comme ci, comme ca.

hmm, its has too. Really uncalled for.

*Pokes head out from shadows* You'd think that the people who are deleting posts around here would have learnt a lesson from the last "accidental" deletion. Obviously these "mysterious deleters" have learnt nothing; not that I'm surprised. What will happen now? Will these "mysterious" deletions continue? Will Eraser be forced to take the blame again if things get any worse? *Shakes head in disgust and returns to shadows*