Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Samildanach · Oct 12, 2005, 04:24 pm

True he could be a sex addict.....and he died that day...lucky man....if there is a good way to go that definitely is up there. :)

gr8ridejester · Oct 12, 2005, 05:08 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Samildanach

True he could be a sex addict.....and he died that day...lucky man....if there is a good way to go that definitely is up there. :)

Could be...we were never told what kind of addict he was. Nor, were we told what was said in the conversation. And, he could have been given 2 cents for all we know. As I said before, it's all relative to the unknown. Who's to say what really took place with the given information?

Scribbler1 · Oct 12, 2005, 06:02 pm

Quote:

Quote by: gr8ridejester

Yes, but you never mentioned DRUG addict only "addict". Is it right to assume this is what was meant or is this a prejudgement as well?

"Drug" addict is implied as the most likely thing to kill an addict. I'm addicted to Tic Tacs but I don't think anyone will find me dead in an alley with a mouthful of them.

Scribbler1 · Oct 12, 2005, 06:05 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Samildanach

True he could be a sex addict.....and he died that day...lucky man....if there is a good way to go that definitely is up there. :)

In that case I would DEFINITELY NOT give him any money. If I want to spend money on a hooker it won't be for someone else to get any.

gr8ridejester · Oct 12, 2005, 06:29 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Scribbler1

"Drug" addict is implied as the most likely thing to kill an addict. I'm addicted to Tic Tacs but I don't think anyone will find me dead in an alley with a mouthful of them.

People choke on small objects every day.

Mindonfire · Oct 12, 2005, 11:28 pm

Quote:

Quote by: gr8ridejester

People choke on small objects every day.

Choking and overdosing are two different things

**Jack** · Oct 12, 2005, 11:46 pm

Quote:

If I want to spend money on a hooker it won't be for someone else to get any.

I'm voting "not compassionate".

gr8ridejester · Oct 13, 2005, 10:10 am

Quote:

Quote by: Mindonfire

Choking and overdosing are two different things

Overdose can be defined as an excessive quantity or amount. So, an excessive amount of Tic Tacs placed in the mouth simotaneously could result in one choking.

Samildanach · Oct 13, 2005, 11:01 am

Betcha he never eats tic tacs again after this. :)

Athena · Oct 13, 2005, 11:52 am

Both men gave of themselves by speaking with the man. They are equally good and equally faultless.

My son and daughter are recoving addicts. I am so thankful to have my son and daughter back again.

I have seen a lot of life, and realistically accept some drug addicts lives are never going to get better. For them a handout is the best their lives are going to get.

I am not God! I can not control what someone does with my good intentions. I just know I can do my best to be a good person, and then must trust good will come out of that. I am a very empathetic person. I think the wiring of the women's brains tends to make them so, especially when they use these brain path ways by being care givers. I am uncomfortable when someone is in need so I give what I can. I can also appreciate the other point of view that, it is best not to give money.

What impresses me in the moral story given, is both men spoke with the begger. Even when I have nothing to give I try to acknowledge the begger in a kind way. It is easier to give money, than to acknowledge the person and not give. The worst is to make the person feel invisible.

Scribbler1 · Oct 13, 2005, 06:05 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Samildanach

Betcha he never eats tic tacs again after this. :)

Sure I will, I'll just hire a lifeguard to hang around with me.

Sonart · Oct 13, 2005, 09:29 pm

well... now that our benefactor, after a suitable amount of time, with a patient nod here and correction there to make sure his scenerio is appropriately defined to suit his lesson, has consented to share >>The Truth<<, let's return the favor with a question of our own.

Exactly what is the difference between his compassionate non-enabler and someone who refuses to help simply because he doesn't give a rip and doesn't want to part with his cash? None that I can see. In fact, the way I see it, Mindonfire has given himself a free pass never to give money to anyone in need if he doesn't feel like it, all with a clear conscience.

Now of course, Mindon has set up his fiction for maximum permission to be judgemental. The guy's not simply a panhandler, he's a drug addict!. OOoooOooo. And we know this, of course, because Mindon made a point that our compassionate non-enabler talked to him for a few minutes, knowing that addicts invariably share their addictions with anyone that asks. And, of course, the final condemnation on anyone thinking that simply helping someone in need is compassion, the addict promptly OD's and dies, the ultimate vindication for the compassionate non-enabler.

Thus armed with a worst case scenerio, how can Mindonfire go wrong? So what if the guy wasn't a... OOoooOOOooo ...drug addict. Maybe just an alcohalic. Or mentally ill. Or medically disabled. Down on their luck. Whatever the cause, surely there's some vice that help will simply enable... they'll just buy more booze. They're dangerous. They're lazy. They should have worked harder in school.

Compassion is not about judging people, Mindonfire. This is the same attitude that's made such a mess of our 'War on Drugs'. Addicts are victims, not criminals. You can either help them, without judgement, or not help them, and simply walk away. But don't think you can salve your conscience by rationalizing that walking away is actually compassion.

.

Oct 12, 2005, 04:24 pm	#21 (permalink) (top)
Samildanach Pragmatist Location: UK London Posts: 1,979	True he could be a sex addict.....and he died that day...lucky man....if there is a good way to go that definitely is up there. :) I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs and insanity for everyone, but its always worked for me. Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime." (Ernest Hemingway)

Oct 13, 2005, 11:01 am	#29 (permalink) (top)
Samildanach Pragmatist Location: UK London Posts: 1,979	Betcha he never eats tic tacs again after this. :) I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs and insanity for everyone, but its always worked for me. Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime." (Ernest Hemingway)

Oct 13, 2005, 11:52 am	#30 (permalink) (top)
Athena Volcanic Erupter Location: Oregon Posts: 5,172	Both men gave of themselves by speaking with the man. They are equally good and equally faultless. My son and daughter are recoving addicts. I am so thankful to have my son and daughter back again. I have seen a lot of life, and realistically accept some drug addicts lives are never going to get better. For them a handout is the best their lives are going to get. I am not God! I can not control what someone does with my good intentions. I just know I can do my best to be a good person, and then must trust good will come out of that. I am a very empathetic person. I think the wiring of the women's brains tends to make them so, especially when they use these brain path ways by being care givers. I am uncomfortable when someone is in need so I give what I can. I can also appreciate the other point of view that, it is best not to give money. What impresses me in the moral story given, is both men spoke with the begger. Even when I have nothing to give I try to acknowledge the begger in a kind way. It is easier to give money, than to acknowledge the person and not give. The worst is to make the person feel invisible. Last edited by Athena; Oct 13, 2005 at 11:54 am.

Oct 13, 2005, 09:29 pm	#32 (permalink) (top)
Sonart It's simply logical Location: San Diego Posts: 4,333	well... now that our benefactor, after a suitable amount of time, with a patient nod here and correction there to make sure his scenerio is appropriately defined to suit his lesson, has consented to share >>*The Truth<<, let's return the favor with a question of our own. Exactly what is the difference between his compassionate non-enabler and someone who refuses to help simply because he doesn't give a rip and doesn't want to part with his cash? None that I can see. In fact, the way I see it, Mindonfire has given himself a free pass never to give money to anyone in need if he doesn't feel like it, all with a clear conscience. Now of course, Mindon has set up his fiction for maximum permission to be judgemental. The guy's not simply a panhandler, he's a drug addict!. OOoooOooo. And we know this, of course, because Mindon made a point that our compassionate non-enabler talked to him for a few minutes, knowing that addicts invariably share their addictions with anyone that asks. And, of course, the final condemnation on anyone thinking that simply helping someone in need is compassion, the addict promptly OD's and dies, the ultimate vindication for the compassionate non-enabler. Thus armed with a worst case scenerio, how can Mindonfire go wrong? So what if the guy wasn't a... OOoooOOOooo ...drug addict. Maybe just an alcohalic. Or mentally ill. Or medically disabled. Down on their luck. Whatever the cause, surely there's some vice that help will simply enable... they'll just buy more booze. They're dangerous. They're lazy. They should have worked harder in school. Compassion is not about judging people, Mindonfire. This is the same attitude that's made such a mess of our 'War on Drugs'. Addicts are victims, not criminals. You can either help them, without judgement, or not help them, and simply walk away. But don't think you can salve your conscience by rationalizing that walking away is actually compassion. . I don't suffer from insanity... I thoroughly enjoy it*