Why do some people value the life of a dog over a homeless person?

[Nev]

If a dog is found whining and unattended on the street, someone is bound to
take it in and inform the RSPCA (Royal Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals), who will come and collect it and give it a home in the
warm. Not so with our own animal species and I sometimes wonder why some
of the homeless are left to die from the cold. Why is it that human beings
have so little love for each other that they value the life of a dog above
that of their own kind?

 

[the number 42]

Why is it that human beings
have so little love for each other that they value the life of a dog above
that of their own kind?

I think its because we tend to blame the person for getting themselves homeless, whereas we tend to blame the dog's owners for the dog being homeless i.e. being homeless is not the dog's fault, but being homeless is the homeless person's own fault.

 

[russ_watters]

People also have freedom - you can't forceably remove someone from the street unless they are breaking the law.

 

[arildno]

I think its because we tend to blame the person for getting themselves homeless, whereas we tend to blame the dog's owners for the dog being homeless i.e. being homeless is not the dog's fault, but being homeless is the homeless person's own fault.

Even if this were true (it is, in fact, simplistic, and not particularly deep), your argumentation is wholly inadequate.
russ' view is much more to the point.

 

[the number 42]

Even if this were true (it is, in fact, simplistic, and not particularly deep), your argumentation is wholly inadequate.
russ' view is much more to the point.

How very sad. I was trying to keep it simple for those who aren't familiar with attribution theory. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9246880&dopt=Citation

I've got an idea, why don't we just stick 'em all in camps, with all those other social undesirables?

 

[Gonzolo]

One major difference is that the homeless can ask for directions to shelters, not the dog. Also consider that the statistics for RSPCA finding homes are not overwhelming. Reflecting on this a while will bring you somewhere in the area of russ' comment.

 

[Grogs]

One major difference is that the homeless can ask for directions to shelters, not the dog. Also consider that the statistics for RSPCA finding homes are not overwhelming. Reflecting on this a while will bring you somewhere in the area of russ' comment.

What I think you're implying (but not outright saying) is that a lot of these animals get put to sleep. This definitely wouldn't go over well with humans.

One of the sad facts of life is that there are many people in this world who are only too happy to take advantage of the generosity of others. If everyone standing on a street corner saying 'can you spare a dollar so I can get some food?' really needed a dollar to survive and was actually going to spend it on food, I don't think there would be anyone standing on street corners asking for money.

 

[jammieg]

What's really needed is the deluxe homeless survival kit/hiking pack, who says you can't be homeless in style? People are also domesticated animals.

 

[the number 42]

People also have freedom - you can't forceably remove someone from the street unless they are breaking the law.

This is from the City of Berkeley Housing Dept:

one observer of social policy in Alameda County who also provides services to homeless and other poor individuals, “In my experience, there is usually a four-tiered explanation for homelessness:
i) the precipitating cause (e.g., an eviction),
ii) the underlying cause (loss of benefits or a job),
iii) the (often unreported) fundamental personal limitation at issue (e.g., mental health issues, substance abuse, lack of education, lack of job skills), and
iv) (often unreported) contributing societal factors (racial discrimination, an unresponsive welfare system, the labor market structure for low
wage workers, etc.)”.

http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/housing/publications/ACSSS/Section5.pdf

I suggest that any person in these circumstances is much more limited in their freedom than a person who 1/ is under no threat of losing their home, 2/ is in secure employment, 3/ has no mental health problems, 4/ is not disadvantaged in other ways. I'm not saying that homeless people have no choices, but isn't anyone else even a little ashamed of the culture of 'stepping over the bum on the sidewalk'? We look at them and think: "That could never happen to me".

 

[selfAdjoint]

Well, people do, and if you look in the phone book or call your local newspaper you can find an organization you can join. In the middle west the Christian churches of many different sects have banded together to form PADS, which provides simple supper, bed and breakfast for homeless people in the wintertime. They are staffed by volunteers and supported by donations. Many of these homeless people are women with children. PADS does not accept people with known drinking problems; perhaps you should start an effort to provide shelter for them.

 

[russ_watters]

#42, I'm aware of the primary and secondary causes of homelessness, but I think "the culture of 'stepping over the bum on the sidewalk'?" is a little misleading. Few people want to give a dollar to a guy on the street because, like Grogs said, you don't really know if it'll go to good use - but a lot of people donate to charity, like SA said.

Its probably not Constitutional, but I would (probably) be in favor of forceable sheltering (sounds like prison, doesn't it?) of those with known mental health problems. But again, you provide a misleading (and dual) characterization of this: on the one hand, it gets them off the street and into a warm bed, but on the other, you characterize it as 'sticking undesirables in camps.' That's not at all what people mean when they suggest it.

Regarding your link, I consider it almost trivialy obvious that Republicans internalize problems while Democrats externalize them. Imo, that's the key difference between Democrats and Republicans (and the key flaw in modern liberalism). Since few people disagree that everyone's first responsibility is to themself, I find heavy irony in trying to spin that as a negative thing.

 

[FluidSpace]

Hi all,

Being homeless is a very terrible situation for anyone. The feeling of helplessness, hunger, and uncaring people passing by around you, is tormenting and undescribable.

One day I was curious and I met with homeless people and talked to them about their situations. I was astonished some of them were professionals and have tremendous amounts of education, like PhD's! From then on, I realized that homelessness can happen to anyone at any part of society, whether from making poor decisions in certain unfortunate circumstances (bankruptcy, accident, medical bills, military veteran, etc.) -- or just plain BAD luck!

A BIG lesson I learned from this is that make sure that you don't burn those bridges that you may have to return to someday. Well, just sharing my experience.

FluidSpace

 

[the number 42]

But again, you provide a misleading (and dual) characterization of this: on the one hand, it gets them off the street and into a warm bed, but on the other, you characterize it as 'sticking undesirables in camps.' That's not at all what people mean when they suggest it.

If you've found my posts misleading that's your problem, but I certainly haven't given a dual characterisation. I have mentioned camps, but not mentioned warm beds at all. The nearest I have got is the quote from the Housing Dept which is not about rehousing, but the causes of homelessness. I don't see what is misleading in this. Are you trying to mislead me? Somehow I find myself wasting my time trying to unravle a statement you have knotted for me.
RE: "again": please quote my initial "misleading (and dual) characterization" of this issue.

Regarding your link, I consider it almost trivialy obvious that Republicans internalize problems while Democrats externalize them

Well, this may simply be due to your status as a genius. However, I suspect you have got the wrong end of the stick when you say 'internalise' and 'externalise'.

 

[russ_watters]

However, I suspect you have got the wrong end of the stick when you say 'internalise' and 'externalise'.

From the link: "internal vs external factors."

From the dictionary:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=internalize
"incorporate within oneself"

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=externalize
"To attribute to outside causes"

essentially, then:
Internalize: blame yourself for your problems (or take credit for successes)
Externalize: blame others for your problems (or give credit for successes)

These are psychology terms with pretty clear meanings and I'm not sure why these definitions would be a source of contention, and in any case, you posted the study...

Regarding finding your post misleading. Its just a personal opinion and one I'm not inclined to defend. I'll let it go.

 

[the number 42]

From the link: "internal vs external factors."
From the dictionary:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=internalize
"incorporate within oneself"
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=externalize
"To attribute to outside causes"
essentially, then:
Internalize: blame yourself for your problems (or take credit for successes)
Externalize: blame others for your problems (or give credit for successes)

These are psychology terms with pretty clear meanings and I'm not sure why these definitions would be a source of contention, and in any case, you posted the study...

(Oh boy...) Well, you're close, but you need to look in a dictionary of psychology to understand terms used in psychology. Briefly, 'internal factors' are things like personality, whereas 'internalising' is bottling up feelings. Ditto external/externalise. In attribution theory it is not merely a case of person A always blaming things on the world, and person B on themselves. We tend to attribute another person's misfortune on internal factors (e.g. lazy), and our own misfortune on external factors (e.g. the economy). The reverse is true for successes, especially our own. This is known as a self-serving bias, and is very common, more so in Westernised people.
http://cla.libart.calpoly.edu/~cslem/Wizdemo/16-ChapterB.html

Regarding finding your post misleading. Its just a personal opinion and one I'm not inclined to defend. I'll let it go.

Very big of you - Thanks

 

[russ_watters]

(Oh boy...) Well, you're close, but you need to look in a dictionary of psychology to understand terms used in psychology. Briefly, 'internal factors' are things like personality, whereas 'internalising' is bottling up feelings. Ditto external/externalise. In attribution theory it is not merely a case of person A always blaming things on the world, and person B on themselves. We tend to attribute another person's misfortune on internal factors (e.g. lazy), and our own misfortune on external factors (e.g. the economy). The reverse is true for successes, especially our own. This is known as a self-serving bias, and is very common, more so in Westernised people.

The only real difference is that "internalizing" is me taking responsibility for my problems whereas the "internal factors" the study was about is me blaming others for their problems. Its the same concept either way - I just chose to use "internalize" and "externalize" because its easier to explain that way.

And unless one is hypocritical (and of course, I know some people are), someone who holds other people responsible for the mistakes those people make would hold themself responsible for their own mistakes.

 

[loseyourname]

If a dog is found whining and unattended on the street, someone is bound to
take it in and inform the RSPCA (Royal Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals), who will come and collect it and give it a home in the
warm. Not so with our own animal species and I sometimes wonder why some
of the homeless are left to die from the cold. Why is it that human beings
have so little love for each other that they value the life of a dog above
that of their own kind?

Dogs are a lot cheaper to care for. Plus, we kill the dogs that no one eventually picks up. Should we do that with humans as well?

 

[tomahawk]

I like the idea that Russ mentioned about camps for the homeless. In a way it would be very good for them. Have programs set up for them to get back into the working world. I have worked with the homeless for a long time now. I will say this there's two different groups of homeless. The first is the ones at the homeless shelters. For the most part those people are the good ones. The ones not at the shelters are the ones you have to watch out for. For those people are mostly drug atticts and drunks. When they look at other people they don't see another person all they see is a target. And if an oppurnity comes by their going to take advantage of that target. The people I feel sorry for are the people living in high rise condos and apartments in the uptown areas. Everyday those good people fall victim to street people. People being carjacked, robbed, assualted or their condos being broke into. After a short time most of those people realize the mistake they've made by living in the inner city. After saying this the Camps sound like a really good idea.

 

[selfAdjoint]

The people I feel sorry for are the people living in high rise condos and apartments in the uptown areas. Everyday those good people fall victim to street people. People being carjacked, robbed, assualted or their condos being broke into

The people most victimized by these predators are the "good" homeless. "But they have much less to lose!" you cry. Yes, just all of the pittance that they have. I don't like coercion, but the takers you describe are real, and society, including homeless society, needs to have them put away. Only one problem...Did you ever read Heinlein's Coventry?

 

[Loren Booda]

Over half of all homeless have a mental illness, and over half abuse substances. In the US, there are more mentally ill incarcerated than hospitalized. Our largest de facto mental institution is either the Los Angeles County Jail or Riker's Island Jail in New York. The medicated mentally ill here are more likely to be victimized than the average American, while the unmedicated mentally ill tend to act out more than the general population.

 

[Nev]

I first became homeless while in Scotland, having foolishly stretched my
credit with my bank and my credit card to the limit, and I returned to my
home town in England having had no sleep for 48 hours. I was pleased so
many people rushed to my aid. My friends shed crocodile tears and fondly
waved goodbye. My wife said I mustn't stay in the marital home, now we
were separated and she was living on income support. The DSS refused a
crisis loan and referred me to a home for the homeless which turned out
to be full. A lady from Citizens Advice recommended a place which was
all locked up, as the management were on holiday. My financial adviser
advised he couldn't arrange a loan on the equity of my home, because I
was out of work, having quit my job because of a woman who wouldn't
stop talking and interrupting my work in accounts.

There is nothing like anger to get the feet moving and I desperately wanted
away from the township I'd lived and worked in for 25 years. I was 58 and
after a lifetime in work I had nothing. I was destitute, homeless and
shunned by my own community. I was planning to take on temporary work at
the time, but was too tired and distressed to follow my application through.
Meanwhile I was told I wouldn't get dole for at least eight days, which was
too late for my needs. Thankfully, seeing my distress, my doctor gave me a
sick-note, which meant I would have some money to live and I managed to
scrounge ten pounds from my wife to keep me in food for a fortnight until
my money came through.

Luckily I had a rucksack and sleeping bag, which kept me alive for the next
few months, searching in vain for lodging in various towns in the area.
I lived on bread and jam, chocolate and orange squash, sleeping in shop
doorways, bus shelters and on grass verges and once under the arch of a
bridge which spanned a river. I stayed in youth hostels when money allowed
and switched to the dole in an effort to find a job, purchasing a jacket and
shoes from a charity shop and cleaning up my ragged appearance as best I
could, but sadly I had no success.

My feet finally took me to Cambridge, the place where once as a boy I'd
applied for a place in a college. One night it was bitterly cold, with a
chilling wind that took your breath away. There was frost in the air and
you could feel it nipping your fingers and toes. I walked along the Victoria
Road, looking for somewhere away from the wind where I wouldn't be disturbed.
At length I came across a small hospital, with its warm, welcoming lights
inside. I thought, if only they would let me in and let me sleep in some
corner or box-room away from the wind, but I knew it was hopeless. Hospitals
are not for the homeless. I turned away and found a small patch of grass
beneath some trees in the hospital grounds, hoping no-one would see me and
move me on. I had two pairs of trousers and extra socks to keep me warm in
my sleeping bag. I was luckier than some, no doubt, that night. The trees
were handy if I should have a call of nature, as the public loo was shut at
night.

In the morning I was up and away like a frightened rabbit, as I knew that
I was trespassing. I walked a mile or so to the shops to buy a cold drink
and a sandwich and waited for the loo to open. I managed to get a wash and
shave, but the water was icy cold. Then I waited to start my job selling
newspapers at a roadside kiosk. I was desperately tired, which seemed to
annoy my boss, but I don't think there were ant other contenders, as the
money wasn't too good. Sometimes I slept in the multi-storey car-park, with
cars going by till the early hours, but at least it was out of the wind.
I was hoping to save enough money for the deposit and first week's rent
on a place, which has to be paid before one can claim housing benefit.
Sadly I found that most landlords refuse to deal with anyone living on
state support. However, by this time I was becoming terribly stressed
through lack of sleep and anxiety, and after a couple of weeks in the job
my head gave in and I was taken to hospital with the first of a number of
manic attacks, when I lost all touch with reality.

After a year on pills which wrecked my confidence and my concentration, I
was given a flat by my local council. Six years on I am still on pills and
monthly injections. If I had only been given sufficient support when I
first became homeless, with dole money straight away and a bed somewhere
to rest my head, I might have obtained another job in accounts, which would
have saved the state a fortune in hospital care, housing and council tax
benefit and ongoing medical treatment.

I believe it was Margaret Thatcher who made benefit payable in arrears, out
of step with the need and I understand from my local MP that there are now
400,000 homeless in England, many herded in hostels, living on state support.
It seems to me there is no such thing as a safety net for the newcomer to
the street, or if there was I fell straight through it!

 

[the number 42]

Well done Nev. Glad you're back on your feet. Not wanting to make light of your experiences, but I bet homeless people in Southern California don't have such problems with the cold What do you think of the suggestion - fairly popular on this thread - of taking homeless people off the streets whether they are willing or not?

 

[Loren Booda]

The homeless aren't just crazy to refuse a homeless "shelter." So many there are assaulted, robbed and dehumanized as to brave the bitter elements instead.

 

[Nev]

I think those of our homeless who prefer to stay on the street should be
allowed to do so as long as they do no harm to anyone else. When they
first lost their home most of them lost their family too, and the only
family they have is the friends they have made among others in the same
situation. I also agree that some of the hostels for the homeless are
dreadful, dangerous places to live.