![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Triggered by
Shall remain anon:
Me:
- the thread is still going; not real conversations (and no flames) and a balance of new people stopping in to either report their own giving (positive) or digitally spit on those who have no presence there to defend themselves (negative)
Shall remain anon:
These were not cheap old cell phones, next time I see a beggar at Riccarton I will check to see if he needs money for food or to top his cell phone up, after all he may what to call his stock broker
Me:
So what if they were not cheap or old? If the individual has managed to save up enough to by a good cell phone which will possibly last several years instead of a cheap one or hand-me-down which may crap out in a few months why not? Compared to an example alternative of "burning" that money for a few nights accommodation in a hostel or continuing to save for a flat bond when you have no guarantee of being able to maintain rent - or even being accepted for a flat being that you are an "undesirable"with no references competing in a crowded market - spending on something with immediate and lasting utility seems a perfectly rational decision and a clear sign that they are not likely to "waste any money you give them on booze and drugs".
What really irks me about your post though is it smacks not just of "poor people shouldn't be able to afford nice things" but of "poor people shouldn't be *allowed* to have nice things". If they're spending their days begging it's a given that their life is not particularly pleasant to begin with; they have managed to acquire /one nice thing/ in that otherwise shit life and *you* want to /take that away from them/ again?
- the thread is still going; not real conversations (and no flames) and a balance of new people stopping in to either report their own giving (positive) or digitally spit on those who have no presence there to defend themselves (negative)
