"Please, Sir, May I Have Some More?"

Is this the headline nazi?

No soup for you!

You know who else was a Nazi?

/Quick! Let's get all the cliches out of the way!

Hey, whyworry!

W R O N G

If it's that nasty broccoli/cheese soup, no soup for me.

News: Direct link between numbers of people who view Fark and number of people who view Seinfeld.

/NO SOUP FOR YOU!

No Soup for You! Come back one year!

Your homeless want soup.

whyworry: "Please, Sir, May I Have Some More?"

This was actually my first thought too. Try reading a book sometime, cockbites.

jiyuu_musouka: whyworry: "Please, Sir, May I Have Some More?"

This was actually my first thought too. Try reading a book sometime, cockbites.

...What? Isn't that exactly what subby was pointing out?

Does NOT approve...

jiyuu_musouka: It could be one of the two or any number of other things however discreet! Try being less of a cockbite sometime, cockbite.

"can I have some bread?"

"Let them eat cake"

I am sitting naked eating some campbell's chicken nude-l, so I am getting a kick out of some of these replies.

kilgorn: Does NOT approve...

But for history to resume it's proper shape, Edith Keeler must die!

Conservative Angela Harvey, the council's cabinet member for housing, objects to the large numbers of volunteers who converge on central London to hand out free food and drinks to the homeless.

Are there no poorhouses?
Are there no prisons**?

**there are but they are full of "War On Drugs" collateral damage...

Season's greetings, everyone!

jiyuu_musouka: whyworry: "Please, Sir, May I Have Some More?"

This was actually my first thought too. Try reading a book sometime, cockbites.

Hi! Submitter here. Just wanted to confirm that it was the Soup Nazi I was thinking of, and not Oliver Twist. For one, because Oliver Twist didn't ask for more soup, but gruel (an oats/water/milk porridge-like concoction).

You knew that, right?

Article headline: "Do soup kitchens help the homeless?"

No. No, they don't. Giving food to homeless people only prolongs the disaster that is their lives. It attracts more bums to the area, which in turn causes crime to rise. People who are temporarily homeless don't need the long-term support network, and the permanently-homeless are that way either because they choose to be, or because they are mentally ill.

In the former case, we owe them nothing. In the latter, we need to bring back asylums and get those people off the street.

I, for one, would like to welcome our new cockbiting overlords.

Ral: No. No, they don't. Giving food to homeless people only prolongs the disaster that is their lives. It attracts more bums to the area, which in turn causes crime to rise. People who are temporarily homeless don't need the long-term support network, and the permanently-homeless are that way either because they choose to be, or because they are mentally ill.

In the former case, we owe them nothing. In the latter, we need to bring back asylums and get those people off the street.

Very good troll, 8.5/10. Good to see that you actually got much of your material from TFA. However, you lost some credit for saying that asylums no longer exist, even though they still do.

/At least in the US

Ral
There's a nice comfy place in hell waiting for you.. next to the furnace.

Fark you.

So, let me ask you something - these people eat soup three times a day?

Ral: No. No, they don't. Giving food to homeless people only prolongs the disaster that is their lives. It attracts more bums to the area, which in turn causes crime to rise. People who are temporarily homeless don't need the long-term support network, and the permanently-homeless are that way either because they choose to be, or because they are mentally ill.

In the former case, we owe them nothing. In the latter, we need to bring back asylums and get those people off the street.

What, no billygoats to play with today?

When did cockbite become the new moran?

/geez louise, my TF expires for ONE DAY due to lack of funds at Christmas, and I'm already out of the loop...

Ral:

And Merry Christmas to you!

And Merry Christmas Festivus to you!

FTFY.

angrymacface: Edith Keeler must die!

That's the name of my new band!

costas: t was the Soup Nazi I was thinking of, and not Oliver Twist

I think you're wrong, most likely the subster was alluding to Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" which is chock full of amusing quotes.

"If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."

FrostedBytes: Ral
There's a nice comfy place in hell waiting for you.. next to the furnace.

Fark you.

I love it when anyone with an alarm clock and a paystub is automatically trolling.

Fireproof
Ral: No. No, they don't. Giving food to homeless people only prolongs the disaster that is their lives. It attracts more bums to the area, which in turn causes crime to rise. People who are temporarily homeless don't need the long-term support network, and the permanently-homeless are that way either because they choose to be, or because they are mentally ill.

In the former case, we owe them nothing. In the latter, we need to bring back asylums and get those people off the street.

Very good troll, 8.5/10. Good to see that you actually got much of your material from TFA. However, you lost some credit for saying that asylums no longer exist, even though they still do.

/At least in the US

While Ral was trolling, he is right up to a point. Helping the homeless is a good and noble thing to do, but only up to a point. San Francisco has learned that lesson. Ever since they declared themselves the friendliest town in the world for the homeless and started giving them all kinds of special benefits (like lots and lots of soup kitchens, allowing them to panhandle, banning cops from preventing them from sleeping in public parks, giving them direct subsidies from the city treasury, etc.) the city has seen a meteoric rise in the number of homeless people in their city. Obviously the policies are not creating more homeless people, that would be asinine to claim, however the policies are drawing homeless people to San Francisco like stoners to a Grateful Dead reunion. It is also increasingly rare to find a homeless person in San Francisco who is looking for work rather than a handout, not because the handouts are causing them to no longer look for work, but because the type of homeless person who would travel hundreds of miles to get to San Francisco isn't the one that is really looking to make a major change and get back on their feet, they are the ones looking for a free meal and nothing more.

It's not that this kind of thing changes the people who partake in it, it simply attracts more of the people that are already that way.

Declining Marginal Utility, the ultimate law of economics, the more of something you get, the less additional benefit you get from an additional unit of that thing.

angrymacface: Edith Keeler must die!

Everybody sing!

CAIAPHAS: Fools, you have no perception!
The stakes we are gambling are frighteningly high!
We must crush her completely,
So like John before her, Edith Keeler must die.
For the sake of the nation, Edith Keeler must die.

ALL: Must die, must die, this Edith must die.

CAIAPHAS: So like John before her, Edith Keeler must die.

ALL: Must die, must die, this Edith must, Edith must, Edith must die!

In answer to the question of what the subby was referring to.

"Please sir, I want some more" is a quote about a request for more soup, so while the reply to the question in that quote deals with the denial of soup, the quote itself implies that soup was granted at first but ran out, so there is no denial in the quote.

"No soup for you", Is all about soup denial.

QED

RickyRoma: FrostedBytes: Ral
There's a nice comfy place in hell waiting for you.. next to the furnace.

Fark you.

I love it when anyone with an alarm clock and a paystub is automatically trolling.
My Word! Someone actually objects to Urban Campers.
Your newsletter please.

Ral: Article headline: "Do soup kitchens help the homeless?"

No. No, they don't. Giving food to homeless people only prolongs the disaster that is their lives. It attracts more bums to the area, which in turn causes crime to rise. People who are temporarily homeless don't need the long-term support network, and the permanently-homeless are that way either because they choose to be, or because they are mentally ill.

In the former case, we owe them nothing. In the latter, we need to bring back asylums and get those people off the street.

This may be a troll, but I think enough of the points are serious that it's worth responding to.

1. My impression of soup kitchens (based on an admittedly limited amount of time volunteering) is that most of their patrons fall in one of three groups: the hard-core homeless, who are mostly mentally ill or substance abusers; recent immigrants, who are not yet well-integrated into U.S. society; and single mothers and their children. The latter two groups just need the free meals for a limited period of time, until they can get on their feet. The hard-core homeless will not be getting back on their feet. It is only for them that soup kitchens are a long-term support network.

2. We took most mentally ill people (those who are not a danger to themselves or to others) out of asylums partly because of the questionable justification for depriving them of their civil liberties and partly because asylums are really expensive to operate - much more so than soup kitchens. Re-institutionalizing the mentally ill would not only require changes in the law, it would require vast increases in spending. Is that really what you want?

3. It is true that high levels of support for the homeless will attract more homeless to the area, not because people voluntarily choose to become homeless, but because they will migrate to areas where they are provided more support. This is seen, for example, in San Francisco and Key West.

4. The implication of your post is that the long-term homeless who are not mentally ill should just die. It is an implication with which most of us do not feel comfortable.

Nice variation on a theme submitter

jiyuu_musouka: whyworry: "Please, Sir, May I Have Some More?"

This was actually my first thought too. Try reading a book sometime, cockbites.

RvB?

You can pay the taxes for the asylums.
OR
You can pay the taxes for the law enforcement.

Anyway you slice it, there's a segment of the population that everyone else will have to support because they're incapable/unwilling to do so for themselves. There's just no getting away from it.

Me, I'd rather pay for treatment, I think it's much cheaper in the long run.

If that's the humane thing to do then whatever.
I just support no bums peeing in my park.

And you see people without sleeping bags, and they're just shaking all night.
These people don't need soup. They need better fart sacks.

modest proposal: use the homeless as our new source of renewable energy. it's cheap and makes our cities nicer to live in.


/death to slashies

kilgorn: Does NOT approve...

"Fascinating"...probably one of the top ten episodes of Star Trek TOS, IMO.

For Farkers interested in perspective on the conditions of homelessness and poverty, I would recommend the following:

Down and Out in Paris and London - George Orwell

The Road to Wigan Pier - George Orwell

The People of the Abyss - Jack London

patrox89: modest proposal: use the homeless as our new source of renewable energy. it's cheap and makes our cities nicer to live in.


/death to slashies


You got any resin?

If they're going to die then they'd best get on with it, and help decrease the surplus population.

/Bah
//humbug
///is a grasping, clutching, covetous old sinner.

"The majority will not be rough sleepers... you see them going off with large carrier bags stuffed full of food which is for them and their house mates. We know they are in work and housed."

I assume this means that some folks with a job are taking handouts they're not qualified for, and, by doing this, are going to ruin it for everyone.

We had something like that happen around here. A lot of homeless were standing out with cardboard signs, begging for money. Some bright boys that lived near by saw nice folks stopping to give the occasional homeless man some bucks and decided that they wanted some free money also. So, they made signs and dressed poor and stood out by the roads on their time off.

They made money. Enough for them to do it rather frequently, until someone caught on -- probably because they were bragging about their free beer money -- and the law and the press got involved.

Naturally, shortly after this scam hit the papers, all sorts of folks were against the homeless begging for money.

Needless to say, stories about travelers passing through and begging churches or other charities for cash for gas and food popped up, with the usual plot that the people would refuse coupons for free food and gas from local shops. They wanted cash -- presumably for booze or drugs and would refuse the coupons.

The clowns that started this mess were not charged with anything, but while they went back to having to pay for their own beer, the general attitude became that nearly every homeless person begging for money was a scammer.

There's always those who will take advantage of any system designed to help those in need.

We've seen it with Section 8 housing. (Rental assistance.) Some single Mom gets an apartment for about $100 a month, with the State paying the landlord $200, and her boyfriend moves in rent free -- which is not allowed. Either that, or they get a roommate and charge them rent, which is undeclared profit and also not allowed.

The most outrageous one of all was when that family from New Orleans was given a new house in the state they had fled to, by a church. The family accepted ownership of it -- and never moved in. It made the news when it turned out that the man and woman had the house up for sale, having another house they had just bought or rented elsewhere. When it hit the news, the husband told the reporters on TV that, pretty much, it was their house and they could do what they wanted to with it. Then both quite well dressed people drove off in their pretty new minivan.

Many cities have soup kitchens that are located in buildings and open up early. Most don't mind it if some folks who are employed but making very little drop by for free food.

However, you can't hurt the folks who really need the hot food just because of a greedy few who take advantage of the situation.

When I first became disabled, I used the free or nearly free services of the Public Health Department, and quickly noticed that when I drove up in my rusty and old -- but paid off -- car, wearing worn Walmart jeans and shirt and cheap sneakers, there were those folks who parked their new or nearly new cars in the back of the parking lot. Many had these expensive rims on them and those obscenely loud, expensive stereo systems.

The occupants would hop out and go get free medical care and medication. A few at least had the courtesy to dress poor. Others walked in quite well dressed, sporting expensive cell phones -- which they made a point of using in the outside waiting area.

I could barely afford my regular land line phone and wondered how these folks could get those expensive, top of the line cells.

Later, I learned about the scams people would pull to get welfare money and free or low cost medical care. They did not care one little bit that they were hurting the folks who actually needed it.

Ral: Article headline: "Do soup kitchens help the homeless?"

No. No, they don't. Giving food to homeless people only prolongs the disaster that is their lives. It attracts more bums to the area, which in turn causes crime to rise. People who are temporarily homeless don't need the long-term support network, and the permanently-homeless are that way either because they choose to be, or because they are mentally ill.

In the former case, we owe them nothing. In the latter, we need to bring back asylums and get those people off the street.

THIS!

I farking hate how the homeless apologists always say "You're only a hair away from homelessness yourself." Bullshiat! I am not rich by any stretch. But I do this silly thing called save. If I suddenly was unable to work, my family could survive for about a year without anyone having to get a job. In this town you can find a job easier than a place to stay so if we ended up homeless it would be our own damned fault.

The homeless problem is a biatch of a problem though. I mean I would be quite happy to let the lazy ones die in the street. It would raise the cost of street cleaning for awhile but then they'd be gone. The crazies I do feel sorry for. Perhaps we're going about it wrong? Maybe we should build a theme park where the crazies can live safely behind glass with their wants looked after. Then you open the park to the public, like a zoo. Charge admission and have all the really energetic crazies as far from the entrance as possible so people have to go through and see 'em all. No one would ever go for a solution like that though.

The problem with the crazies is they will never contribute anything but it isn't their fault. The best thing for them would be to have then evaluated by a shrink, deemed incompetent if indeed they are unable to care for themselves and then lock them away in an asylum where they can spend their time mumbling incoherently in safety.

Though it might be funny to give the really really insane ones a TV show.

Really? No one yet?