Homeless People 😔 Watch

IreneAddler
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#21
Report 1 week ago
#21
(Original post by Capitalist_Lamb)
I agree a lot with that you are saying but have a few issues. First off there will always be people bringing drugs in and selling them and homeless people tends to be addicted to these substances so making the use of these substances so illegal will not help the homeless as 1 they have nothing to lose and 2 it will just make there life harder when they get out.

Second I think food in the UK is pretty daym cheap if I'm honest. You can buy a full week of food for less than £5. Yes it's not good stuff, big bag of rice, milk, eggs, bread all shop branded, not named for pennies. Another thing is that since electronics are cheap people tend to buy more off them so making them more expensive may put people off buying them all together which takes money out the economy.

You have some good ideas but just providing what I think, thanks for the read.
in what world can you do a week's worth of grocery shopping for 5 pounds?
only if you're happy to eat nothing but bread or potatoes.
0
reply
yzanne
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#22
Report 1 week ago
#22
It's not whether they deserve it, it's what conscious effort is being made to stop them being homeless, and whether they want to help themselves. In some situations, they would prefer to be on the street because of the alternative options. In others, they need physically taking and encouraging to a shelter, not just given money to prolong their time on the streets.
0
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#23
Report 1 week ago
#23
(Original post by IreneAddler)
I think no fault divorces are less harmful for the children and for the relationship of the couple in the long term and there is evidence to support that. The focus on putting blame for the deterioration of the marriage causes a lot of pain and bitterness, when in a lot of cases there isn't one guilty party.
What would you do? Remove the nhs and the welfare system? You may not like it but we can't go back in time and start tearing away institutions that support the most vulnerable.
The current government is already pretty pro marriage and family and provides tax incentives for married couples. Being in a relationship or married is already more financially beneficial than being single. But if an unhappy couple is going to get divorced then they are going to get divorced, and banning no fault marriages isn't conducive to happy marriages and families.
and what all of this has to do with homelessness anyway I really have no idea. this isnt the solution.
There are a few things I disagree with. Firstly the tax incentives for marriage are tiny. So small that barely anyone even noticed when Labour proposed to get rid of them in their 2019 manifesto. It wasn't even a news story, because they make that little difference.

I wouldn't remove the NHS or welfare system - just reposition it. So take elderly care for example. For me, the government should be there to support 100% of elderly people.. who don't have family that can support them. Right now that's not the case, its there to support every person who 'needs it' based on their own assessment. There is a line between elderly people who can't survive without social care, and elderly people who could survive without it, but would need to rely on their family more. Currently our provision is above this line with plenty of people who could be looked after by their family, relying on the state because its easier for them to do so. This has knock on effects though. The number of OAPs that live with their younger family has dropped radically in the past century, which does 3 things. 1 it weakens the family bonds, 2 it increases the demand for housing as multiple generations refuse to live together, and 3 it increases the cost to the state, by decreasing the cost to individual families.

That's just one example where you start out with a good thing.. the idea of supporting elderly people, but you can expand it to the point where it becomes a negative. Once you can get support with or without a family, what is the need for a family? Another would be support for single mothers. Once it becomes materialistically identical whether you are married or not, once of the biggest incentives to organising yourself as a family goes, what is the reason to stay together?

Families don't just form out of love.. they formed because they were a practically benificail way of organising people that led to the best life-outcomes. If you make it so that you can have similar life-outcomes without being in a family.. people will stop. People are stopping more and more every year.

As far as no-fault devorces go. Yes, kids are better off with a peaceful divorce than a messy divorce. But kids are also better off with no divorce, except in the case of abuse. Popular belief says that 'kids are better off with divorced but happy parents, than together but miserable parents' - the problem with this though is that its based on a misconception that getting divorced makes you happy. Again, except in the cases of abuses, there is no evidence that for most people divorcing your partner increases your long-term happiness, it just replaces one set of problems with equal set of problems. In the meanwhile the evidence that it ****s over kids is huge.

---

Why does this matter with homeless people?

Children raised in single-parent families are 8x more likely to end up homeless.

Big strong families are one of the biggest safety nets that prevents people from becoming homeless. There are many many homeless people who, if they had a family to turn to, wouldn't be on the streets. It won't solve the problem, because there are also many whose families are the problem itself (abuse and the like) but, it would help massively.
0
reply
SadiieA84
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#24
Report 1 week ago
#24
(Original post by Napp)
I'm more curious about what people suggest be done. I mean obviously the governments approach is shoddy but then again its the government, what do we expect?
More to the point is what do the people who keep saying 'more should be done' think should be done? Especially given they rarely clarify beyond the aforementioned soundbite.
What should be done is to replace the provision that was in place before the cuts. It worked.
0
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#25
Report 1 week ago
#25
(Original post by Capitalist_Lamb)
I agree a lot with that you are saying but have a few issues. First off there will always be people bringing drugs in and selling them and homeless people tends to be addicted to these substances so making the use of these substances so illegal will not help the homeless as 1 they have nothing to lose and 2 it will just make there life harder when they get out.

Second I think food in the UK is pretty daym cheap if I'm honest. You can buy a full week of food for less than £5. Yes it's not good stuff, big bag of rice, milk, eggs, bread all shop branded, not named for pennies. Another thing is that since electronics are cheap people tend to buy more off them so making them more expensive may put people off buying them all together which takes money out the economy.

You have some good ideas but just providing what I think, thanks for the read.
I think on your first part, I agree. Being stricter on drugs wouldn't help those already homeless.. but it could help deter people from trying in the first place, avoiding them a problem later in life.

For the second, £5 seems a little extreme to me, but looking at the cost of living index for the UK, we certainly need to spend more of our wage on food than other nations.
0
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#26
Report 1 week ago
#26
(Original post by AngryRedhead)
There's nothing stopping people now from supporting other members of their family even with divorces; marriage isn't inherently good in any case. I don't see a correlation between them. All removing no fault divorce would do is force people who are in miserable or abusive marriages to stay together, to the detriment of society and their children
I don't think anyone would want people to stay in abusive marriages - afteral then that's a criminal case where the abusive member should be jailed, let alone divorced.

Miserable marriages? Yes, they should stay together. Make it work, like they used to.. couples before found ways to live together and overcome problems.. now they just run away from them, tricking themselves into thinking that the next marriage won't have them. Then they marry again (if they are lucky) and find that it has just as many problems as the last.. but this time, they aren't as niave and most just put up with it and stay together (hence, devorce rates of second marriages are surprisingly lower than first marriages).

Marriage was never about making you happy. Thats a 20th century misinterpretation and romantisation of what marriage was about. Marriages are practical agreements. they existed because in the old-days both parties and their children would be matterially and pratically better together than apart. The woman recieved security, wealth, saftey for her children.. the man recieved the ability to reproduce/sexual satisfaction, care in his elderly years.. the children were provided with the most optimal place to grow.. it worked for all.

I get why people don't want to get married today. First we tell them that its all about being happy.. which 100% of married couples realise isn't true after a few years. Marriages don't make you happy.. they are hard work, and the only rewarding parts are produced by the (disproportionate) effort you put into them. And secondly we create a society where almost all of the pracitcal benifits, like the ones I listed above), are gone. The final one that we can't replace (that children are better off) we kid ourselves, despite what the research says, into believing isn't really that important.

So in the end.. the practical reasons that people used to get married for.. are gone.
And the new reasons that we replaced them with - it will bring you happiness.. is a lie.
So why get married at all these days?

If we are to take marriage for what it meant back when it was relevant - then you can't have no-fault divorces, as the possibility of divorce undermines the long-term piratical benefits.

If we take marriage for what it means now.. something to do because it makes you happy.. then you can have no fault devorces.. but by this point, what is the point? Its now just an exercise of tradition, and doesn't actually mean anything.. you've removed so much of what marriage actually meant to society, that why even have it? Just be a couple.. be together.. have a celebration of your love.. and then seperate without all the legal bother when you want to.. easy and simple.
0
reply
IreneAddler
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#27
Report 1 week ago
#27
(Original post by fallen_acorns)
There are a few things I disagree with. Firstly the tax incentives for marriage are tiny. So small that barely anyone even noticed when Labour proposed to get rid of them in their 2019 manifesto. It wasn't even a news story, because they make that little difference.

I wouldn't remove the NHS or welfare system - just reposition it. So take elderly care for example. For me, the government should be there to support 100% of elderly people.. who don't have family that can support them. Right now that's not the case, its there to support every person who 'needs it' based on their own assessment. There is a line between elderly people who can't survive without social care, and elderly people who could survive without it, but would need to rely on their family more. Currently our provision is above this line with plenty of people who could be looked after by their family, relying on the state because its easier for them to do so. This has knock on effects though. The number of OAPs that live with their younger family has dropped radically in the past century, which does 3 things. 1 it weakens the family bonds, 2 it increases the demand for housing as multiple generations refuse to live together, and 3 it increases the cost to the state, by decreasing the cost to individual families.

That's just one example where you start out with a good thing.. the idea of supporting elderly people, but you can expand it to the point where it becomes a negative. Once you can get support with or without a family, what is the need for a family? Another would be support for single mothers. Once it becomes materialistically identical whether you are married or not, once of the biggest incentives to organising yourself as a family goes, what is the reason to stay together?

Families don't just form out of love.. they formed because they were a practically benificail way of organising people that led to the best life-outcomes. If you make it so that you can have similar life-outcomes without being in a family.. people will stop. People are stopping more and more every year.

As far as no-fault devorces go. Yes, kids are better off with a peaceful divorce than a messy divorce. But kids are also better off with no divorce, except in the case of abuse. Popular belief says that 'kids are better off with divorced but happy parents, than together but miserable parents' - the problem with this though is that its based on a misconception that getting divorced makes you happy. Again, except in the cases of abuses, there is no evidence that for most people divorcing your partner increases your long-term happiness, it just replaces one set of problems with equal set of problems. In the meanwhile the evidence that it ****s over kids is huge.

---

Why does this matter with homeless people?

Children raised in single-parent families are 8x more likely to end up homeless.

Big strong families are one of the biggest safety nets that prevents people from becoming homeless. There are many many homeless people who, if they had a family to turn to, wouldn't be on the streets. It won't solve the problem, because there are also many whose families are the problem itself (abuse and the like) but, it would help massively.
I think we have some fundamentally different ideas which aren't going to be reconciled by debating it any further.
I disagree that people should stay in miserable marriages for the sake of the children. Everyone would just be miserable then. My mother was infinitely happier when she divorced my father. I was raised in a single parent household, and I'm fine.
Young people have it hard enough as it is without having to support their aging parents as well. How is anyone supposed to make anything of themselves if they have to care for elderly relatives? No. They still have an important emotional role to play but financial and medical support is another matter.
Social care is hard enough to get as it is anyway. I wouldn't want to make it any harder. It wouldn't help anyone.
There was a strong sense of family and community in the 18th century. People were homeless back then as well and many more were poor and living in pigsties.
Last edited by IreneAddler; 1 week ago
1
reply
username1539513
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#28
Report 1 week ago
#28
(Original post by IreneAddler)
I think we have some fundamentally different ideas which aren't going to be reconciled by debating it any further.
I disagree that people should stay in miserable marriages for the sake of the children. Everyone would just be miserable then. My mother was infinitely happier when she divorced my father. I was raised in a single parent household, and I'm fine.
Young people have it hard enough as it is without having to support their aging parents as well. How is anyone supposed to make anything of themselves if they have to care for elderly relatives? No. They still have an important emotional role to play but financial and medical support is another matter.
Social care is hard enough to get as it is anyway. I wouldn't want to make it any harder. It wouldn't help anyone.
PRSOM, I was raised by a single parent and got better grades and behaved better than many people at my school that had two parents growing up. I've also helped out a few friends who were at danger of becoming homeless who were from nuclear families with married parents and none of that seemed to make any difference, in fact in one instance the parents were responsible for putting him in danger of homelessness
0
reply
IreneAddler
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#29
Report 1 week ago
#29
(Original post by AngryRedhead)
PRSOM, I was raised by a single parent and got better grades and behaved better than many people at my school that had two parents growing up. I've also helped out a few friends who were at danger of becoming homeless who were from nuclear families with married parents and none of that seemed to make any difference, in fact in one instance the parents were responsible for putting him in danger of homelessness
I can't imagine growing up with my parents together and feuding all the time.
0
reply
username1539513
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#30
Report 1 week ago
#30
(Original post by fallen_acorns)
I don't think anyone would want people to stay in abusive marriages - afteral then that's a criminal case where the abusive member should be jailed, let alone divorced.

Miserable marriages? Yes, they should stay together. Make it work, like they used to.. couples before found ways to live together and overcome problems.. now they just run away from them, tricking themselves into thinking that the next marriage won't have them. Then they marry again (if they are lucky) and find that it has just as many problems as the last.. but this time, they aren't as niave and most just put up with it and stay together (hence, devorce rates of second marriages are surprisingly lower than first marriages).

Marriage was never about making you happy. Thats a 20th century misinterpretation and romantisation of what marriage was about. Marriages are practical agreements. they existed because in the old-days both parties and their children would be matterially and pratically better together than apart. The woman recieved security, wealth, saftey for her children.. the man recieved the ability to reproduce/sexual satisfaction, care in his elderly years.. the children were provided with the most optimal place to grow.. it worked for all.

I get why people don't want to get married today. First we tell them that its all about being happy.. which 100% of married couples realise isn't true after a few years. Marriages don't make you happy.. they are hard work, and the only rewarding parts are produced by the (disproportionate) effort you put into them. And secondly we create a society where almost all of the pracitcal benifits, like the ones I listed above), are gone. The final one that we can't replace (that children are better off) we kid ourselves, despite what the research says, into believing isn't really that important.

So in the end.. the practical reasons that people used to get married for.. are gone.
And the new reasons that we replaced them with - it will bring you happiness.. is a lie.
So why get married at all these days?

If we are to take marriage for what it meant back when it was relevant - then you can't have no-fault divorces, as the possibility of divorce undermines the long-term piratical benefits.

If we take marriage for what it means now.. something to do because it makes you happy.. then you can have no fault devorces.. but by this point, what is the point? Its now just an exercise of tradition, and doesn't actually mean anything.. you've removed so much of what marriage actually meant to society, that why even have it? Just be a couple.. be together.. have a celebration of your love.. and then seperate without all the legal bother when you want to.. easy and simple.
The difference between outcomes of children of single parents and those of children of two parents is at best a couple of percentage points as far as I've seen. An attentive caring single parent will raise a better child than two parents who are too busy arguing and embroiled in conflict to pay attention to their children. My girlfriend is from one such family and can vividly recall being traumatised from a very young age caused by her parents arguing. I'm not entirely sure you are correct
0
reply
Capitalist_Lamb
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#31
Report 1 week ago
#31
(Original post by IreneAddler)
in what world can you do a week's worth of grocery shopping for 5 pounds?
only if you're happy to eat nothing but bread or potatoes.
That's what I mean. You can buy rice for nothing, sauce too, eggs are pretty cheap depending where you buy and bread too. I didn't say it was luxury but it's just enough to survive for a week for one person.
0
reply
IreneAddler
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#32
Report 1 week ago
#32
(Original post by Capitalist_Lamb)
That's what I mean. You can buy rice for nothing, sauce too, eggs are pretty cheap depending where you buy and bread too. I didn't say it was luxury but it's just enough to survive for a week for one person.
Fruit and veg? Meat and poultry? Dairy?
Come on. You survive on just that and you get scurvy. Its not enough.
0
reply
Capitalist_Lamb
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#33
Report 1 week ago
#33
(Original post by fallen_acorns)
I think on your first part, I agree. Being stricter on drugs wouldn't help those already homeless.. but it could help deter people from trying in the first place, avoiding them a problem later in life.

For the second, £5 seems a little extreme to me, but looking at the cost of living index for the UK, we certainly need to spend more of our wage on food than other nations.
£5-10 then depending on where you live. Where I am food is pretty cheap, the expensive part is accomodation.
0
reply
Hudds999
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#34
Report 1 week ago
#34
Always makes me sad when I see homeless people around, especially this time of year like. No idea how to solve the issue though, I try and give them a pound or 2 if I see any round town but I always think afterwards what if they spent that money on cigs or whatnot? The best way I think is to buy them food and water but I don’t always have the time to do that.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (362)
66.91%
No (179)
33.09%

Watched Threads

View All