This goes out to all the panhandling fucks I see on a day to day basis bahaving like a pimple on the worlds asshole. You lossers are such a waste of time and space and an endless void of bullshit excuses. You guys are so full of shit and I know this from my own personal account of being homeless four times in my short life. One thing I know for a fact is that you will never starve in this country with all the soup kicthens, food banks, mobile services, community diners, drop-in centers, ect.. There is always a shelter that will put you up as long as you follow the rules. You can always have clean cloths on your back from a lot of these places, get vouchers, shower passes, laundry services. No matter what province your in your local HR provides job search resources free of charge such as internet, photo copying, faxing, job placement programs, there are even staff there onsite that will assist you with these services including help you make a professional resume. Essentiality if you did not want to spend a dim to exist you could. But I guess thats still not enough for most of you greedy, lazy, sacks of shit..Fuck You! Most of you would rather sit on the side walk for 10Hrs a day holding a stupid fucking sign you made with low brow catch line, hoping you might swindle some coin. Hey, I’m sorry your mom spanked you when you were a kid or you got teased in Junior High or your last boss was a prick.. too bad thats life. From my own personal account I have never asked a stranger for money. I have always had food , shelter and clean cloths thanks to our community services as well as the ambition to want a better life. So do society a favor, suck it up, stop expecting a hand outs and keep your two dollar fucking comments to yourself and remember this..real homeless people don’t make dumbass signs to try and be funny. —Hidden Homeless
This article appears in Jul 25-31, 2013.
WELL FUCKING SAID!!!!!!
After two visits to Haiti, I second that too. WELL FUCKING SAID!!!
Word!!!
OP speaks the truth!
I’m a firm believer in a Hand Up not a Hand Out!
Spot on, OP – after working downtown for 25+ years, I don’t know how many times my size nine foot twitched to kick that fucking cup out of some lazy pissant’s hand.
There used to be a dude who did his begging at the main library, then after five or six hours sitting on the stone wall, he’d collect more coin than I used to make a day as a professional graphic designer. After a day of some hard core sitting, he’d jump into his land yacht car parked across the street and drove to his nice apartment in the South end. He was a legend back in the day and was exposed in some local rag.
And there’s the ones who have better footwear than I do. Or the privileged teens who think it’s a hoot to pretend to be homeless so they can score drug money. Or the motherfuckers who drag their poor animals into this game for sympathy – you useless twats, I have a special contempt for you. I can’t even count the number of times I had a Barrington Street bum stand behind me with his quart of Jack at the Scotia Square NSLC. It’s this type of constant mindfuckery that makes me want to spray ’em all off the sidewalk with a fire hose.
Sadly most of those people are addicted to drugs or alcohol though. That’s why they act that way. Or they have mental problems.
While I was once homeless too, for about a year and a half. I still agree with 90% of the things that you said, OP. There were a couple things that weren’t exactly true, though. You mention that you’ve had a ‘short life’ – community services that aid the homeless really put in an extra effort for younger people (and for good reason). As you get older you can fall between the cracks easier. Also, soup kitchens, shelters and food banks have their limits and do have to turn people away at times.
That said, I do hate it when someone I’ve never met comes up and asks me for money. Every dollar I have is the result of me trading time/work for money and the government takes a huge chunk in taxes off of every pay – partly to help these unfortunate people.
At the end of the day I am just glad I’m not in their shoes and – god willing – never will be.
If you can afford enough hair gel to prop up a towering mohawk…do not ask for a goddamn thing from me.
maybe they use that hair gel made famous by ‘something about mary’? its very low cost
AS my sister-in-law has been known to say:
“Have some self- respect. You’re young and healthy; you should be out there selling your body. “
I think if you’re insane (like underwear on your head, screaming about building a jesus christ rocketpack) then maybe you have a bit of a by. Because you may not be in the state of mind to understand that there is anything out there to help you. You may not realize you need help. Insane people tend to forget to eat, not sleep well, etc.
Those guys get a by.
The packs of hipsters wandering around spring garden? Fuck those guys. I ran into one guy one day with a sign that said “Need dog food” and he had a beautiful purebred huskie with him. So i said “Wow nice dog. Is he purebred?” and he said “Yeah.. he’s really special” and i said “Hm. Why would you shell out five hundred or more bucks for a pet you can’t feed?” and walked away.
Sickening.
Coastingby fine. That explains why that person has no money. But unless you’re insane, why can’t you figure out how to feed yourself instead of lying to the rest of us about what you need the money for?
I know lots of drug addicts and alcoholics that work. Whether they busk on the street or work an actual job, they work.
If you have so much of a problem with drugs or booze that you have to ask perfect strangers to fund your habit, can’t work because you’re too sick, or are unable to meet your BASIC LIFE REQUIREMENTS then get your ass into detox. We have free health care in this country. If you don’t want to quit, that’s fine but don’t ask me to help you continue. I’m happy to help anyone who wants it (drive you to detox, take you to appointments.. whatever) but i will NOT do anything to let an addiction continue.
An enabler think they are helping the addict but are enabling the addict for selfish reasons;even if they aren’t cognizant of it.
There used to a bum that sat out front of the NSLC in the south end, close to Dal, he was known throughout as the ‘pirate guy’ (bum pirate?). Basically he just sat there with a dirty beard babbling incoherently and asking for money. If you didn’t give him some he’d go ‘Yeeeeeeeaaaaargggg fucker.’ and then continue waiting patiently to repeat the cycle. But it really wasn’t a negative thing, I quite enjoyed being pirate-jeered whenever I got rum. That guy was my favourite. The song barrets privater was written about him.
I liked it until you said “low brow”
also
The economy has gone through a lot. There aren’t enough issues addressed in this post to fully win my support. Don’t get too high on the compliments from these people they also don’t impress me very much.
Judas H. Mohammed, Daniel. Do you have body issues AND a persecution complex? I’m pretty sure the OP wasn’t referring to you when he wrote “low brow”.
Did you not get that Kenner’s My First Electrolysis set that you wanted for your Bar Mitzvah? That’s on your parents, not the rest of society.
(Am I joking, or ain’t I)
For the record, some smirking little hipster cunt with a sign that reads “At least we’re not robbing you” is probably NOT getting nominated for a Leacock Award, so, yeah, ‘low brow” is a polite way to describe them.
And the fucking little trust-fund Kerouacs with their “Travelling – Need Money” signs need a size ten steel-toe up the joy canal. The ones who have the colossal gall to haul a puppy or kitten around with them need to either produce evidence of income or face criminal charges for animal neglect.
As far as those who have legitimate addiction or mental health issues there’s a real easy way to separate the wheat from the chaff. Just tell them there’s plenty of space in the shelters and offer to take them. Then point out that you can’t fuck or get high there.
Watch how many are still interested after that.
i used to be an enabler. My mother once lambasted me with the old “If everyone jumped off a bridge, would you do it?” and i said “no mom.. you know me better than that. I’d be the one in the rowboat under the bridge fishing their dumb asses out of the water”
It’s exhausting being an enabler. And it’s selfish too. I did it for my own personal reasons as much as i did it for anyone else. Never again.
I don’t like the phrase “low brow” because it implies that someone’s intelligence can be determined by how they look. By not impressed with these people I mean TRY harder, not the conclusive form of not impressed in the sense of being blatently insulting.
Danny boy hasn’t trotted out the native blood line issue for a while?
LOW BROW & HIGH BROW
RSVP
: Daniel Abraham (07/27, 4:35AM)
“I don’t like the phrase ‘low brow’ because it implies that someone’s intelligence can be determined by how they look.”
Daniel has here embarked on resolving a fundamental problem in philosophy since his claim touches all the philosophical bases – ontology, epistemology, and aesthetics. The expression “low brow” normally refers to one’s aesthetic standards, i.e., one’s lower or more plebian tastes in music, the arts and so on and while “high brow” normally refers to the opposite, to one’s higher or more patrician tastes in music, the arts and so on. So there is a clear aesthetic dimension here.
But Daniel appears to have given a literal interpretation to the phrase, i.e., the actual position of one’s brows and its causal relation to intelligence. One assumes that he is objecting to the view that the lower the brows on one’s forehead, the lower one’s intelligence but is there any evidence to support this? Has anyone ever made this claim? Not as far as I know but perhaps Daniel might be on to something. Perhaps he can begin research into the question and produce his ground-breaking, “Eyebrows and Intelligence: Is There a Causal Connection?” We await the results with keen anticipation.
A further chapter might be devoted to the broader question, one raised by Daniel at the end of his sentence, i.e., is there a causal – even a deterministic – connection between intelligence and how one looks in general? At the low end of the spectrum where one finds congenital disorders such as mongolism and so on, there does appear to be a strong correlation between the two but is there an actual cause-effect connection? While it is true that one rarely, if ever, finds mongoloids up for the Nobel Prize or, for that matter, writing comments on Bitch, the distinction between a simple correlation and causal connection needs to be unpacked. I trust Daniel is up to the task.
“Mutatis mutandis,” as the expression goes, the same difficulty obtains as one ascends the spectrum of appearances. Does one become more intelligent as one becomes better looking? This is even more problematic. Nobel Prize winners, for example, are not normally known for their pulcheritude although it may feature as a contingent characteristic. I am sure that Daniel will take this advice under advisement and investigate this conundrum.
However, the success of Daniel’s thesis turns on what he has in mind by intelligence itself. What is the thing or, for that matter, can it be called a “thing” at all? In other words, at what ontological level does it reside? Is it neurological, some sort of brain-based phenomenon, or does intelligence have a more ethereal ontology, one relating more to the qualities on the immaterial mind? While the brain constitutes a necessary condition for the functioning of the mind – one obviously cannot think if one does not have a brain – is it right to maintain that the mind can be “reduced” to the brain? Can Shakespeare’s “Hamlet,” for example, be explained solely by reference to the firing of his synapses? The resolution of this dilemma is crucial to the success of Daniel’s enterprise as I’m sure he would agree. One hopes, therefore, that his research will work to minimize if not eliminate this perplexity and so one wishes Daniel every success and Godspeed in his efforts.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
I think Daniel is touchy about any brow related talk whatsoever. And well, he should be.
Little know fact: Daniel played Maggie Simpson’s arch nemesis, The Bany With One Eyebrow.
What’s worse than panhandlers are ‘friends’ who are always asking for money because they’re so hard up, yet can’t ever hold down a job (you gotta wonder after the third, fourth, fifth job they get fired from if it’s really the fault of the employer) and get pissed off when you won’t give them money….
Ain’t nobody have time for friends like THAT.
He also played Frau Farbissina’s love interest in the 2nd Austin Powers movie
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_77Ezm-n3O0/TkB9…
@eats_crayons I agree Crayons, I was never excusing any of their behavior, just commenting on some the reasons behind their actions. I still find their situation sad– I could never imagine being in that situation and not being able to work to keep myself off the street, for whatever screwed up reason. Bleeding heart I guess. I also said ‘most of them’, I’m not excusing the hipsters who pretend to be homeless people out of laziness and their dickish personality. Or who chose to be homeless out of laziness and meander between towns (you know, the ones who hang around Robie/the major highways who only appear in the summertime.) I don’t give them money or anything. Just polite smiles.
I’ve seen that guy with the purebred husky before btw. Sickening is right. If you don’t have food to feed yourself, you shouldn’t have an animal…
This is strictly to troll Ivan:
http://antonyloewenstein.com/2013/07/29/ch…
We could always hang them and harvest the organs?
MM
Are you aware that it is a well established scientific position that the human gene pool was decimated by what is beleived to be a massive volcanic eruption in the phillipines 75,000 years ago that brought human population down to a few thousand. Our species, after having been brought down to a level of near extinction is still fully influenced by this bottleneck genetic effect, in that each of us humans are 99.999% genetically similar. We often look very different because of the relationship between active and non active genes. Whether someone inherits the active traits involved in intelligence has nothing to do with also having the active gene of some facial appearance. None. 0 . absolutely no observed correlation, and it contradicts all known genetic paradigm.
The studies have already been done.
I’m so sick of being the research assistant for such an educated individual as yourself.
LOL Spurious – I read the same thing thing last week @ http://www.noshitsherlock.com.
>; )
You win. I clicked the link.
You mean it’s an actual site? Last time I made up what I thought was a fake website I almost got in a lot of trouble. >: 0
Anyhow, nobody wins unless everybody wins. Have a great Monday, SG.
Dafuq is going on around here? Mod seems to be swinging the banhammer left, right and center.
Who’s been purged, Agent 195?
You too, TIHL.
RSVP
: Daniel Abraham (07/28, 4:15PM)
“We often look very different because the relationship between active and non active (sic) genes.”
Good morning Daniel. With your foundational distinction between “active and non-active genes” I think it is safe to say that your “Eyebrows and Intelligence: Is there a Causal Connection” has acquired a degree of structural coherence. However, if I may, I would like to suggest areas of further research which cry out for specification that would both serve to tighten that all-important structure as well as bestowing a necessary substantive and supportive dimension to your work.
The first relates to that massive volcanic eruption in the Philipines 75,000 years ago that brought our population down to a few thousand. I think that this is precisely the point at which you should introduce your theme, that of the causal relationship between eyebrows and intelligence. Central to your thesis is the position of the eyebrows on the faces of those who survived this horrific disaster. Were those eyebrows situated on the upper or lower part of the forehead and what tentative hypotheses might you entertain in respect to their bearer’s intelligence? This is a crucial first step Daniel, since it will provide both theoretical and narrative unity to your project.
However, it is upon your distinction between the active and non-active genes which the success of your project ultimately depends. Your views on this point are firmly put forward, i.e., whether “someone inherits the active traits involved in intelligence has nothing to do with also having the active gene of some facial appearance.” A first step might be firming up the distinction between active and non-active genes. If the latter are not active, how is it that their presence is detected? What is it, for example, to have a non-active intelligence or facial gene? More work needs to be done here, Daniel.
However, you make the cut between the active intelligence genes and the active facial genes unambiguous, the latter, one assumes, referring to the location and bushiness of the eyebrows. In other words, no transference between the two sorts of genes is allowed. Daniel, I think this distinction needs to be plumped up, much in the same way that one plumps up one’s eyebrows to achieve their fullest effect.
In conclusion I must say that I was sorry to learn that you are tired of being the research assistant for such an educated individual as myself but Daniel, you must remember that all of us had to pass through the apprenticeship stage before true mastery of one’s area of expertise was achieved. I hope that you will not be crestfallen about the time and effort necessary to attain the position which, if I do say so, I currently enjoy.
Good luck Daniel, and Godspeed!
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
MM
Funny how you still understood what I meant. Language isn’t perfect unless you go into legal jargon like paragraphs that go forever (no time).
Well in order to understand whether or not I’m correct I guess you’ll finally have to go into research in order to confirm my research, and since I already have researched, I guess you’re FINALLY the research assistant.
Life is a game of give and take.
Correction
The only precise language is math, everything else will have loopholes.
I’m not seeing name links on Ivan, Crayons, and Nukka’s previous comments, which I’m assuming means they were banned. C’est tres bizzare.
Looks like if you change your handle, it won’t retroactively change on any comments made previously, or allow you you to link.
Most Curious, Niles.
TALKING TO AN INTELLECTUAL PEDESTRIAN, AT BEST
RSVP
: Daniel Abraham (07/29, 11:55AM)
“Funny how you understood what I meant. Language isn’t perfect unless you go into legal jargon like paragraphs that go on forever (no time).”
Good morning Daniel. Initially I wasn’t going to reply to your posts since I realized that I would be talking to an intellectual pedestrian, at best. It seems that you didn’t realize that both my posts (07/28, 9:32AM & 07/29,10:52AM) were just spoofs. However, since yours were addressed directly to me I thought that courtesy demanded some sort of reply.
Yes Daniel, I did “understand” what you meant but what you meant had no meaning. You see Daniel, words are not just free-standing objects. To be understood, in other words, words must have meaning and it is precisely that meaning which you words lacked.
Your second sentence is completely incoherent. What do you mean by language not being “perfect”? What would “perfect” language look like? But, incoherently, you go on to state that it would be perfect if one were to go into legal jargon”. Apart from the fact that it was not “legal jargon” but philosophical spoofing, doesn’t that strike you as self-contradictory? No, I suppose it doesn’t, not because it isn’t but because it doesn’t strike you that way. That is because you are an intellectual pedestrian, at best. Even writing this is exhausting. Well Daniel, the paragraphs might “go on forever” to you but they shouldn’t to anyone who possesses a mind, however rudimentary which, of course, you don’t. I know you don’t have time Daniel, because thinking does take time and, as I said, you don’t (can’t?) think,even at a rudimentary level. I know you will never understand this, Daniel.
(12w:02PM)
“The only precise language is math, everything else will have loopholes.”
Daniel, that statement is incoherent on two grounds. First, exactly what is a “loophole” in language? What are you talking about? As in the case above, you are talking about nothing. The assertion, in other words, has no meaning, no meaning whatsoever. Secondly, the statement is incoherent because it is what we in philosophy call a “normative claim.” A normative claim, Daniel, is a valuation, an estimation of worth of some sort. The problem, Daniel, is that math is irrelevant to normative claims. For example, one can say that Picasso is a better painter than Rembrandt. That is a normative claim. But math is irrelevant to determining which one is the better. In fact, math is irrelevant to everything except itself. I know you will never understand that Daniel.
Do us both a favour Daniel, and don’t write back.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
What, why would they ban Ivan/Crayons/Nukka?
MM
1+1+2-2=2
If someone knows what those symbols mean there can be no misinterpritation or need for clearification or questions. It means exactly what it does.
“Im going to the store as soon as she gets home with the car on tuesday call me”
still has questions for as long as you decide to ask them. Pages of potential questions. As does anything in the english language (as well as all other’s accept math). Loopholes in meaning. You can find incoherences in most things in written/spoken everyday language if you intepret the meaning of the sentence and it’s relevency a certain way, or need more information to establish communication; which is why you have to ask questions of clearification to know what the author meant.
Which you don’t with my posts anyways. You trail off without asking “what do you mean by this” unless it is in line with a thread.
So why should I bother. Give me a philosophical argument for why I should bother.
MM
Another thing I should add is that I’m not saying that math is better than english, I’m saying that english inevitably has clearification questions for every word. I wasn’t asking a “normative question” math and English are apples and oranges that share few characterists. I’m already fully aware of the destinction between the normative and analytic tracks. I was using math as a destinctive example to compare to english to clearify how english isn’t precise.
You were completely off topic for why I brought up that math is a precise language.
I have been out on my own for over 20yrs, was forced out of my birth home, by extreme abuse & parental neglect..
I am multiply disabled, both physicially as well as learning disabled..
I have been in my life, homeless in 2 major cities, for a combined total of 9yrs..
I HAVE NEVER & WILL NOT, PANHANDLE..
I can only access 2 of 14 soup kitchens in this city, due to my disabilities, but even though they are only open weekdays, closed on weekends, holidays & church holidays..
I am forced to live on $150 food budget per month, for BOTH my husband & myself..
I DO NOT BELIEVE IN PANHANDLING, I THINK THOSE THAT DO, ARE LAZY & SHOULD BE FORCED TO FIND A JOB..
I have been applying for jobs for 19 years, but because of my multiple disabilities, no one will hire me, it is even difficult to get volunteer jobs..
just my $.02, from someone who is forced to exist on $640 a month for 2 people, after rent is paid, with health & dietary issues.