Folks, after quite a lot of back and forth debate, looks like we are more divided in terms of opinions rather than united. Unfortunate but that's reality, as we can't expect people always have the same opinions. I agree that, there is no point to debate anymore, so I promise this is my last post in this thread (and you don't have to reply as well). Maybe some of my posts were getting a bit emotional, or I didn't express some points precisely enough. Let me clarify here.
1. We all want to help those that are not as fortunate - suffered from illness, abuse, injury, etc, as life sometimes is unfortunate and it indeed worth all the sympathy. I totally agree. On the other hand, not all people in the world are honest, sincere and trustworthy. They do bad things, harm other people, fraudulent, socially irresponsible. Same logic, some people would take the social assistance for granted (Look at the percentage of fraudulent cases in CERB). I think we can agree that, as taxpayers, you want your money to be used wisely to help those that are truly in need, right? I just want to propose to the city, can we have a prioritization/selection mechanism, to allocate the limited spaces to the homeless that are less controversial (i.e. refer to the groups I keep mentioning in my posts)? Of course, in reality no mechanism is perfect and can guarantee to help those that are truly in need, but at least it shows the city is willing to listen and try to compromise, rather than, saying once we decided, that's it. That's the art of democracy.
2. I want to emphasize one more thing. I believe that, in any groups, there are always "good" people and there are "bad" people, as generalization is always wrong. However, based on what a person did in the past, I also think it's reasonable for others to perceive him/her as potentially more dangerous than the others. If you don't perceive in that way, sorry, maybe you are a saint, and I am not. That's fine, as we respect the differences.
3. Another point I want to mention, I don't think it's a right thing to criticize people as "immoral". There is no standard in morality. Morality changes from time to time, from culture to culture, from places to places. What's been perceived as immoral in the past could be perceived as moral now. In a society, law is the standard but morality is not, and that's why we obey the law, not morality. We need to respect people have different values, culture, background and they don't necessarily have to see this issue as the same angle as you. Is it fair to use all the dirty words such as "shit", "scum", "misanthrope troll" to describe people with different opinions, even you think they are wrong? Where is your democratic quality?
4. Lastly, I want to clarity that, I never look down on any people. I just have less empathy to those that give up themselves. In a life that lasts tens of years, who hasn't encountered different type of challenges? It's not an excuse not to standup and be self-reliant. Of course, a temporary relief is needed to do that, and that's why the Canadian government has many different type of social programs and I am good with it. All I want to say is, you need to show your determination in order to deserved the help from others. Again, maybe you don't agree with me, but I respect that.
5. I would like to appreciate Northern Light's detailed explanation and information to me. Despite our differences, I really learn a lot from you.
Nevertheless, I still wish you guys all the best. We all believe in democracy and let's see how this issue develops.
retail-insider.com
