Limerick Beggars

celticcutie

An Fhile wrote: »

The term you're looking for is 'troll', darling.

.

Don't patronise me by calling me darling :mad:

celticcutie

An Fhile wrote: »

The term you're looking for is 'troll', darling.



In the interest of fairness, seeing as you're demanding 'proof' from other posters, is it ok if I ask you to prove that your behaviour is entirely victimless? Or is your knowledge of sociology so outstanding that you can rely entirely on your good faith? :rolleyes:



This issue was already addressed, despite it being off-topic.

The whole point here is that nobody has any solid proof to back up their arguments either way. There's no linking generosity or lack of with beggars to drug/gang warfare! so that's the sum total of it.

It's been an experience though to understand how people that don't give money to beggars justify not doing so.

My faith in the human race has been destroyed, destroyed I tells ya

celticcutie

zuroph wrote: »

Celtic, can you respond to this samplestudy please?

You've created the sample study yourself!! Why do you think that's going to be credible

As for your case study, I've already said that I'm in agreement with supporting charities etc who professionally tackle these problems but I still reiterate my point that while these fine organisations go about their work I see nothing wrong in giving some poor soul a few bob to buy a packet of smokes, a few cans or a Burger King! You'd swear I was a Crime Lord the way you're all talking

zuroph

can we get this troll banned yet. repeated evidence offered, yet claims she's had none. and trys to laugh it off.

u are not helping them. you are making life worse for them by furthering their addiction. and there is a direct link with giving money to someone to buy drugs, to their money going to the dealer, who is selling drugs illegally to the gangs who are importing the drugs. if you cant see that, you are blind.

concussion

celticcutie wrote: »

There's no linking generosity or lack of with beggars to drug/gang warfare! so that's the sum total of it.

Of all the beggars you've given money to, would you agree that some had drug addictions? If that's the case, your money is moving swiftly from the beggar to the dealer. And where does the dealer get his drugs? From the gangs. If they have an addiction they'll spend as they can on it and the gangs get more money.

celticcutie wrote: »

I see nothing wrong in giving some poor soul a few bob to buy a packet of smokes, a few cans or a Burger King! You'd swear I was a Crime Lord the way you're all talking

Smokes, no problem. Burger King, no problem. Those are not addictions which lead to massive social problems. Smokers don't spend all their paychecks on cigarettes. They don't physically abuse their families when under the influence of nicotine.

Giving alcohol to an alcoholic doesn't help them one single bit. If you want to help them, buy them a sandwich or something.

concussion

And before anyone gets onto me about how much people spend on cigarettes, I put it to you that I've heard of many people on the streets dues to alcohol, drug and gambling addictions but I've never heard of someone losing their home to a smoking addiction.


And as I type this I can see a Roma begging at the traffic lights.

Insect Overlord

celticcutie wrote: »

As for my opinion on other threads/forums that you mentino here - trolling also refers to people not referring to another persons arguments in a different thread/forum to gain momentum for their own arguments in a different thread/forum. So there - you're a first class troll yourself. And you still haven't contributed any meaningful information to change my point of view

For a girl who only learned the meaning of "trolling" an hour ago, it's strange that you suddenly seem to be an expert on it. I referred to the other posts as I felt it was important to note you are capable of using this site for reasons other than failing in reasoned debate.

As for the meaningful information you seek, I suggest you read over posts #19, #34 and to a lesser extent #40. It was around that mark that your ability to stay on-topic failed, in my opinion at least.

celticcutie wrote: »

Don't patronise me by calling me darling :mad:

If that offends you so, why did it take you this long to pick up on it?

celticcutie wrote: »

The whole point here is that nobody has any solid proof to back up their arguments either way. There's no linking generosity or lack of with beggars to drug/gang warfare! so that's the sum total of it.

It's been an experience though to understand how people that don't give money to beggars justify not doing so.

My faith in the human race has been destroyed, destroyed I tells ya

This post would be perfectly ok over in After Hours, where you'll find the discussion atmosphere much more to your liking. It's relaxed and almost always humourous. In this debate, however, your attempt to be light-hearted is nothing more than a smoke-screen to conceal your failure to entertain other points of view.

This thread is about individuals and groups of people who have caused less-than-happy experiences to users of Boards. The presence of beggars in Limerick City, whether genuinely sans domiciles fixes or just plain old parasites, is a negative trait of our current situation. The fact that nice, generous, (yet ultimately misguided) people like yourself feed their ability to sponge off others contributes to this problem. Whether or not you want to look at it in the context of the country's economy or the global crime market is up to you.

zuroph

knowing where you live, this would be the same guy i saw in superquinn on sunday with his daughter and mobile phones.

Insect Overlord

zuroph wrote: »

can we get this troll banned yet. repeated evidence offered, yet claims she's had none. and trys to laugh it off.

I don't think she's really a troll Z (in comparison to the likes of Lazers-pew-pew a while back), it's just her behaviour in this thread that's borderline trolling. See my reference to the CW forum. I agree with you that it's getting very annoying. On the other hand, this is one of the best debates I've yet seen on the LC forum.

celticcutie

zuroph wrote: »

can we get this troll banned yet. repeated evidence offered, yet claims she's had none. and trys to laugh it off.
.

Why am I trolling? I'm simply disagreeing with you! I've asked for something more substantial that you all claiming (without proof) that I'm a link in a chain with my generosity that ends up causing homelessness and feeds drug lords. How do any of you know what happens to the money I give them? None of you do.

Calling me a troll and asking to ban me - is that what you do when you can't provide substantial arguments to prove your point? If so, that's disappointing!

As for calling me a troll

An Fhile wrote: »

from Urban Dictionary

"1a. Noun
One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.

1b. Noun
A person who, on a message forum of some type, attacks and flames other members of the forum for any of a number of reasons such as rank, previous disagreements, sex, status, ect.
A troll usually flames threads without staying on topic, unlike a "Flamer" who flames a thread because he/she disagrees with the content of the thread.

1c. Noun
A member of an internet forum who continually harangues and harasses others. Someone with nothing worthwhile to add to a certain conversation, but rather continually threadjacks or changes the subject, as well as thinks every member of the forum is talking about them and only them. Trolls often go by multiple names to circumvent getting banned. "

Going by that definition, and the evidence of this post...


... you are, indeed, trolling.

Re 1a above: I didn't post a provocative message and I'm not tyring to cause disruption - I have an opinion, which you don't share with me. Thought that was allowed on this forum last time I checked. Perhaps if you could acknolwedge that there are more than one view point in this argument then this wouldn't have gotten so heated. As I do recall you were the first one to challenge my view point - which of couse is allowed!

Re 1b I have stayed on topic, albeit with a bit of much needed humour at times, and I haven't attacked anyone (well just a small bit until I was told that wasn't allowed and then I behaved myself in that regard).

Re 1c I'm pretty much having to deal with the majority of people posting here challenging my point of view. I've been asking multiple times for some solid proof to give substance to your argument so I can have a proper think about it but that's not forth coming and it never will as neither view point has stats to back things up as it is an opinion based argument. And if I'm in anyway guilty of trolling in line wit 1c then so are you and An Fhile.

So I say we all get barred

Sunn

zuroph wrote: »

Contact city council or homeless organisations for proof. Im taking those groups word for it, based on recent media reports. If you remember, a few months ago a homeless man was accidentally killed when the skip he was sleeping in was collected and crushed. The local organisations said the real tragedy was it was his first night in the city, and there was plenty of beds available, that they have no1 sleeping rough in Limerick.Contact local gardaí for evidence. there is regular warnings about the "newspaper in the face" hustle, and the skimmers. any skimming incident caught operating in Limerick city in the last few years has been at the hands of romanians. Raids on buildings throughout the country have unearthed roma gypsy criminal gangs, hugely organised. Its all over the news, just look for it.
if you want facts, go look for them. dont keep your eyes closed and demand proof.

All the links you posted are from Dublin reports. You can't just pick incidents that apply to your arguments outside of the city and assume it applies the same in Limerick. It holds no validity to your argument, reports of atm fraud and crime are often mentioned in the Limerick Post ( mostly around christmas) however rarely is it mentioned that its directly linked to romanian gypsies.

As regards the poor man been crushed, that was a year ago. Although there might be a number of beds available in limerick I have seen plenty of evidence of rough sleeping going in the city.

The overall point I am trying to make is alot of people seem to just stereotype these individuals, romanian gypsies and the homeless. There hasn't been any proof that people on the street are addicted to drugs or alcohol and neither is there any conclusive evidence that roman gypsies are responsible for all of the atm fraud, crime and theft in the city centre.

Its all over the news, just look for it.
if you want facts, go look for them. dont keep your eyes closed and demand proof

Thats a highly disturbing comment without proof its pointless. I may aswell just settle for the opinions other people have put in place for me and give in to the hyper sensational headlines of the daily mail.

zuroph

i agree, it seems her head is screwed on everywhere else, i find it shocking she cant get her head around this!
+1 for the debate though, some well argued points

celticcutie

concussion wrote: »

Of all the beggars you've given money to, would you agree that some had drug addictions? If that's the case, your money is moving swiftly from the beggar to the dealer. And where does the dealer get his drugs? From the gangs. If they have an addiction they'll spend as they can on it and the gangs get more money.



Smokes, no problem. Burger King, no problem. Those are not addictions which lead to massive social problems. Smokers don't spend all their paychecks on cigarettes. They don't physically abuse their families when under the influence of nicotine.

Giving alcohol to an alcoholic doesn't help them one single bit. If you want to help them, buy them a sandwich or something.

But that's the part of this discussion that's driving me nuts - nobody knows that they do with the money I give them. Btw, I don't give them a couple of hundred euros!

zuroph

celticcutie wrote: »

But that's the part of this discussion that's driving me nuts - nobody knows that they do with the money I give them. Btw, I don't give them a couple of hundred euros!

You can take a fairly educated guess what a drug addict does with the only money he has..this is how he ended up on the streets begging.

zuroph

Sunn wrote: »

All the links you posted are from Dublin reports. You can't just pick incidents that apply to your arguments outside of the city and assume it applies the same in Limerick. It holds no validity to your argument, reports of atm fraud and crime are often mentioned in the Limerick Post ( mostly around christmas) however rarely is it mentioned that its directly linked to romanian gypsies.

As regards the poor man been crushed, that was a year ago. Although there might be a number of beds available in limerick I have seen plenty of evidence of rough sleeping going in the city.

The overall point I am trying to make is alot of people seem to just stereotype these individuals, romanian gypsies and the homeless. There hasn't been any proof that people on the street are addicted to drugs or alcohol and neither is there any conclusive evidence that roman gypsies are responsible for all of the atm fraud, crime and theft in the city centre.



Thats a highly disturbing comment without proof its pointless. I may aswell just settle for the opinions other people have put in place for me and give in to the hyper sensational headlines of the daily mail.

I quote national papers because the Limerick papers sites dont google as well, but if you can wait a few weeks, I can get articles from them, proof from Limerick gardaí. you have a huge amount of eye witnesses in this thread who you dont believe. you have evidence of similar gang acitvity in other counties in the country. yet, no, it can't be happening in limerick. I know of a skimmer used in the crescent shopping centre, which, when dsicovered, was snatched back by a roma gypsy before they were apprehended.

Insect Overlord

celticcutie wrote: »

But that's the part of this discussion that's driving me nuts - nobody knows that they do with the money I give them. Btw, I don't give them a couple of hundred euros!

celticcutie wrote:

I often give money to people I know are going to buy drink or drugs with it and to be honest all that that will do is relieve whatever addictive state they are in for a short while. If that alleviates their feelings of despair and whatever other horrible state one must be in if they are on drugs momentarily then I'm ok with that.

:rolleyes:

Conveniently enough, I see you edited that bit out of your post since I quoted it yesterday.

So, anyway, you were saying?

celticcutie

zuroph wrote: »

You can take a fairly educated guess what a drug addict does with the only money he has..this is how he ended up on the streets begging.

Oh so drug addicts don't eat, sleep in hostels, smoke or wear clothes no?

concussion

celticcutie wrote: »

But that's the part of this discussion that's driving me nuts - nobody knows that they do with the money I give them. Btw, I don't give them a couple of hundred euros!

Sunn wrote: »

There hasn't been any proof that people on the street are addicted to drugs or alcohol and neither is there any conclusive evidence that roman gypsies are responsible for all of the atm fraud, crime and theft in the city centre.

From a 2 minute search I found this

Homelessness is not just an issue of people being without a place to sleep. It generates other social evils. Around 25% of the young homeless are claimed to be involved in prostitution while up to 70% of this category have been involved in substance abuse.

http://www.mic.ul.ie/news/noplacelikehome.htm

As for the other aspects, I'll be back tomorrow to debate them.

zuroph

http://www.limerickpost.ie/dailynews.elive?id=7659&category=Daily-Thu
local paper

some quotes.
For you Sunn

Crime Prevention Officer Liam Sheehan, said that a number of Romanian nationals, with Dublin addresses, have taken to the streets hassling people for financial assistance.

He referred to a recent incident during which a foreign national attempted to sell a woman a bunch of flowers and stole 90 euro from her purse. The culprit was arrested.

Garda Sheehan advised people not to give these individuals money.

"In my opinion, they are clearly doing this for the purpose of making handy money and not because they are in dire straits," garda Sheehan said.

At least four individuals have been arrested for begging by community gardai in recent weeks in a move to stem the growing problem.

For you Cutie

Louise Wilkinson, of homeless service Focus Ireland, advises the public not to give money to homeless people on the streets.

"If people are out on the streets it's usually because they have been evicted from some of the hostels around town. The services are there in Limerick so there's no reason to be out on the streets. If they are, it is usually because they have some sort of addiction and have burned their bridges in the hostels. People are feeding their habit by giving them money, be it a drink or heroin addiction or whatever".

She adds that if people want to help, they can do so by buying food and beverages such as hot tea or by giving them a piece of clothing.

zuroph

celticcutie wrote: »

Oh so drug addicts don't eat, sleep in hostels, smoke or wear clothes no?

Limerick hostels are free. clothes are donated through hostels. food, well the addiction causes the drink/drugs to take proirity, after all they're not going to find drugs/drink in the bins behind a shop.

celticcutie

I can't help being generous - it's in my genes!:

http://intro2psych.wordpress.com/2007/12/23/do-gooder-genes/

zuroph

so in conclusion. you think ur doing good. but ur not. but you wish to keep doing this because its your choice.

celticcutie

An Fhile wrote: »

I don't think she's really a troll Z (in comparison to the likes of Lazers-pew-pew a while back), it's just her behaviour in this thread that's borderline trolling. See my reference to the CW forum. I agree with you that it's getting very annoying. On the other hand, this is one of the best debates I've yet seen on the LC forum.

Oh boy, that's priceless. I've already 'addressed' the trolling definition and am not trolling. And by the way, I consider both of your behaviour very annoying too. It just bugs you that I don't agree with you so you get personal! wow :rolleyes:

celticcutie

zuroph wrote: »

i agree, it seems her head is screwed on everywhere else, i find it shocking she cant get her head around this!
+1 for the debate though, some well argued points

Unacceptable and not nice :mad:

My head is screwed on just fine thanks - personal assaults like that are simply ugly. Don't you know you're supposed to challenge the material on posts not the person.

Think you should be banned.

zuroph

thats not personal. I just expressed shock that you couldnt understand how giving money to drug addicts funded criminal gangs.

btw, calling for a ban is a bannable offence

zuroph

Also just read very similar from Leanbh, the child vagrancy support group, pleading people NOT to give the beggars money.

krudler

celticcutie wrote: »

Unacceptable and not nice :mad:

My head is screwed on just fine thanks - personal assaults like that are simply ugly. Don't you know you're supposed to challenge the material on posts not the person.

Think you should be banned.

thats funny considering you're doing enough personal attacks yourself on this thread, i live in the city centre and have to walk past the same "homeless" people every night, 2 of them that hang around outside empire have mobile phones and one of them got picked up in a car by some friends one night after a hard days begging, thats a fact, i walked into my apartment building stairwell one monday morning to find one of them passed out with needles and cans all around him, he bought those with the money people like you gave him, yet you still think you're helping instead of making the problem worse

Insect Overlord

me wrote:

I don't think she's really a troll Z (in comparison to the likes of Lazers-pew-pew a while back), it's just her behaviour in this thread that's borderline trolling. See my reference to the CW forum. I agree with you that it's getting very annoying. On the other hand, this is one of the best debates I've yet seen on the LC forum.

celticcutie wrote: »

Oh boy, that's priceless. I've already 'addressed' the trolling definition and am not trolling. And by the way, I consider both of your behaviour very annoying too. It just bugs you that I don't agree with you so you get personal! wow :rolleyes:

In one fell sweep you have proved not only that I was wrong, but that you can't comprehend a simple post in the English language.

• I said very plainly that I did not think you were a troll. It's in the first half of my first sentence in this quote. Why then did you need to tell me that what I said was false, only to follow it up by making the exact same claim?
• I did not make any statements that could be construed as personal abuse. I did claim that your behaviour was inappropriate, but, importantly, I did not make any candid references to your character/personality.
• The fact that you find my behaviour annoying is irrelevent to the topic at hand. Yes, I was the first to use the term "annoying behaviour", admittedly. However, I did so while acting in your defence as I did not want to see you get banned.
• The fact that you are continually dragging up the topic of trolling is, in itself, an act of trolling, as it is completely detracting from what people here want to discuss.

Thus, I must deduce that either you need to brush up on your comprehension skills or that I was wrong to defend you earlier when I claimed you were not a troll. The material you have posted today has been nothing short of ignorant, unsubstantiated and wildly misguided.

I was able to deal with your posts yesterday when I believed they were grounded in naivety. Today, in comparison, can be compared only to a child with its fingers in its ears singing "lalalalalalalalalala" and refusing to accept that it's bed-time. Take a rest, seriously, before enough people call "troll" and you get a mandatory break from posting.


@ everyone else:

I apologise for even paying attention to celticcutie's posts, and henceforth will reply only in relation to the topic addressed in the thread title.

talkingclock

See, i told ya not to feed the troll. There is no point to debate with a fanatic do-gooder...

Amazotheamazing

krudler wrote: »

thats funny considering you're doing enough personal attacks yourself on this thread, i live in the city centre and have to walk past the same "homeless" people every night, 2 of them that hang around outside empire have mobile phones and one of them got picked up in a car by some friends one night after a hard days begging, thats a fact, i walked into my apartment building stairwell one monday morning to find one of them passed out with needles and cans all around him, he bought those with the money people like you gave him, yet you still think you're helping instead of making the problem worse

Wasn't one of the guys outside Empire charged with dealing heroin recently? I'm sure he's a nice guy really though.