Paying a homeless person to eat dog poop

[Jules22]

i think the supersize this guy is a self righteous @$$hole

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
If the bum finds it demeaning or degrading, and he has a problem with degrading himself, then he shouldn't do it. That's his right.

Jake, this is the issue that people who say it's immoral have, that while the bum may have the right to refuse to do the act, he does not have the choice because he needs the $100 so much.

It's like dangling someone over a vat of lava and saying that if they eat dog poop you will rescue them but otherwise they will shortly fall to their death. You could say that if they don't wish to eat the poop that's their right, but actually they have no effective choice.

I think what's immoral is that society allows someone to be in that situation in the first place, once people have the freedom to eat, have shelter and have relative safety from being beaten up, offers like this cease to be immoral because choice actually exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with pretty much everything you sdaid here. I think people always have a choice. I think that the vast majority of bums are bums because of other choices they've made. I don't think "society" has a responsibility to feed, clothe, or provide medical care for anyone. Not only that, I bvelive the truly immoral ones are the people that would deprive me of the right to spend my $100 as I choose, and deprive the bum of the right to earn the $100 if he chooses. These are the same people that would steal what is mine to give it to people that haven't earned it in the name of society's responsibility. I don't want to turn this into a political debate so feel free to end it here or respond once as you see fit. I'm not going to argue that anymore.

[theghost]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2. I'm not degrading him. He's degrading himself. I'm not torturing him. If it is torture, then he's doing it to himself. I offered him a simple yes or no proposition. It's no different than half the prop bets people post here.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are showing a complete inability to see the world though someone else's eyes.

$100 represents so much to a homeless person, that he/she is forced to endure this pain because of what the $100 brings.

[/ QUOTE ]

especially when the bum could use the $100 to whore planetluck/starluck and parlay it into ~$300 [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
If the bum finds it demeaning or degrading, and he has a problem with degrading himself, then he shouldn't do it. That's his right.

Jake, this is the issue that people who say it's immoral have, that while the bum may have the right to refuse to do the act, he does not have the choice because he needs the $100 so much.

It's like dangling someone over a vat of lava and saying that if they eat dog poop you will rescue them but otherwise they will shortly fall to their death. You could say that if they don't wish to eat the poop that's their right, but actually they have no effective choice.



[/ QUOTE ]

The lava thing is a horrible analogy. The bum was not put in this siutation by the supersize me guy. He is not responsible for his situation in the least.

I personally don't find it wrong at all. In this exchange, no one suffers, and everyone benefits.

My physics teacher used to tell me stories about some bars that used to feature Midget Tossing. The midgets were paid employees of the bar. They would wear safety gear with handles, and people would have contests to see how far they could throw the midgets (onto a mat of course). Eventually, some uptight people protested this practice, and the government made it illegal. Afterward, many of these previously middle class midgets found themselves without jobs, and seeing this practice go literally ruined their lives.

I think that is a MUCH better analogy than your lava BS.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
My physics teacher used to tell me stories about some bars that used to feature Midget Tossing. The midgets were paid employees of the bar. They would wear safety gear with handles, and people would have contests to see how far they could throw the midgets (onto a mat of course). Eventually, some uptight people protested this practice, and the government made it illegal. Afterward, many of these previously middle class midgets found themselves without jobs, and seeing this practice go literally ruined their lives.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder where one could still do this? Surely there is a third world country somewhere? I wonder how far I could throw a midget? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Lame Amateur]

[ QUOTE ]
In this exchange, no one suffers

[/ QUOTE ]

100% chance of you being retarded.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's definitely not to be looked well upon, but it's pure capitalism.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you suggesting that "pure capitalism" excuses immorality?

[/ QUOTE ]
No. I am saying, however, that there is a point where these bums are willing to do this. It happens to be $100. That's the market. For you or me, it might be $1000 or $1M or $10M or maybe it can't be bought from you or me. The bums are setting the market rate and they're doing it (I assume) by their own free will. If they're willing to do it, then they are allowed to make that decision for themselves. Everyone's an adult here, right?

Now, do I think the person paying these guys to eat dog poop is a completely dirty, rotten [censored]? Of course. It also happens that I think much the same of many business people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but considering the source of it, Mr. McDonalds-is-irresponsible-in-its-craven-drive-for-profits himself, it's more than a bit hypocritical. This is the point, not really the dog-poop eating bum, Although the fact that it could easily get him violently ill and posibly permanently so shpuld have crossed the producers mind, also.

[OtisTheMarsupial]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's a similarly structured argument: Being a fire-fighter is dangerous. Paying people to fight fires is like paying people to risk serious bodily harm.

[/ QUOTE ] FYP

No, not a good analogy.

Factors to consider:

Fire-fighters serve the community by protecting their safety; poop eaters either do not serve the community or do so as entertainment only

Fire-fighters have protective equipment and are not expected to risk their lives to stop a fire (dead rescuers are not as effective as live rescuers); poop eaters risk the bacterial infection without protective equipment.

Moreover, poop eaters who become sick from eating poop will likely receive government-subsidized health care or death services, thus placing a burden on society.

It's immoral, illegal, bad idea, not good capitalism and it's not even close.

[teamdonkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you guys really not understand that eating dog poop is hazardous to your health? It's filled with bacteria... Have you hear of e coli?

Paying someone to eat dog poop is akin to paying someone to eat poison.

[/ QUOTE ]

Poop comes from the digestive tract. Putting it back into your digestive tract (eating it) probably isn't the same as poisoning yourself. You already have bacteria in your gut, it helps you digest your food.

I can't believe i just called [censored] poop.

[brassnuts]

Short answer: Yes. It is immoral to take advantage of someone.