Assuming your donations are limited, a dollar given to a junkie or a scammer is a dollar not given to a hungry man.

99% of the time I've heard this argument, that dollar ends up going to neither.

Instead of trying to decide who is worthy of your dollar, perhaps consider what that dollar is worth to you vs. what it is worth to them.

If you give them a dollar and it's spent on something you don't approve of or you think they are not deserving that on them. If you don't give them anything because you assume they might not be worthy, that's on you.

A post on HN is an educational comment not passed on to an underprivileged child. A dollar spent a moderately expensive restaurant is a dollar not spent on rice and beans, with the surplus donated to charity.

If good deeds (or even neutral deeds) are scrutinized and discouraged, there will be no end of other, theoretical good deeds that might have been done, and no simple good deed will be done.

Well if one doesn't care if their donations are used for good purposes they can as well send them to me.

How do you determine which of the three men you pass on the street is a scammer, junkie, or hungry man? Maybe you give to a food pantry instead-- what about the people that use them for the free food but don't really need it?

How do you define scammer? If a person is homeless, but holds up a gas can with a sign that says "ran out of gas please help!" then they're lying about why they need the money, but they aren't scamming in terms of not actually being homeless.

What about junkies too-- they still need to eat. Absent enough money to do both, they might choose just to get high, deteriorate more, have even less chance of recovery.

There's no easy litmus test here. No easy way to ensure the money you give is going to be used in the best possible way to improve someone's life.

Scammers have better things going than sitting on street-corners begging for pocket change.

As for junkies - homeless junkies get hungry too.

Yes, in a way that's pretty selfish of you (and reflects typical western society). You want to feel good by patting yourself on the back saying "oh well, I did donate", and then expressing interest in any consequences later on caused by the transaction. We all do it, but we also know good intentions can be lined with consequences that you are partially responsible for.

Sorry, pal, with the exception of mentioning my 'rule' for this discussed case, as I think it's important, I don't discuss my donations with anyone, except occasionally my son (to try to push him to behaving with more empathy -- something teenagers are short on)

So I reject your ad hominem attack. Your vein of typical sharp-tongued HN cynicism is very tedious.

Moreover, your remark has the arrogance of assuming all consequences of action are knowable. They are not, but you will need to learn that yourself.

I don't think it's arrogant of him to legitimately criticize you.

Why even reply to the thread if you're going to be so stubborn on your position?

Its actually an actually of having a healthy perspective on your obligations and others rights. Taking upon yourself the impossible obligation of knowing all possible ends puts you in a position to put upon them an unreasonable demand insofar as insisting that someone tell you how they plan to spend that buck.

Even if they are going to spend it on drugs they wont tell you so you are forcing them to degrade themselves either way by lying or by proving they aren't going to spend it on drugs.

Just say no if you think they are going to blow it on drugs or say yes without pretending their drug habit is the result of you giving a buck on a particular corner.

There is nothing you can do in life-- including the choice of doing nothing-- that doesn't have the potential for negative consequences.