(September 25, 2019 at 7:18 am)Brian37 Wrote: It is up to you always. Never would claim it shouldn't be. But family is family no matter the age and I do not like the stigma aimed at anyone in need. If if were a charity you were giving to not knowing whom you give it to how would that giving be different just because you know them. Some people need help and there is nothing wrong at all helping others.
If nobody is being abused then it shouldn't matter.
I hear what you're coming from. But the phrase "family is family" or "family is all you got" is too often a phrase used by people in toxic family dynamics that choose to put up with, or personally engage in, toxic behavior with their family members, so I'm very careful about using that phrase or listening to the people who use it. No offense.
At the end of the day, I just don't want to enable anyone. It's not about whether or not someone's being abused, it's about whether or not giving this person money was good for them. I think it was a good thing. But, when people start to believe that they don't need to make their own way in the world, it becomes a problem.
I would never allow someone to depend on me, just because I could afford it. Not gonna' happen. Even if I had kids, at a certain age they'd need to learn to help out around the house, and eventually learn how to make their own way out in the real world, without my support.
And, I don't really give to charities. Mostly because I don't know enough about any charities and what they do with the money they receive in order to feel comfortable just blindly having over cash.
I'd rather give to my friend who's in need of cash for his dad who has leukemia, or my cousin who just had a baby and needs money for diapers.
I'm not against giving. I'm against enabling and was asking people to elaborate on where they draw that line.
If you're frightened of dying, and you're holding on, you'll see devils tearing your life away. But if you've made your peace, then the devils are really angels, freeing you from the Earth.
