My discussions of the extreme have always revolved around the pointlessness of arguing that way. The OP MAY have been serious in taking the extreme, but it's far more likely that he was using a what-if line of thought to guide his thinking in a less perfect world. However, that what-if scenario lacks reality guards in that it requires that everyone think the same way, which does not happen.

My responses have been designed to push away from the extreme and inject some reality into the discussion. The reality is that some people DO take advantage of kindness. Some people really ARE lazy. Some people ARE con men. So the absolute is disproven by default, which means all that is left is to assume the other person really meant "what if if a lot more people thought this way...". Otherwise the conversation is over already.

"but you need to drop the notion that anything resembling a significant fraction of beggars are doing so by choice. Said notion is disgusting, offensive, and untrue."

No such notion was intended. As I said before, many different factors come into play when deciding whether to beg or not. My point is that making begging more lucrative will make the decision easier for more people. If the returns for begging were to surpass low wage jobs, for example, we'd see a critical tipping point emerge. The end result of more giving to beggars (on a larger scale) is more beggars. The current equilibrium exists as a result of the diversity of the population (both on the potential beggar side and the potential giver side).

My personal belief is that a significant increase in giving to beggars is likely to cause more harm than good. The current equilibrium seems adequate for taking care of most of the truly hopeless who aren't wards of the state.