No. I don’t hold that view and never have. No one seriously believes that minorities are responsible for all criminal violence. I realize you’re being sarcastic here, but I don’t see how your remarks were supposed to contribute to the thread.
I’ve seen a photo of one. Is that close enough?
And as an American, I’d go 
if you called me a muppet.
I’m not making excuses. I’m saying that I don’t buy the idea that the only possible explanation for what’s happening is that they are all subhuman “Morlocks” who are rioting for no reason. I’m saying I don’t buy the idea that the only reason for the riots is that poor people are all lazy, evil and cowardly. And that I don’t buy the idea that the solution is to kill them all.
And that’s what I’ve been seeing from people.
And why is that? Is it because the evidence says it is not true, or is the evidence simply too destructive to your religion of the martyred poor?
It’s because I don’t believe in right wing Social Darwinist fantasies about how the poor are all evil subhumans who should be sterilized or killed. It’s because such fantasies have never turned out to be true. And it’s because it’s idiotic to think that our society is some meritocratic utopia where income and virtue are neatly correlated.
Some people have talked about killing the perpetrators but even if they were being serious, I think it’s mainly because emotions are running high rather than a sober opinion. You always get draconian solutions bandied about after something terrible happens.
The rest of your post is an comically absurd straw man.
Wow.
Are you trying to build some kind of King of the Straw Men?
We’re not talking about rich and poor; we’re talking about arsonists and non-arsonists. If Bill Gates starts running around setting fire to people’s houses, I encourage the police to shoot him too.
Bill Gates would never be an aronist..
Once they can control the weather… and I know you’re going to discount this as “woo”; however, please consider:
If you could control the weather, what would you do to those you view as subhuman?
And, please, don’t tell me it is impossible to control the weather because when you exclude God from controlling the weather that does not preclude humans from being able to control the weather.
That was the talking points memo today on The O’Reilly Factor. :rolleyes:
Nonetheless, the rich outproducing the poorwas probably a factor in places like England developing a larger middle class and becoming more prosperous. Now the opposite is happening.
He was pointing out, in a snarky way, that you were wrong in all of the claims you made in that post.
This is Great Debates. When you’re irrational and factually inaccurate, people will call you on it. That’s how it works.
The rich have other people do their dirty work for them. If he wanted something destroyed he’d probably have the government order the US military to do it, and I doubt you’d really call for US soldiers to be shot.
Blah, blah, the poor are genetically inferior and should be sterilized, the rich are Übermensch; we’ve heard it all before.
Yeah, but now you have the unusual situation of the poor underclass expanding while the middle class tend to have fewer children. Not a good idea for maintaining a modern economy.
This whole thing about rich and poor is a complete red herring.
For the benefit of anyone here who is not from the UK (and a reminder to those that are), here’s some background on this:
Britain has a problem with yobbish behaviour. For a long time football hooliganism was out of control. Nowadays it’s things like assaults, muggings and stabbings, for which we’re one of those most dangerous of developed countries.
It’s very common on our high streets to see groups of youths 15-18 years old threatening people, spitting at them etc because they feel invincible: they have much of the physical strength of an adult, but no care of the consequences. They don’t think anyone can do anything.
And now this new flavour of rioting. Which is ostensibly about duggan, tuition fees or whatever but is really an excuse for such youths to smash up the place and steal stuff.
The softly softly approach has been tried. A lot. Instead of the soul searching let’s nip the behaviour in the bud.
Note that I had to say we were a country with a football hooliganism problem. It’s not gone away, but things are much better than the hooliganism heyday of the 70s.
How did we solve it?
Did we ask what were the causes in society of such behaviour? What we should be doing in our communities?
No, we recognized it for what it was: a bunch of people acting like idiots, and we got tough with them.
Obviously getting tough on criminal behaviour is no panacea. The point is, britain has its own specific set of problems and getting tougher on yob behaviour is well overdue.
Why do you think it’s worse in Britain than other developed countries? Do you think British young people are inherently more violent than others? Are they just born this way?
A superb post. You are right in every respect.
I know that this is a bit of a cliche, but I believe that it must be down to parenting and education. They are the two main factors that influence a child. So often, in the reports I have been reading, the parents, or more commonly, the parent, doesn’t know or seem to care what their child is doing.
They have no guidance and no sense of what is moral. They obviously have no sense of empathy. They need to learn about this. What is available is schooling, parenting and their peers. The latter may have a different set of values to the former.
Well the point of my last post was attempting to say that in not clamping down on certain behaviours we encourage them to not only continue, but get worse. People see they can get away with x, so they try y. “Flexing their muscles”, so to speak.
This kind of thing has gone on for so long that a generation has grown up and I’m sure there are parents that will be telling their children things like “…so then I told the teacher to fuck off and she couldn’t say anything”.
But I do want to make a point about genetics. One of the philosophies that seems to have slipped into the public consciousness is the idea that people are inherently good and it is only particular circumstances that act to make them behave badly e.g. being abused, not having a father figure around.
I don’t subscribe to this.
I think there are a distribution of personalities and some people are inclined to be aggressive or spiteful or whatever. And if we don’t deal with this reality, then other people with less of an inclination will start to behave the same way, because the perception will be that such behaviours are effective.
Leaflets? How delightfully old-school…