The skanger debate

bonkey

Originally posted by klaz
Only if you take the stance that there is no chance. That there is no luck, and that everything is mapped out by your genes.

Huh? I said genetic or influenced by society.
Luck figures into your dealings with society.

You see i don't agree, and i've read books that argue for both concepts.

So what do you believe in? That we have a non-genetic, non-influenced-by-the-world-around-us decision-making process? How is this possible?

You see, in a family of regular people, with traditional values, there may be a person produced who doesn't conform to those values.

No offence, klaz, but I thought you said you had done some sociology. Explaining how this doesn't cause the slightest problem to either the genetic, societal or the mixed model is one of the absolute basics.

How that person came to that point is determined by many factors. genetic makeup is just one factor.

Yes, and everything else is societal in nature.

i on the other hand take the viewpoint that a number of experiences influenced them into the lifestyle they chose.

Yes. Indeed they do. Massively. Thats sociological influence in its purest and simplest form.

A number of decisions that brought them into living like they do. The choice of whether to take a job or not. The choice whether to make friends with known troublemakers or not. The choice to do drugs or not.

But those decisions are made based on an evaluation "basis", which is itself formed from genetic and societal influences. There is no true "freedom" in this respect. If there was, then statistical "black holes" like drug-spots, etc. would be entirely random in nature and not linkable to other statistical facts.

We all are offered these choices, and we decide on our own.

No. We decide on our own, after everything else in our life that has occurred to date has occurred. In other words, we make our decision, influenced by society.

No. The only power that society has is what you give to it.

Thats ridiculous. Or do you think, for example, that the still-continuing sexual inequality between men and women is because women choose to be treated differently????

I acknowledge that society as a concept exists but I don't conform my life to it.

Society, in the sociological context, is where you live your life - it is your surroundings, the people etc.

It is neither a concept that one can live life "by", nor something one can live a life without.

I'll take the easy option, and allow myself to be influenced by it, but i'll make my decisions myself.

No - you'll allow yourself to believe that you are making those decisions yourself.

For example : do you support the idea of murder? No? Why? It will be because of some moral stance that you have reached. Why do you hold this moral stance? Well, regardless of how you may have "reconsidered" the problem, initially you hold that moral position because someone else taught you that it was the right one to have. When re-evaluating it, you did so using lessons you had - again - been taught from others.

So do you freely choose that murder is wrong? No, not really. Unless you can say that you freely choose all of the underlying reasoning that the murder-conclusion is based on, as well as the concept of murder itself! Its impossible.

We created the Society we live in. So yes, society in that concept is to blame, as we are. And as these scum are to blame. It cannot be lumped on Society as the only reason.

Correct - we, and they, are both part of society. We, and they, must therefore carry the blame. Not one, not the other. Both.

Then we should look at who has the best chance of changing things. You look at the skanger and say "its just your freely-made choices which are screwing you. Change your choices, and it will be better". And what does this do? It removes our responsibility. Its back to the old binary situation again - its us, or its them.

On the other hand, we can look and ask ourselves what more we can do. Its a problem that effects us, and its a problem that we have the capability to do more to address. Using your very own logic, surely we have only ourselves to blame if we freely choose not do more to resolve it.

Its called being an Adult.

No, its called being responsible. If it was called "being an adult", then there wouldn't be any adults who weren't doing these things....but there's no shortage of them.

We're humans, and its called survival of the fittest.

If its survival of the fittest, then these violently-disposed people have a clear edge. WE should adopt their tactics, lest they win.

Its not survival of the fittest. That notion is entirely at odds with any form of "social conscience". Why do we feed the starving? Why do we pay the unemployed? Why do we give the homeless a roof over their head?

None of these things are survival of the fittest, and if I believed in your logic, I would be insisting that they are only starving, unemployed, or homeless because they choose to be and therefore deserve nothing.

We can theorise how nice it would be in a perfect state of equality

I'm not theorising how nice equality would be at all. I don't believe in equality.

I'm saying that its a very simple case of self interest. You have a problem. You can contribute to the solution. You don't want to contribute because you see it as someone else's problem.

Your choice. You live with it.

jc

TacT

Sleepy - Fair play to those of you that do, to be honest, I do what I can, but I don't think it should be expected of society in general.
So who do you reckon it's up to?

Klaz you can't even admit to human conditioning since birth which everyone goes through and it consequently affects the choices later in your life as bonkey has pointed out. Why do you think there was a time when the girls played with the dolls and the boys played with the toy soldiers and it was wrong to play with the doll if you were a boy? It's because society has literally programmed you to think the doll is not suitable for you when you may have in fact preferred it - where is your choice now?

Sleepy

I don't think it's necessary. If everyone did their bit by working in tax paying jobs, obeying the law and was just generally polite to each other we wouldn't have to put up with this ****e. Those that do misbehave should be punished harshly enough to act as a deterrant to others that might think of following in their footsteps.

It's not my job to take care of someone elses children because they're too bloody lazy to do it. I'm not trying to be selfish here, like I already said, I do what I can. That said, it isn't my job to bring up some lazy bastards kids....

Victor

Originally posted by klaz
But I do believe that the leftie view of blaming society is a cop out. These people chose to be this way.

A guy who works with my brother in law runs a soccer club for 10 years olds in Ballymun on Saturday mornings. They have to have a Breakfast club beforehand as some of the kids don't g et breakfast at home. At one point they had to stop one of the kids after his eighth Weetabix.

Do you really think these kids make their own choices?

chewy

its seems to me somebody said that my suggestion of compassion without return was lefty notion

is compassion a lefty idea?



^reasoned debate^

\/not\/

PAYING YOUR TAXES IS NOT ENOUGH!

have you never had a problem money couldn't fix ?


also sleepy was there ever a law you didn't agree with you ever sued unlicenced software copy a cd etc etc, if you ever ahd under your terms you should probably be in jail....

Redleslie

Originally posted by klaz
I don't like scum, cause i've been mugged twice in my life. I've been beaten up for no reason another three times. In all cases, by middle class scum.

Originally posted by klaz
We're humans, and its called survival of the fittest. We can theorise how nice it would be in a perfect state of equality, but we're still predators, and theres still a primate in every one of us.

Doesn't sound like you're very "fit". You can't even take care of yourself.

monument

Originally posted by klaz
But our own choices and decisions also have a major bearing on how we define our lives.

The choices which are open to us have an even larger bearing on the above.

Zaphod B

Originally posted by bonkey
My problem is that most people want to blame A or B. They want the skanger to be blamed, or they want society to be blamed. No-one seems interested in saying "who cares who's to blame...how do we fix the problem", and about the same number seem interested in saying "we must all acknowledge our failings in this area, because we have all failed".
jc

Very good point - there are no real solutions being offered here except "lock 'em up" - which I personally don't feel is a very good solution. Let me just deal with that for a second...

Originally posted by Sleepy
In a nation where most criminals walk because "the jails are full", "it wasn't his fault", "he hadn't the education" or "prison will just make him a hardened criminal". Sorry, but that's all bollox

Er... right. I'll refer specificially to your suggestion that jail doesn't exacerbate the person's problems, and ask you exactly what experience or rationale you're basing this on. Do you honestly believe shoplifters will walk out of jail and think "F*ck me that was nasty, I'll not steal again"? I think it's more likely that they'll think "F*ck me that was nasty, I'll not get caught next time".
As for the chain gang bit, let's re-word it and it might start to sound sensible. I don't have a problem with community service. If you do insist on putting them in jail then let's give them something constructive to do while they're there that shows them there are things they can do and roles they can take in society. At least then if they re-offend you can say they're making an informed choice.


Getting back to my original reply to Bonkey's post... I don't personally feel responsible; I give my time and money when I can, I'd quite like a bit of reform, I do apologise if I was born into a family who work hard but don't struggle to survive and who brought me up well but believe it or not it wasn't my decision. Do I feel I have a responsibility as a member of society to those less fortunate than myself? Yes - it doesn't mean I'm to blame for their predicament though.

As for your comment on people not coming up with a solution... that still hasn't changed. Even you yourself have just continued your argument about the importance of societal factors without suggesting a solution. The problem I have is that one side of this argument still just seems to be trying to defend the actions of "Skangers" by identifying that societal factors have affected them. I really do have to suggest though, surely the same applies to murderers, rapists, child molesters, terrorists and dictators - there have to be some sociological factors behind their choices too; we can't just say "Ah if someone steals it's because of their upbringing, education, situation and experiences, but if someone rapes a child it's because they've just plain Evil". But in those cases we demand that something is done, whether we're for punishment, prevention or treatment. Why should this "Skanger" issue be any different? Let's actually hear what people want done about it.

Personally I think you need to come at it from both ways. First of all I'll do the Quixotic thing and suggest we improve education, provide encouragement and opportunities and generally try to give people a better standard of living... as if that'll actually happen . (Incidentally Bonk how do you "not believe in equality"... do you mean you don't see it as feasible, or do you mean you don't believe people deserve equal opportunities and treatment?) In the meantime though I don't think just allowing antisocial behaviour to continue is a viable solution either; I reckon community service or other work of some kind (hopefully involving helping others) would be a constructive answer that might also persuade them to engage constructively in society.

Bear in mind that these are just a few of my thoughts and I'd really appreciate other suggestions - like Bonkey says let's turn this debate into one of solutions to the problem rather than just a discussion of the nature of it.

Also bear in mind that I've had a few tonite I hope this makes sense in the morning.

Hairy Homer

Ah go on. Let them talk about Roy Keane on the soccer forum.

Doesn't sound like you're very "fit". You can't even take care of yourself.

Oh i'm capable of fighting maybe one or two people, but a group, no. Can you fight off 6-10 guys? If so, congratulations, you're at the peak of physical power.

Klaz you can't even admit to human conditioning since birth which everyone goes through and it consequently affects the choices later in your life as bonkey has pointed out. Why do you think there was a time when the girls played with the dolls and the boys played with the toy soldiers and it was wrong to play with the doll if you were a boy? It's because society has literally programmed you to think the doll is not suitable for you when you may have in fact preferred it - where is your choice now?

Read what i said. I said that neither genes nor society as an entity have complete control over how our lives are shaped. I've said that they're factors that influence our decisions in life. It is those decisions that determine where we are today.

Huh? I said genetic or influenced by society.
Luck figures into your dealings with society.

Luck, randomness etc figures into all aspects of society and genetics. Rogue genes are available in genetics.

No offence, klaz, but I thought you said you had done some sociology. Explaining how this doesn't cause the slightest problem to either the genetic, societal or the mixed model is one of the absolute basics.

Bonkey, If you want to take everything as being an absolute go ahead. Looks like you're going to anyway.

No. We decide on our own, after everything else in our life that has occurred to date has occurred. In other words, we make our decision, influenced by society.

True. BUT, we also make those decisions by past experiences. By the factors involved in making that decision. You see, i could turn my back on Society, and bugger off to some desert Island. Its not in my genes to do this. Its a choice.

Society tells us to be responsible, to be polite, to get a job, to make money etc. Its your choice to obey what society tells you.

Society is our interaction with others of our own species (humans). If i decide to have no contact whatsoever with humans, their activities,their laws, their culture, i have no contact with society. Then by your reasoning the genes would completely take over. They wouldn't. It would affect my reasoning and decision making, but at the end of the day, it would be my choice.

Thats ridiculous. Or do you think, for example, that the still-continuing sexual inequality between men and women is because women choose to be treated differently????

Partially. Look, If i meet you on the street. I don't know you. I've never met you. There is no connection or history. Any power or influence that you have over me, it given by me to you. I choose on an unconscious level how much power to give away. However, you can, through practice figure this out, and limit the power that you give others. Hence trhe reason why some people are alot more relaxed amongst strangers or iunteracting with beautiful women.

I'll go through the rest in a bit, when i get Lunch.

RainyDay

Hi Klaz

Let's imagine there was a mixup at the maternity hospital, and you were accidentaly swapped with a skanger baby. So you got his family background, his schooling, his medical treatment, his friends and vice versa - he got yours.

Do you really reckon you would have grown up as the solid, upstanding citizen that you are (in the skanger environment), and he would have still grown up to be the skanger?

Sleepy

The Irish system just doesn't work. Most skangers will not respect you if you try and help them. Maybe there's some hope in providing education and encouragement to the young kids.

chewy - there's a massive difference between copyright theft and violent crimes such as mugging people on the street. Yes, both are crimes. This, to my mind is where you need a two tier prison system. One for non-violent offenders (where they serve equally long terms, mind) and a second for the thugs (and yes I include the Foxrock boys in this category).

Jail should be a punishment. Of course prisoners should be entitled to decent food and some chance of rehabilitation. They should, however, pay their way in society. It sickens me that the prison system is so arseways that it costs more to put a criminal in the Joy that it would to put them up in the Burlington. If it means having the scumbags sewing footballs for Nike, I don't give a ****e as long as they pay for themselves. If you act like a thug, you lose your rights imho. None of this telly in every cell nonsense that you have today, hard back-breaking (productive) work will keep any criminal too tired to cause trouble in their cell. Prison should be a deterrant as well as a punishment. More cops are needed to ensure that most (because all is simply unfeasible) criminals go to jail.

A zero-tolerance approach to anti-social crimes combined with increased spending on education in schools and broader education (in terms of community outreach projects etc) is the answer to this problem. I obey the law because I don't need to steal to make a living and because, quite frankly, I don't want to go to prison. I'm not a violent person because I just don't see the point, probably because I was taught manners and respect for others as a child.

Make jail a horrible place to be, education (of some level) a given and there'll be less scumbags.

Otherwise, reversibly neuter the entire population (at the age of 10) and only allow people to have the reversal procedure performed upon the completion of a parenting course which is only available to those who can prove they can support and properly raise a child in this world.

RainyDay

Originally posted by Sleepy
A zero-tolerance approach to anti-social crimes combined with increased spending on education in schools and broader education (in terms of community outreach projects etc) is the answer to this problem. I obey the law because I don't need to steal to make a living and because, quite frankly, I don't want to go to prison. I'm not a violent person because I just don't see the point, probably because I was taught manners and respect for others as a child.

Make jail a horrible place to be, education (of some level) a given and there'll be less scumbags.

There is no evidence that this approach actually works. Thatcher tried the 'short, sharp, shock' military-style bootcamp for young offenders in the 80's - Re-offending rates were the same as 'standard' jails. There was a famous prison somewhere in the US deep south where the governor boasted about how he fed the prisoners for less than he fed the guard dogs - All the same old stuff about tough routines, chain gangs, no TV's etc - Recidivist rates were slightly higher than standard jails.

This approach might satisfy your need for vengance - but it won't solve our crime problem.

Sleepy

Fine, if they're too thick to learn just shoot the bastards so.

Seriously though, how about a three strikes and you're out policy. How would people feel about that? As a law abiding member of society it'd suit me fine...

Redleslie

Originally posted by klaz
Oh i'm capable of fighting maybe one or two people, but a group, no. Can you fight off 6-10 guys? If so, congratulations, you're at the peak of physical power.

So it's survival of the fittest as long as there's a level playing field.

Sleipnir

Originally posted by RainyDay
There is no evidence that this approach actually works. Thatcher tried the 'short, sharp, shock' military-style bootcamp for young offenders in the 80's - Re-offending rates were the same as 'standard' jails. There was a famous prison somewhere in the US deep south where the governor boasted about how he fed the prisoners for less than he fed the guard dogs - All the same old stuff about tough routines, chain gangs, no TV's etc - Recidivist rates were slightly higher than standard jails.

This approach might satisfy your need for vengance - but it won't solve our crime problem.

It worked in New York.

For example : do you support the idea of murder? No? Why? It will be because of some moral stance that you have reached. Why do you hold this moral stance? Well, regardless of how you may have "reconsidered" the problem, initially you hold that moral position because someone else taught you that it was the right one to have. When re-evaluating it, you did so using lessons you had - again - been taught from others.

Not quite. My feelings in regards to murder is that i'm against it because allowing it puts me at risk. Extremely selfish i know. I figure that if the Law prohibits murder, it lessens the chance that someone will try to kill me because i looked at him/her wrong etc. Society tells me murder is wrong. I'm definetly influenced by society's
opinions/rules etc. But the decision to be against it or not to perform the act is my choice.

Then we should look at who has the best chance of changing things. You look at the skanger and say "its just your freely-made choices which are screwing you. Change your choices, and it will be better". And what does this do? It removes our responsibility. Its back to the old binary situation again - its us, or its them.

I got my lifestyle by making a number of decisions each and every day. Whether to take this job, whether to achieve an education, whether to work hard or not. I chose the area in society where i wanted to live. If i wanted to be richer, I would have worked harder, Got a better education etc.
It was a choice. And only i'm responsible for that.

On the other hand, we can look and ask ourselves what more we can do. Its a problem that effects us, and its a problem that we have the capability to do more to address. Using your very own logic, surely we have only ourselves to blame if we freely choose not do more to resolve it.

True. It is our responsibility and theirs. I'm saying that you cannot point at someone and say that the only reason that person has that lifestyle or mentality is because Society has mistrated them. They brought themselves to that point. If we want them to act more live ourselves, then its up to us, to influence them.

But, and this is important, it will be their decision to either join with the rest of us living within the culture we do, or reject it.

No, its called being responsible. If it was called "being an adult", then there wouldn't be any adults who weren't doing these things....but there's no shortage of them.

I agree. Bad choice of wording on my part.

If its survival of the fittest, then these violently-disposed people have a clear edge. WE should adopt their tactics, lest they win.

Survival of the fittest does not need to be purely physical. In our environment, survival also includes the status, and quality of living that we have. For myself, i count myself as being middle of the road. Theres alot of people
who are doing alot better, and alot that are doing worse. It was my choice to get my life to this stage.

Its not survival of the fittest. That notion is entirely at odds with any form of "social conscience". Why do we feed the starving? Why do we pay the unemployed? Why do we give the homeless a roof over their head?

Guilt? You see i donate some money each year to two charities each year, because i can spare it. They don't have it and i do. Saying that, I'm not going to sacrifice my life to helping others. Its my choice. Just as its the choice of others to do so.
For them, they have their own reasons for doing it. Perhaps they enjoy it. I don't know, because i don't feel that way.

None of these things are survival of the fittest, and if I believed in your logic, I would be insisting that they are only starving, unemployed, or homeless because they choose to be and therefore deserve nothing.

Pretty much. I can show compassion for these people, but my own opinion is that their decisions brought them to live like that. Its their choice to remain that way. It may be extremely hard to change their circumstances, but i do believe they have
the ability to improve themselves.

I'm not theorising how nice equality would be at all. I don't believe in equality.

Ah but you are. You're saying that we're all controlled by society and our genes. That makes us equal in the lack of control we have over our lives.

I'm saying that its a very simple case of self interest. You have a problem. You can contribute to the solution. You don't want to contribute because you see it as someone else's problem.

You're jumping to conclusions here. I said that i didn't want to devote myself to helping others. Its my choice to do that. I didn't say that i would do nothing to help in any form. But yes, I do see it as someone elses problem, and until they decide that they need help and are willing to change, i'm not going to waste my time with them.

Your choice. You live with it.

I'll have to, won't I? And its my choice, not society's or my genes. Just as its your choice to live whatever way you do. In fact, what is it you believe, in regards to "skangers"? Because I've not seen you actually say anything abt the thread itself.

Let's imagine there was a mixup at the maternity hospital, and you were accidentaly swapped with a skanger baby. So you got his family background, his schooling, his medical treatment, his friends and vice versa - he got yours.

The full answer is below, but just a comment abt this. Your lifestyle, your friends, your level education are not predetermined at birth. Sure, if you take the easy option and follow the plans of your parents, and don't want any real involvement in your life, these things could be pre-determined. However, for most people, they decide for themselves how they want to live and where they want to live. When growing up I had friends from the Traveller community. Not quite the friends my parents would prefered me to have. I made friends with them, because it happened that way (school/sports etc). A chance effect that i found myself enjoying my time with them. If my friends had been pre-determined by society, these people would have been kept at arms length, not so much because the were travellers themselves,
but rather because of my parents opinions of their families, and their history in the neighbourhood.

Do you really reckon you would have grown up as the solid, upstanding citizen that you are (in the skanger environment), and he would have still grown up to be the skanger?

No, I don't. I think there'd be a chance that he(I) would, but it would depend on the decisions, he(I) would make. Where he makes his friends, does he enjoy school, does he decide to do drugs. I don't believe that its totally dependent on
either society or his genes. Neither society nor his genes decides if he'll do drugs, he does himself. I know a number of "knackers", who come from very troubled families, and yet they've managed to lead successful lives, that don't entail what their families normally live. They didn't follow the future that "society" laid out for them, nor their genes going back, say 4 generations (all troublesome knacker families), which should have decided that they'd be drug dealing, thieving,
troublesome individuals.

You see, I don't do "Hard drugs" (I have the occasional Joint, even though Society tells me thats wrong, but then perhaps thats part of my genes :lol ) not because Society tells me its wrong, but because I've seen their affects on friends, and would rather not take that risk.

The decision not to take drugs is my own. Sure, the law and society does have some influence, but I've decided from my own experiences. I just don't want to live that life.

You see, people are posting here as if either society or genes determine how a person is going to evolve every time. They've decided that its assured that a person will turn out a certain way. I, on the otherhand, believe that a person
will evolve on their own, with both society and their genetic makeup influencing their lives, not deciding them.

Which brings us back to the skanger debate. I believe these people are responsible for the lifestyle, and attitude that they have. They are responsible for it. Society and genetic makeup have an influence. They just aren't total excuses
for these peoples' actions.

The issue with these skangers is that for the most part, they're young offenders, which means that they're under a different legal system than adults. Which made alot of sense in the past, but now i'm not so sure.

A Zero-Tolerence attitude does not need to take the standpoint of revenge or pure punishment, but what it can take the standpoint of making it clear to offenders that they will be punished if they commit crimes.

Whether thats prison sentences, work details, fines etc. I don't really know. What i do know is that past techniques when dealing with these people are just not working, and a new method needs to be applied.

So it's survival of the fittest as long as there's a level playing field.

Oh come on. What i'm saying is that there is survival of the fittest in many areas. I'm better at my job than many other people, which in turn generates more income. Compared to them i'm more successful. At the same time, i'm physically not a powerhouse, so theres plenty of people out there that are capable of taking me out. Yes, its survival of the fittest.
And people accuse me of being deliberately obtuse.

ixoy

Originally posted by klaz
Which brings us back to the skanger debate. I believe these people are responsible for the lifestyle, and attitude that they have. They are responsible for it. Society and genetic makeup have an influence. They just aren't total excuses
for these peoples' actions.

There. You've neatly summated my opinion on the matter as well. Perhaps a socially deprived background increases the likelihood of adopting a certain attitude - it does not excuse it overall though. Like klaz, I also have known people from rough backgrounds who have come out well, without resorting to the base behaviour exhibited by others.

What I find interesting is this notion that we're responsible for their background, and should seek to make amends for it. That there's an owness upon us due to our - possibly - more fortunate circumstances. I pay my way through society as well and have worked many years to achieve this position. Is this work and dedication, this payment in taxes, not enough? Is my general desire to be pleasant to others and treat them as I would wish to be treated, not correct? This to me, seems like being a good citizen. Why am I to take on the burden of other's actions? The skanger mentality is one of extreme selfishness with complete disregard for the disruption and harm they cause other. It's almost the anthisesis of good citizenship. Feeling disenfranchised from society however is no grounds for not having, or being able to work to, some ethical code. In its simplest form, almost Biblical in notion, is the concept of "love thy neighbor" which may masquerade itself more as "be pleasant to thy neighbor". I respect this tenent and it costs nothing to do so. It's pretty good in that sense...

bonkey

Originally posted by Zaphod B
As for your comment on people not coming up with a solution... that still hasn't changed. Even you yourself have just continued your argument about the importance of societal factors without suggesting a solution.

Well, thats partly because I believe it is first important to try and clearly understand a problem before trying to fix it.

like Bonkey says let's turn this debate into one of solutions to the problem rather than just a discussion of the nature of it.

Did I say that?

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by klaz
You see, i could turn my back on Society, and bugger off to some desert Island. Its not in my genes to do this. Its a choice.

Why would you make that choice? If its not your genes, what is it? You're fed up of the world around you? The people? You want a change of scene? You're running away from something?

Every single possible reason you can give - other than genetics - for making that choice are based on societal influences. Every single one of them.

Look - there's no point in continuing this line of discussion. In your first response to me, you claimed to know some sociology, and that you agree with it. And yet every single stance that you're taking here snice then in response to the points I'm raising is basically saying "No, sociology is wrong.".

While you persist in believing in an absolute free choice, which you apply to any situation you feel like saying it applies to, then there is absolutely nothing which anyone can say to possibly change your position.

All I will say in closing is that I do find it somewhat hypocritical to say that you have a problem that you choose not to fix because you want someone else to do something about it first.

Why do I think thats hypocritical?

Ask yourself this : what if the skanger has exactly the same attitude as you about their problems? They have - by your logic - the same freedom of choice as you. They freely choose - as do you - to let the problem persist, because they - just like you - are willing to suffer the downsides until someone else does something first.

So both of you will sit there, blaming the other, choosing to continue suffering...and both of you will be on yoru respective moral high-horse about the other person being wrong.

jc

RainyDay

Originally posted by Sleipnir
It worked in New York.

Tell us more, Sleipnir - What changes to law enforcement were made? What changes to prison regimes were made? What was the real impact on the crime figures?

TacT

I give up, early this morning I had a big long whopper of a post all done up only to lose it.
klaz, your arguments and opinions contradict each other one post after the other and you still haven't changed your stance probably because you're stubborn and can't be wrong because you chose to be right. Let the sleeping dogs lie and don't be whining about the scumbags unless you're going to do something about it. Ignoring problems does not make them go away. These people are a part of our society just like we are so someone please answer me this; who does the responsibility of societies problems lie with if not us and who is going to do something about it if not us?

Still the whining continues and the problem is not ignored until it suits you to do a bit of bitching. I think a big part of the problem is also the fact that once you stop thinking of these people as people and constantly refer to them as scumbags, that it can do nothing but inflame the situation and make you come across as a mass stereotypist who presumes everyone in any group of people should be labelled with the same badge. How this helps either I don't know but maybe it's helping you to dumb down a complex situation to suit yourself once again.

So who's coming out with me Thursday night to do some soup rounds for the homeless?

ixoy

Originally posted by TacT
IThese people are a part of our society just like we are so someone please answer me this; who does the responsibility of societies problems lie with if not us and who is going to do something about it if not us?

I don't get this. Firstly, a scumbag is a person who adopts an attitude. It is not something you are born into. It is not a condition solely found in poor areas. It's a mindset whereby you treat those around you like crap. People who adopt this willful attitude shouldn't get away with it.

Now your attitude to this is commendable, in that you should reach out and listen to their side, illuminate a different way of thinking, et cetera so they don't feel the need to act this way. Myself, I'm a bit more for the "tough love" approach. That's taking the fact that, for all the crap you may have gone through, that may somewhat provode mitigating circumstances, you still don't get to treat people like crap. I will not however ever be cold or rude to a group of people. A skanger is someone who shows a dissrespectful attitude, which I would be hesitant to associate with any particular background.

---- Bonkey

Every single possible reason you can give - other than genetics - for making that choice are based on societal influences. Every single one of them.

But at the end of that tunnel of influences there's something called a decision. Once all the info (influences) are combined, a decision is made. You really can't understand where i'm going with this?

While you persist in believing in an absolute free choice, which you apply to any situation you feel like saying it applies to, then there is absolutely nothing which anyone can say to possibly change your position.

For someone thats finding this annoying, you seem to have the same problem your prescribing to me. You'll see, on many of my comments, that i say that its not an absolute. These people, in fact all people lives are determined by genes, society and their decisions.
Its you thats been saying that its absolutely either social or genetics.

All I will say in closing is that I do find it somewhat hypocritical to say that you have a problem that you choose not to fix because you want someone else to do something about it first.

No what i'm saying is that i'm not prepared to help those who aren't prepared to help themselves. If they make an effort to help themselves, make an attempt to change their lives/attitudes
then i'm very much interested in helping. Its just that i'm not able to rely on faith.

So both of you will sit there, blaming the other, choosing to continue suffering...and both of you will be on yoru respective moral high-horse about the other person being wrong.

Sure. I agree. But we're not talking abt their lives being completely correct. We're saying that they should conform their lives to fit somewhat moreso into society. If we were talking abt my life or your life
as being wrong and dangerous, then that would be the issue. We're not.

---- TacT

I give up, early this morning I had a big long whopper of a post all done up only to lose it.

Use notepad. Its safer.

klaz, your arguments and opinions contradict each other one post after the other and you still haven't changed your stance probably because you're stubborn and can't be wrong because you chose to be right.

This is what gets me sometimes. You complain that I (and other posters) don't change my mind to conform to your ideas, and yet i haven't complained once you don't do the same for mine? You know i could just be right in this. *shock*
And i don't see how my posts contradict each other, since i've followed the same vein the whole way. Society and genetics influence a person, but they're not absolutes. A person still has their own choice/decision to make.

Let the sleeping dogs lie and don't be whining about the scumbags unless you're going to do something about it. Ignoring problems does not make them go away. These people are a part of our society just like we are so someone please answer me this;
who does the responsibility of societies problems lie with if not us and who is going to do something about it if not us?

Whining? We're discussing. Besides, have i once cried out "why, oh, why are these people different to us?" </sarcasm> I haven't seen any whining or moaning so far in this post. Perhaps its because we don't fall to our knees and beg forgiveness for not argreeing with you?

The problems in society lie with all of us. Strangely enough you seem to have problems recognising this. You have this masocistic belief that if something is wrong with society it must be your fault. Its not. You're only partially responsible.
The rest of the responsibility lies with the people in question. This seems to be the issue you have problems with. These people are not victims. Nobody put a gun against their head and pulled the trigger without giving them a chance.
They have the same opportunity as us to rise beyond what we are and change.

Still the whining continues and the problem is not ignored until it suits you to do a bit of bitching.

Oddly enough is you that seems to be doing the bitching. And the problem is not being ignored hence the actual discussion here. Some people may leave this discussion and decide to help out. Otherwise whats the point of you actually posting here?

I think a big part of the problem is also the fact that once you stop thinking of these people as people and constantly refer to them as scumbags, that it can do nothing but inflame the situation and make you come across as a mass stereotypist who presumes everyone in any group of people should be labelled with the same badge.

I label people. I surely do. I label people by their actions, and by my perception of them. It happens everyday, and more often than not its unconscious. In this case, I see a grp of kids dressed quite rough, causing trouble, I'll label them as scum. You might label them as "impoverished kids", "needy kids" etc. It happens.

How this helps either I don't know but maybe it's helping you to dumb down a complex situation to suit yourself once again.

Perhaps it is. I'll think abt it and perhaps it'll change the way i think of this category of society.

bonkey

Originally posted by klaz
But at the end of that tunnel of influences there's something called a decision. Once all the info (influences) are combined, a decision is made. You really can't understand where i'm going with this?

Yes - you want to yet again attempt to dissociate the decision with what influences the making of that decision, so that there is "something else" to take into account. This "something else", incidentally, is unquantified. You said luck played a part...but I somehow doubt you're going to say that its the only other significant factor. After all....that would mean that you're comdemning people for being unlucky.

These people, in fact all people lives are determined by genes, society and their decisions.

See - I knew thats where you were going with it. You are dissociating their decisions from their genetic and societal influences....which is exactly the point I made in the last post. You say you agree with sociology, and then continue to come up with this anti-sociological stance.

If they make an effort to help themselves, make an attempt to change their lives/attitudes then i'm very much interested in helping.

What you left out there is the word "successful" - if they make a successful attempt to change their lives. Because if its not successful, you've already written it off to a decision they have made - that they have chosen to fail.

You will help those who have shown they no longer need help. The rest, you will say, have said, and are saying have simply chosen to remain the way they are.

You haven't, incidentally, explained about what happens when someone chooses to make a better life for themselves, but society prevents it. You know - like the women who fight for equality. If women's choices are only partially responsible for the inequality (as you have stated), then what happens when a women chooses to be treated equally, but the remainder of whatever it is that causes inequality still results in them being treated inequally?

Your "I'll help them once they show...." stance says that the parallel to those women also don't get your help. Or can you distinguish between the failure who has chosen to be a failure, and the failure who has chosen not to be one, but who has had other influences make him one?

Its just that i'm not able to rely on faith.

But you are relying on faith. You have faith that people have something called a free will - that they freely make these decisions. You have faith that you can distinguish between those that are in a situation because they choose to be, and those who are in a situation because they choose not to be but lack the means to actually change things.

There is no credible scientific model which supports these things, so you are indeed relying on faith.

You you are possibly not able to do is change the faith that you rely on....which is, again, interesting, because you're comdemning others for having the exact same limitation - an inability to change themselves to better adapt to, or overcome, adversity.

So it seems that youre condemning all these people for having the same traits that you are exhibiting, but for having them in a different situation. But its not the situation's fault, according to you, so exactly what is the problem, or - if you still insist its about choice - why should you not be condemned equally for refusing to choose to make your own life better in preference to choosing to complaining about how others refuse to make their own life better to solve your problems instead of dealing with it themselves?

We're saying that they should conform their lives to fit somewhat moreso into society.

Yes, and if it was something they could do themselves, don't you think they'd already have done it?

You are writing off their failure as choice - they choose to live this way. They choose to fail. They choose to never better themselves. They choose to live in hunger and poverty.

Your entire argument to date has been that if they really wanted something better they'd have it...they'd just have to choose so.

And now you're saying that once they had it, you'd be willing to help them get it!!!

If they tried and failed - how would you know? You would only see someone who is still a failure, and therefore wouldn't help them because they hadn't helped themselves. And if you'd help those who had tried and failed, how would you know you weren't helping those who chose to pretend to try and fail in order to get your sympathy.

Nope...the only way it makes sense is if you help those who no longer need your help.

There's still something wrong there, though. Maybe you can spot it?

My argument says that each and every one of us is responsible not only for our own lives, but for the impact our lives has on others. Yes, that means the skanger is responsible for beating someone up. But it also means that the better-off parts of society are also responsible for helping to create and perpetuate the social conditions which have been such a formative part of the people we wish were different, such as the aforemoentioned skanger. We carry that responsibility both as individuals and as members of society.

The thing is that its relatively easy for the more well-off to change their positions. Both individually, and as a part of society. And while it is societal change which is what is needed, but this will only come about through change in the individual.

That is why the leftist ideal is so centred around "we must take responsibility". "We" meaning "our society", but we will only get there when we - the indivuals - start both accepting that this is so, and start accepting the responsibility that we must. For while we - as individuals - continue to look at the problem and say that those other individuals are the cause, and they are what needs to change, we are missing the point, the problem, and the means to finding a solution.

All we are doing instead, is just re-inforcing that we just don't care about their problems....we just want them to stop causing us problems. Strangely enough, that is the problem.

jc

ixoy

Can I narrow the focus a bit for one moment and try and illustrate with an example:

[Skanger on a bus with person. Skanger is smoking]
Person: Sorry could you put that out please?
Skanger: F**k off.

Simple scenario. How does societal influences, economic class, et cetera. influence that situation to such a degree that the skanger becomes incapable of extinguishing a cigarette and/or not responding in an overtly agressive manner?

Yes - you want to yet again attempt to dissociate the decision with what influences the making of that decision, so that there is "something else" to take into account.

No no no. I'm saying that a person still has a choice/decision that comes along with the influences that society and genes cause. Its not unquantified, its part of what we call a "decision making process", otherwise we'd be calling it "picking an option from a set number of limited options".

You say you agree with sociology, and then continue to come up with this anti-sociological stance.

How am i doing that when sociology acknowledges peoples ability to make decisions that goes separate to social influences.

What you left out there is the word "successful" - if they make a successful attempt to change their lives. Because if its not successful, you've already written it off to a decision they have made - that they have chosen to fail.

No, you're making the assumption that its totally reliant on being successful. Look, the reason i have the lifestyle i have at the moment is because i am constantly fighting to keep it. If was an issue of a once off success, i wouldn't have to budget my money, check status of accounts regularly, and constantly look for ways to improve my situation.

You will help those who have shown they no longer need help. The rest, you will say, have said, and are saying have simply chosen to remain the way they are.

perhaps you're right. I hadn't actually thought of it that way. But I'm also curious, just who are you helping by saying that these people have no option in being who they are, that they have no choice, and shouldn't be helped because sopciety and genes have placed them in those situations. This is not a dig at you, but rather i'm curious to know where your reasoning leads....

You haven't, incidentally, explained about what happens when someone chooses to make a better life for themselves, but society prevents it.

Fight it. Otherwise, black people would still be working in the corn fields, irish people would still be in the British Empire, and Slavery would still be a very socially acceptable act. What? Are you going to say that society shouldn't be fought?

But you are relying on faith. You have faith that people have something called a free will - that they freely make these decisions. You have faith that you can distinguish between those that are in a situation because they choose to be, and those who are in a situation because they choose not to be but lack the means to actually change things.

free will. free will to make decisions and face the consequences. Yes i do believe in it. I live by it. Don't you? When you get up in the morning, has society already decided what you're going to eat, wear, etc. has it decided whether you'll have a cigarette while lingering over the paper, and has it decided the woman you might one day marry? No. you decide those things even on a subconscious level, Society influences it.

There is no credible scientific model which supports these things, so you are indeed relying on faith.

i'll get back to you on this. TBH, you could be right. But surely i'm not the first person to have had these ideas, so you being the research guru could find a number of articles that disproves what i'm saying?

You you are possibly not able to do is change the faith that you rely on....which is, again, interesting, because you're comdemning others for having the exact same limitation - an inability to change themselves to better adapt to, or overcome, adversity.

huh? I'm blaming them for the inability to change, when i constantly make the decisions to progree my life? Is that what you're saying?

why should you not be condemned equally for refusing to choose to make your own life better in preference to choosing to complaining about how others refuse to make their own life better to solve your problems instead of dealing with it themselves?

bonkey, I really don't know where you're getting this from. I've complained that these people don't choose the change their lives for the better. yes, i have. But i have also explained that I have come to the status in my life by the decisions i made. just as they have come to their status by their decisions. i'm constantly seeking ways to improve my life. I set myself certain goals when i was a teenager, and i'm getting close to achieving them.

Yes, and if it was something they could do themselves, don't you think they'd already have done it?

you're assuming that they've tried, just as i'm assuming that they haven't.

My argument says that each and every one of us is responsible not only for our own lives, but for the impact our lives has on others. Yes, that means the skanger is responsible for beating someone up. But it also means that the better-off parts of society are also responsible for helping to create and perpetuate the social conditions which have been such a formative part of the people we wish were different, such as the aforemoentioned skanger. We carry that responsibility both as individuals and as members of society.

Wow. impressive. You've just admitted that the skanger is responsible for beating someone up. Not society, not his genes, but that he's responsible.

As for us, i agree we are Also responsible.

That is why the leftist ideal is so centred around "we must take responsibility".

my point at the start of this was that the "leftie" viewpoint doesn't generally say to take responsibility. It passes responsibility completely off on Society. it doesn't take into account the individual or his actions to date.

All we are doing instead, is just re-inforcing that we just don't care about their problems....we just want them to stop causing us problems. Strangely enough, that is the problem.

At the start of this i pointed out that you seemed to believe that society was some form of entity that controlled peoples actions. That, is the problem i see. We need to take that responsibility back and realise that Society is human interaction, not an entity separate to ourselves. Sure, if something is wrong in society, we are all responsible. BUT, the people involved directly are doubly responsible for the situation they are in.

TacT

Taken out of context, thrown into a blender, mix your idea's with what you think is my train of thought. I shall say no more from here on in as it appears to be pointless. Wrong and presumptions about me all incorrect.

The defence/prosecution rests and says nonono - I don't blame myself I don't do this and think whatever you think or perceive to think what I am thinking or what my attitude is because it's wrong.

klaz - nice childish post and bait but I won't be biting, tempting as your worm is it has a bad attitude

klaz - nice childish post and bait but I won't be biting, tempting as your worm is it has a bad attitude

tact, you started with the baiting. As for being childish, mature sarcasm perhaps

The defence/prosecution rests and says nonono - I don't blame myself I don't do this and think whatever you think or perceive to think what I am thinking or what my attitude is because it's wrong.

Have i said once that i thought that you were completely wrong? Have i once told you to stop helping these people? You see, you've looked at these posts, both my own and others and somehow come up with something completely different. As far as i'm aware from reading these posts, nobody has said that you were wrong to think or help as you do.

TacT

Originally posted by klaz
tact, you started with the baiting. As for being childish, mature sarcasm perhaps

Have i said once that i thought that you were completely wrong? Have i once told you to stop helping these people? You see, you've looked at these posts, both my own and others and somehow come up with something completely different. As far as i'm aware from reading these posts, nobody has said that you were wrong to think or help as you do.

sarcasm - mature

I can't resist because you've just summed up my attitude to the problem which is similar to bonkey's. You are telling us we are not wrong now but you are not saying we are right but you think we should be helping these people, just what exactly are you thinking here because that paragraph seems just a tad contradictory to what you have been telling us previously. I reckon you just can't make your mind up at all but if you have you certainly haven't been clear with yourself or to us about it...

Finally - If nobody has said we are wrong to think or help as we do then why are they not agreeing with us, accepting more responsibility for their surroundings and pitching in to help? Heh - I was just passing through, I'm only a visitor here

Just seems defeatist to me, meh