The skanger debate

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

BarryFry

Interestingly, in England (where "Skangers" are known as "Chavs") they have found that they can cut down the number of assaults in prisons by changing the inmates' diets to mainly fish. Seriously. So there is a dietary aspect to peoples behaviour as well as social/genetic ones.

The fact is that scientists are only now scratching at the surface of what makes us behave the way we do, and the results are challenging just about every sociological theory. Even the month of the year that you are born in can have a big effect on your character (e.g. making you one of the youngest people in your class at school, and so being almost a year less physically and mentally devloped than some of your classmates - and that counts alot when you are only seven!)

My theory about skangers is that they are invariably short-term thinkers. The quickest and most labour-saving way to obtain something is to steal it. the long-term consequences are not something that is strongly considered. What they cannot understand is that it is actually easier to have a job than to be in and out of prison. That is why they are so difficult to reform. what are easy concepts for "normal" people to grasp are somehow out of their ken. Whether this is through genetically-inherited stupidity, a lack of education, a poverty-induced need for opportunism, or simply not being brought up within a strong moral framework is probably worthy of in-depth study.

But compassion isn't necessarily the answer. Skanger logic would dictate that anyone showing them compassion is probably after some short-term benefit, just as they themselves would be. And if they are not after some short-term benefit, then BOY, they must be stupid.

bonkey

Originally posted by klaz
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....

I haven't said anyone shouldn't be helped.

One of us has made a typo, or misread something, methinks. Could easily be me...

What my stance is, is that given the situation, it is inevitable that some people in a given tough situation will be unable to "beat" the odds and rise above it.

In fact, statistically, I would say its safe to assume that most people will fail to rise above it. If that wasn't the case, then there would be no perpetuation of trouble-spots, etc. etc. etc. Your stance, I think, allows you to class the majority of those people into the "choose not to" rather than "cannot" or "tried and failed" brackets, so we may differ on that one.

I see helping these people not only as possible, but as a responsibility. If that means that I have to also extend a hand to those who choose to be where they are, then thats fine - I can live with their rejection if I manage to improve the lot of the individuals who want that help.

But because I'm viewing the entire problem as a structural, societal one, I don't see help as being limited to personal involvement. I see it as requiring a lot of hard work and change for society to convince these people that we actually want them to have a better life, and are willing to help them do that. We are the haves. THey are the Have Nots. There are finite resources on the planet (for example, if everyone lived in the lifestyle of the average American, we'd need something like 6 planets to find the resources), and so we have to show that we are willing to make sacrifices for their improvement.

Fight it.

And what, exactly, do you think the cries of "society must change" are, if not a peaceful way of fighting the system, of saying that the system is wrong, and that the system requires change" ????

You know - the calls for the very things that you want nothing to do with?

Would you prefer that people turned to violence to fight the system? I thought the violence of those who reject the system was a problem. Would you accept it if it was the same violence but for a different purpose? I don't think so.

What? Are you going to say that society shouldn't be fought?

No, I'm trying to understand why you feel that only the downtrodden should fight to improve the lot of the downtrodden, and why it is wrong to support the calls for change that are a peaceful way of fighting the system.

free will. free will to make decisions and face the consequences. Yes i do believe in it. I live by it. Don't you?

Yes, and no. I don't believe in free will from a scientific point of view. However, I do believe that it is too complex a formula to ever be calculated accurately within my lifetime, so I can quite happily live with the illusion of free will - that neither I, nor anyone else can predict a choice that will be made.

AS a parallel example : have you ever read any of the threads on the science forum (I think thats where they were, maybe it was humanities) about whether or not the universe is deterministic? Its the same issue. Even if the universe is deterministic, and follows a pre-determined course, we cannot predict the course, and therefore from our perspective, things do not appear to be pre-determined.

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?

Oh god. I'm a research guru now? I have to start giving people a lower opinion of me...it makes life so much easier

Incidentally, credible scientific models don't work on disproof. Good science is considered to be skeptical - its not true until you show that it is.

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

No. I'm assuming that some of them have tried and failed. Some have tried to fight the system. Some haven't bothered, but mostly because they've been brought up in a life without hope and they've learned from society that bothering is a waste of effort. Some of them do indeed simply choose not to bother.

I'm saying that I'm open to all of the possibilities, and a mix of them. And only one of those possibilities is someone who I believe may not want help.

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.

Poor choice of words on my part

The skanger should be held responsible for his/her actions - a stance I believe I put forward in one of my very first posts on this thread.

What I'm saying, however, is that just because they may wish to avoid that responsibility, doesn't give us any right to do likewise to ours.

We have a responsibility to the rest of society - and to the less-well-off aspects of it in particular. You can even view it as a self-serving responsibility if you like. Just because a skanger refuses to shoulder their responsibility, doesn't make it ok for us to do likewise.

As for us, i agree we are Also responsible.

But you don't want to act on that responsibility. You want to sit back, complain about the status quo, and insist that someone else make a change.

How is that any different? You are choosing to ignore your responsibilty, just like what you are condemning others for.

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.

Well in that case I think you're completely mis-representing the "leftie" argument. What I've been trying to explain is that the "leftie" argument is that it doesn't matter whether or not these people are shirking their responsibility - we are shirking ours, and it is far easier for us to effect change.

Ask yourself this. If the English decided to set the Irish free shrtly after they conquered the nation, would that not have been an easier path than several hundred years of fighting the system? If the white man had not enslaved the black, or realised prior to the colonisation of the US that it was wrong and set them free...would that not have been easier than the fight for racial equality?

We - the better off - are in the position of power. We can far more easily affect changes in our society to benefit others who are less well off. They have to fight for it, but we can freely give it.

The leftie argument is that we should give it. The peaceful leftie argument asks for society to change. The less-peaceful goes on riots. Which way of fighting the system would you prefer, given that you have said its what should be done when the system fails you???

Sure, if something is wrong in society, we are all responsible.

Yes.

BUT, the people involved directly are doubly responsible for the situation they are in.

Perhaps. I still disagree with the extent, but I can live with that for now, because we'll only end up in the same circles again. I think you lay too much at the feet of free will, but perhaps I lay too little, and the truth is somewhere in between. Anyway....

Do you not see that the shirking of this "double responsibility" of theirs still does not give any of us the right to shirk ours? And that given that society is human interaction, our responsibility is being shirked every time an individual says "not my problem", or "I won't do anything until....."

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by BarryFry
they have found that they can cut down the number of assaults in prisons by changing the inmates' diets to mainly fish. Seriously. So there is a dietary aspect to peoples behaviour as well as social/genetic ones.

Ummm...thats most probably genetic.

You know...like when you drink alcohol, you get drunk? Thats because of a chemical reaction, which is in turn determined by your genetic makeup.

So if eating these fish is causing a reaction of any sort, such as a decrease in violence, the most likely cause is because of a chemical reaction / shift, which is in turn because of a genetic trait.

How this trait manifests itself in different people will typically lead to different reactions, which is why you'll find that it doesn't follow a hard-and-fast rule and effect everyone equally. Again - genetic differences are the root cause.

jc

The Brigadier

Originally posted by bonkey


So seriously klaz....do you believe in a 'skanger gene'?

jc

There is not a skanger gene, but certainly problems with a gene pool are there to be seen,

A friend of mine works with disadvantaged children. More than half don't know who their father is. Most have more than one sibling. And my friend sees physical similarities with children "not related" as close as brothers or sisters.

With mothers getting knocked up by all and sundry from the same area. It is only logical that the genepool is going to become stagnated. It's not good!

This may seem controvsersial but what else can you expect from mothers who don't know their own fathers or the fathers of their children?@?

Zaphod B

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

But...

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"

So your problem is that no-one's interested in discussing how we fix the problem... but you yourself won't do so until we've continued this discussion about the causes and nature of the problem which doesn't look like it's ever going to end...

Originally posted by bonkey
Did I say that?

No, my apologies for misquoting you. When you said "No-one seems interested in saying "who cares who's to blame... how do we fix the problem"", I got the impression you might be suggesting that stopping this apportioning of blame and asking how we fix the problem might be a good idea...

Yes we need to understand the problem. But as it's going we're still just trying to blame either society or "choice"... neither argument is going to convince the other any time soon, so why not instead propose solutions that would be amenable to both?

BuffyBot

Simple scenario

Oversimplify much?

There is very little else for me to add as bonkey's been putting forward a very good argument, though I've been following this thread with interest.

bonkey

Originally posted by Zaphod B
So your problem is that no-one's interested in discussing how we fix the problem... but you yourself won't do so until we've continued this discussion about the causes and nature of the problem which doesn't look like it's ever going to end...

Yeah...bit of a problem that one, isn't it

The thing is that I see understanding the problem as part of the solution. I think that the correct perspective on the problem - and I'm not convinced mine is correct - is an absolute prerequisite in order to propose solutions.

Also, if its not clear where someone stands, it can never be clear why they feel their proposed solution may, or may not, work.

Yes we need to understand the problem. But as it's going we're still just trying to blame either society or "choice"... neither argument is going to convince the other any time soon, so why not instead propose solutions that would be amenable to both?

Well, my current stance is that a solution inherently involves a shifting of attitude - probably from all sides. Its not that simple, obviously, but I think that recognition that attitudes need to change is the first step, and discussion is quite possibly the only way to get there.

As to what the attitudes should change to...well, until there's a recognition that attitudes need to change, there's not much benefit in trying to detail what that must entail, because you end up with the same arguments anyway.

But fair point...if I can find some time this evening, I'll try and put some more, ummm, directed thoughts together on it.

jc

sovtek

Originally posted by Sparks
Yes, because lessons in military tactics, armed and unarmed combat training, and an altered set of ethics are just what's needed....

/me goes looking for the crime statistics for US military bases throughout the world..

sovtek

Originally posted by klaz
Not the army. Military College. Discipline, and purpose in life. Better than them hanging around on every street corner causing trouble, don't you think?

OR....how about making a neighborhood where there is something to do other than hang on street corners.

sovtek

Originally posted by Sleepy
What they need is discipline and punishment for their crimes in a proper environment. Not mountjoy where they have a comfy cell and their own TV. 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. If you won't take responsibility for your actions, you don't deserve the right to do them in the first place. If we don't have the room for criminals in our jails, I say bring back chain gangs to build some more or extend the ones we have. This could also be used as a means of giving younger criminals a trade they could use whenever they get out.

Maybe you're right...but then I'd suggest looking at the crime stats for the US and for Ireland and ask yourself if it seems to work.
As far as chain gangs and taking away their TV and a comfy cell, lets look at where that's been tried before...Angola State Prison in Louisianna. There's a reason it isn't that way anymore.

ixoy

Originally posted by sovtek
As far as chain gangs and taking away their TV and a comfy cell, lets look at where that's been tried before...Angola State Prison in Louisianna. There's a reason it isn't that way anymore.

Wasn't there a documentary recently on television about a military school in America which applies the military school approach and that has worked extremely well? It couples the military training with, importantly, education and employs counsellors, if people require them. I think its aim wasn't just to punish but to raise the inmates self esteem. I may despise skangers, but I think such ideas have a lot of merit.

Emboss

Originally posted by James Melody
There is not a skanger gene, but certainly problems with a gene pool are there to be seen,

A friend of mine works with disadvantaged children. More than half don't know who their father is. Most have more than one sibling. And my friend sees physical similarities with children "not related" as close as brothers or sisters.

With mothers getting knocked up by all and sundry from the same area. It is only logical that the genepool is going to become stagnated. It's not good!

This may seem controvsersial but what else can you expect from mothers who don't know their own fathers or the fathers of their children?@?

rofl....

so hmm you don't belive in a skanger gene but a ballymun gene or a Tallaght gene is possible? :rolleyes:

sovtek

Originally posted by ixoy
Wasn't there a documentary recently on television about a military school in America which applies the military school approach and that has worked extremely well? It couples the military training with, importantly, education and employs counsellors, if people require them. I think its aim wasn't just to punish but to raise the inmates self esteem. I may despise skangers, but I think such ideas have a lot of merit.

Maybe but I haven't seen it.
I wasn't refering to a military school approach in that post but a prison in America that was infamous for being harsh. It often had riots and it didn't improve criminality.

Bonkey, we're just going around in circles, so i'm going to just stop. I don't agree but, i can see and understand where you're coming from.

OR....how about making a neighborhood where there is something to do other than hang on street corners.

Sovtek, I agree, but what do you provide? I've seen neighbourhoods where there are amusement arcades, cinema's, areas for skateboarding, and other activities. It doesn't stop these people from hanging around shops, or street corners. It doesn't stop them from behaving the way they do. Perhaps you have a suggestion of how to change this?

My comment about the military college was half in jest, however, it is something myself and my friends have mentioned to each other when talking abt these people. Its not a complete answer. I don't think there is one. But, I do know that we have to find something soon, before boredom and slight anti-social behaviour develops into something more threatening. This is a personal worry/suspicion btw.

I wasn't refering to a military school approach in that post but a prison in America that was infamous for being harsh. It often had riots and it didn't improve criminality.

I don't know abt the prison in that states. I do know that the prisons in ireland have a tendacy to be too lenient. They've been placed there both as a punsihment and to keep them away from the rest of society. Making prisons easier to live in for inmates, doesn't create the impression that these people have been punished.

sovtek

Originally posted by klaz

Sovtek, I agree, but what do you provide? I've seen neighbourhoods where there are amusement arcades, cinema's, areas for skateboarding, and other activities. It doesn't stop these people from hanging around shops, or street corners. It doesn't stop them from behaving the way they do. Perhaps you have a suggestion of how to change this?

I'm not naive enough to think it's just not going to happen at all. I do think that there is very little to do in way of stimulation for kids. Now this is just what I see from living in Dublin city centre and comparing it to what I grew up with.
When I was a teenager we also got up to ****, even having playgrounds and whatnot. Some of us also did drugs and drank. It wasn't as acute as I see here though. I can't imagine how I would be should my only stimulation be a cold brick wall (lived down the street from Oliver Bond).
You are always going to have troublemakers and they are also going to come from different levels of society.
But I think you can help the problem by developing neighborhoods that have something for kids to do.
I also believe that generations of living this will take time to improve. It will take a mindset and effort that needs to be sustained for years on the part of the community in general.

Its not a complete answer. I don't think there is one.

About military schools, they do provide some good things...but they also can foster a mentality of exclusion, aggression and conformity . So I think that the same ends can be acheived by other means as well.
On the latter I agree. I think that what we can do is just try things and see what works and what doesn't .
I believe that blaming it on "them" obviously doesn't work nor does excusing "them" for it either (which I have yet to see anyone do).

But, I do know that we have to find something soon, before boredom and slight anti-social behaviour develops into something more threatening. This is a personal worry/suspicion btw. [/B]

I agree as well. The question remains what that is exactly. This problem isn't exclusive to Ireland and I think it may help to look to other places that have dealt successfully with these problems.

ixoy

Originally posted by sovtek
But I think you can help the problem by developing neighborhoods that have something for kids to do.

Well all this isn't helped by the fact that playgrounds everywhere are being shut down because of all those *insert expletives* who sue the council when little Johnny graves a knee on the merry-go-round. Wasn't there a report from Sweden about the benfits of playgrouds for young children? It doesn't just provide exercise, but also other attributes that help stimulate the imagination. If I remember, they use natural trees in their playgrounds to closert integrate the concept of play and respecting the environment.

For older children, the choices are harder. Whilst you can provide something like a basketball court, or other playing pitch, you're leaving it open to abuse late at night as a venue for "knacker drinking". Youths congregating in large groups without adult supervision can often lead to trouble. Cinemas are always there but I don't think they suit the troubled mentality - any UGC goer will know the pain of having to sit through the screechings of the etiquette-retarded youngster. I think the best solution may be along social clubs of some sports or organised sports activities. They can promote concepts of cooperation as well, especially if they manage to limit the more agressive nature of some sports. Of course if anyone actually had the solution, the world would be in a bit of a nicer state...

sovtek

Originally posted by ixoy
Well all this isn't helped by the fact that playgrounds everywhere are being shut down because of all those *insert expletives* who sue the council when little Johnny graves a knee on the merry-go-round.

Wouldn't a "USE AT YOUR OWN RISK" sign cut out that possibility?

For older children, the choices are harder. Whilst you can provide something like a basketball court, or other playing pitch, you're leaving it open to abuse late at night as a venue for "knacker drinking".

Where I'm from that was stopped by vigilant policing (which also has it's downsides).

Cinemas are always there but I don't think they suit the troubled mentality - any UGC goer will know the pain of having to sit through the screechings of the etiquette-retarded youngster.

I was thinking more along the lines of a community based option. I'm sure cinemas would love to take more of your money though.

I think the best solution may be along social clubs of some sports or organised sports activities. They can promote concepts of cooperation as well, especially if they manage to limit the more agressive nature of some sports. Of course if anyone actually had the solution, the world would be in a bit of a nicer state.

As a definite solution no... I don't think so either. As part of an over all plan yes I think it's a good idea.
It has been programs like that in "inner city" America that have helped.

Victor

Originally posted by James Melody
A friend of mine works with disadvantaged children. More than half don't know who their father is. Most have more than one sibling. And my friend sees physical similarities with children "not related" as close as brothers or sisters. With mothers getting knocked up by all and sundry from the same area. It is only logical that the genepool is going to become stagnated. It's not good!

This would only be relevant if there was only one father or family of fathers. However, dress twenty malnourished 10 year old up in tracksuits and give them number 1 haircuts and yes, they will look remarkably similar.

But I think you can help the problem by developing neighborhoods that have something for kids to do.

I agree totally, but does that point towards leisure activities or have them working (and earning a wage)?

You see, I see these people (Kids to me are 14 and younger), and they have access to loads of leisure activities. Play areas, sports events, cinemas, etc. This issue is not restricted to the poor section. In fact most people commenting here, have mentioned that's its the "middle class" or well off loafers thats the worst. These people have access to the whole lot, and yet they continue to act as they do.

I'd be inclined towards heading them in the direction of working. If they're going to be wasting their time, they might as well make some money. Novel Idea

also believe that generations of living this will take time to improve. It will take a mindset and effort that needs to be sustained for years on the part of the community in general.

You see, its the Irish attitude to let things slide and hope it will get better. Unfortuently, I don't think we have that time to wait. These skangers are becoming more common, and unless we start creating new methods of dealing with them, we'll have thousands of the little ****s. What these methods are I don't know. But I do know that things can only get worse if we either continue with the old methods or hope for the best.

Wouldn't a "USE AT YOUR OWN RISK" sign cut out that possibility?

i'm not sure it does. We'd probably need to get a solicitors comment on this one. But I'm fairly sure the owner of the property can still be done for negligence should someone still be injured.