The skanger debate

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.