Critical Miss: Riotous Anger

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

JoJoDeathunter:

ReiverCorrupter:

JoJoDeathunter:

Sources please. Any evidence that badness isn't limited to a minority of assholes such as the rioters?

You're construing "badness" far too narrowly. Under "badness" I would not only include violent behaviors but also greed, self centered-ness, a lack of critical thinking and a general disposition to uphold the consumption of goods as a more worthy life-goal than acts of intellectual, artistic or physical creation. These are crimes of which the vast majority of mankind is guilty.

Then I'm afraid we must agree to disagree as I will never accept the "lack of critical thinking" as a crime or badness. People should be allowed to do as they wish as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others, so if they wish to consume rather than create then who are we to stop them?

I'm not a moral realist, values come down to individual will as far as I see it. So agreeing to disagree is perfectly reasonable. However, I will leave you with this thought: the holocaust couldn't have been perpetrated by a few individuals alone, no matter how bloodthirsty they were. The necessary conditions for the holocaust also included the lack of critical thinking and the downright willful ignorance of the German people. A lesser evil than those who ran the gas chambers to be sure, but still an evil by any reasonable account.

Even deontology, which ignores virtues and vices and merely judges people by their actions, requires that people be rational agents. How could someone possibly be considered a rational agent if they lack an ability to think critically?

I won't lie, the dress and the Mega Man choker are kinda hot. Though I see poor Erin is still trying to get past that stutter.

Kalezian:
But having a march to the police station with a large crowd of people is NOT a smart thing to do.

No, I'd say that's the best thing to do- an organized peaceful protest in front of the police to display anger at the shooting. The problem is that a bunch of mental reprobates decided "Hey, this is a great time to steal anything I can lift, burn everything else and beat innocent people to death".

I'm entirely comfortable with blaming them. Displaying your dissatisfaction with the authorities does not require you to murder an elderly accountant or run over immigrant businessmen trying to protect their property.

ReiverCorrupter:

JoJoDeathunter:

ReiverCorrupter:

You're construing "badness" far too narrowly. Under "badness" I would not only include violent behaviors but also greed, self centered-ness, a lack of critical thinking and a general disposition to uphold the consumption of goods as a more worthy life-goal than acts of intellectual, artistic or physical creation. These are crimes of which the vast majority of mankind is guilty.

Then I'm afraid we must agree to disagree as I will never accept the "lack of critical thinking" as a crime or badness. People should be allowed to do as they wish as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others, so if they wish to consume rather than create then who are we to stop them?

I'm not a moral realist, values come down to individual will as far as I see it. So agreeing to disagree is perfectly reasonable. However, I will leave you with this thought: the holocaust couldn't have been perpetrated by a few individuals alone, no matter how bloodthirsty they were. The necessary conditions for the holocaust also included the lack of critical thinking and the downright willful ignorance of the German people. A lesser evil than those who ran the gas chambers to be sure, but still an evil by any reasonable account.

Even deontology, which ignores virtues and vices and merely judges people by their actions, requires that people be rational agents. How could someone possibly be considered a rational agent if they lack an ability to think critically?

The holocaust happened because of a minority of haters and evil people, it's a sad fact that certain times these people will emerge from the cesspool to commit attrocitys. I've met a number of people online and even a couple in real life who I believe could we become capable of that if put in the right circustance. Remember though the Nazi's were a repressive regime who oppressed those who opposed them so you can't blame people for willfully ignoring atrocities for fear of their own life, you and me would very likely act the same way.

Also, no person is a rational agent, that's just silly. Everyone is molded to some degree by their environment and peers, no-one is free from bias. Anyone who believes they are entirely rational is a class A fool.

JoJoDeathunter:

ReiverCorrupter:

JoJoDeathunter:

Then I'm afraid we must agree to disagree as I will never accept the "lack of critical thinking" as a crime or badness. People should be allowed to do as they wish as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others, so if they wish to consume rather than create then who are we to stop them?

I'm not a moral realist, values come down to individual will as far as I see it. So agreeing to disagree is perfectly reasonable. However, I will leave you with this thought: the holocaust couldn't have been perpetrated by a few individuals alone, no matter how bloodthirsty they were. The necessary conditions for the holocaust also included the lack of critical thinking and the downright willful ignorance of the German people. A lesser evil than those who ran the gas chambers to be sure, but still an evil by any reasonable account.

Even deontology, which ignores virtues and vices and merely judges people by their actions, requires that people be rational agents. How could someone possibly be considered a rational agent if they lack an ability to think critically?

The holocaust happened because of a minority of haters and evil people, it's a sad fact that certain times these people will emerge from the cesspool to commit attrocitys. I've met a number of people online and even a couple in real life who I believe could we become capable of that if put in the right circustance. Remember though the Nazi's were a repressive regime who oppressed those who opposed them so you can't blame people for willfully ignoring atrocities for fear of their own life, you and me would very likely act the same way.

Also, no person is a rational agent, that's just silly. Everyone is molded to some degree by their environment and peers, no-one is free from bias. Anyone who believes they are entirely rational is a class A fool.

You seem to be implying that a person is bad if they are driven by hatred. Critical thinking is directly tied to this. If one responds emotionally to an argument without analyzing it then one can easily be driven to extremes. While I of course agree that no one is a completely rational agent, it doesn't mean that there aren't different levels of rationality. A person who is incapable or unwilling to analyze claims for truth or falsehood has a very limited agency. While it is true that the basis for action ultimately resides at an emotional level, we also need the rational ability to analyze a situation and act so that we bring about what we desire.

While it is true that the Nazis rose to power partially due to violence and intimidation, it would be impossible for them to do so solely by those means. It is quite daft to think that the entire country assented to Nazi rule out of fear, even though that may have been the case at the very end after they had already come to power. The Nazis and their philosophy had the won the support of many ordinary people because of the spectacles they put on and their incredibly effective use of propaganda, both of which rely upon a lack of critical thinking.

Furthermore, someone who is unaccustomed to thinking critically and derives most of their views from faith and indoctrination is much more likely to respond to criticism with fanaticism rather than rational argument. If you value rational argument and understanding as a source of conflict resolution rather than violence, then you must admit the indispensability of critical thinking. How can a person be 'good' if they are incapable of adopting and entertaining opposing views and accepting that they might be wrong? Being a bigoted self-righteous ass and lacking critical thinking go hand-in-hand. Surely your definition of a 'good person' precludes application to such people?

See that people? That's what we call logic. Blame the guy acting like an asshole for acting like an asshole. Why don't more people do this?

Saltyk:
See that people? That's what we call logic. Blame the guy acting like an asshole for acting like an asshole. Why don't more people do this?

Well, if you just treat it as a bunch of people acting out for no reason then you aren't going to know how to prevent it from happening again. Sure, probably the majority of the rioters are just in it for loot and chaos, but one needs to suss out why it erupted in the first place so that one can fix the situation. Treating the rioters as mindless beasts that just need to be constrained is just as stupid as saying that they were completely controlled by external forces and had no choice in the matter.

ReiverCorrupter:

Saltyk:
See that people? That's what we call logic. Blame the guy acting like an asshole for acting like an asshole. Why don't more people do this?

Well, if you just treat it as a bunch of people acting out for no reason then you aren't going to know how to prevent it from happening again. Sure, probably the majority of the rioters are just in it for loot and chaos, but one needs to suss out why it erupted in the first place so that one can fix the situation. Treating the rioters as mindless beasts that just need to be constrained is just as stupid as saying that they were completely controlled by external forces and had no choice in the matter.

I'm just saying we blame the people themselves for their own actions. Don't let them shirk their responsibility behind some scapegoat. Finding the root of the problem is fine. But don't let that excuse their actions. Let it explain their actions, but not excuse it. Blame the people who took place in the riot for the riot.

Damn straight, and the rioters seem so thrilled and happy too. Having a (wrecking) ball.

One would think that, if they were really pissed at the government and the police and the like, they would ONLY BE ATTACKING GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS AND POLICE STATIONS. But, ya know, I could be wrong.

Saltyk:

ReiverCorrupter:

Saltyk:
See that people? That's what we call logic. Blame the guy acting like an asshole for acting like an asshole. Why don't more people do this?

Well, if you just treat it as a bunch of people acting out for no reason then you aren't going to know how to prevent it from happening again. Sure, probably the majority of the rioters are just in it for loot and chaos, but one needs to suss out why it erupted in the first place so that one can fix the situation. Treating the rioters as mindless beasts that just need to be constrained is just as stupid as saying that they were completely controlled by external forces and had no choice in the matter.

I'm just saying we blame the people themselves for their own actions. Don't let them shirk their responsibility behind some scapegoat. Finding the root of the problem is fine. But don't let that excuse their actions. Let it explain their actions, but not excuse it. Blame the people who took place in the riot for the riot.

Yeah, I know, I was just explaining why there was a debate in the first place. They should obviously be held accountable, but it's also perfectly fine to ask why they did it. So I think we're in agreement.

Palpatine's behind it all.

Erin's looking pretty hawt with the lil' red dress there ;)

The riots are pretty crazy, people just need to chill the eff out

gallaetha_matt:
However - there have been dozens of peaceful protests in this country that have accomplished nothing. I know because I've taken part in a few. We're not even getting listened to. This anger has been simmering for a long time - riots were inevitable. I just wish they'd taken the chance to hit the government rather than the local Asda.

Because it was MY local Asda damnit. That's where I do my booze shopping.

I'm also thinking that since a lot of the riotters were younger people (13-14 or so) a lot of them simply wouldn't know how to target the government. All they could do was lash out blindly.

Is this making sense? I don't know. Kind of suffering one of the worst bouts of writer's block of my life and I'm not nearly as coherent as I would like to be.

There's the problem though staging peaceful protest's never really get heard most of the time or are have fallen on deaf ears entirely and then there's the riots which make them look like unorganized animals and even then there is no middle ground on which to protest from since going straight for your government is technically treason plus you think the government will even let the riots take a crack at them, no they won't they will call out the police and point the finger on those heading towards them because the government does not see any wrong it has ever committed such as the spending cuts and the high fees for Uni the government believes it's in the right when in actuality it's not because clearly it has upset the students and also cut out some people who may have wanted higher education but cannot afford it.

Either way you look at it, it's a mess when you have a government that's quick to point fingers in every direction and then you have the harsh unwarranted punishments coming in such as Mt Cameron's decision to have rioter's families evicted from their housing and by that logic of his he's forcing people not directly involved in the actual riot out of their homes and desires to make it harder for them to live anywhere else in the country because he believes they deserve harsher punishment when doing that it then again forces those people into yet another tight corner where civil unrest will begin all over again and the cycle will repeat itself because the government couldn't sit the fuck down and think straight without the use of pointing fingers to avoid their own mistakes.

I believe the rioter's should be punished because of what they did but the government should take heed of what has happened and come to realise what they have been doing over the past few decades has been sending them in the complete opposite of "being there for the people".

Also i'd like to point out as a last note that if you go back quite a few hundred steps money is the problem for all that's happening around the world including the riots because of the 3 classes there is always civil unrest within communities that are richer than the other while the lowest community suffers even more at the expense of cuts and loss of benefits.

"Oh how my life sucks for not having a big TV!"

Go to Somalia to see what poverty is; fuckers!

*clap clap clap*

Huh? Of course do the people who commit violence and vandalism bear responsibility. But they don't bear sole responsibility. What drove people into the streets originally? What are the underlying issues? What are the problems at hand? Just because there may be explanations for their behaviour doesn't mean that they would be excuses for it. Let's not simply point at the rioters and say they are the problem. They are a problem, but they are not how this all started.

Not much I can say that hasn't already been said. However I must concur with your lefty views on the matter. The Vancouver stanely cup riot had me worried about this sort of thing,

Generic Gamer:

I can't see a firearms division pinning a guy down and shooting him because they know how well their activities are examined and vetted.

If there is any chance of succesful cover-up, it will be covered up.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/03/deaths-police-custody-officers-convicted

JoJoDeathunter:

Sources please. Any evidence that badness isn't limited to a minority of assholes such as the rioters?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e76BZialpPk

Grahav:
"Oh how my life sucks for not having a big TV!"
Go to Somalia to see what poverty is; fuckers!

That's right. So be glad with what you have and hope that the super rich aren't robbing you some more. And as long as you're not starving to death, there isn't a reason why you should be malcontent anyway.

ReiverCorrupter:

Since your economy can't afford to grant these people the benefits they want, I think you should probably let a lot of their visas expire, otherwise you'll have more violence on your hands. It's a shame, but you can't take on other peoples' burdens when your own people are struggling. You'll have to raise taxes and give stimuli to the business sector in order to make up for the loss of cheap labor.

So after we deported all those "misfits", the working class has to flat out subsidise the business sector for the priviledge to work there? And that's going to improve the situation for the remaining people how exactly?

twaddle:
there is a way to protest and this is not it. My fellow brits i must ask you:

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING!! HAVE YOU NO PRIDE OR HONOUR FOR YOUR FELLOW COUNTRYMEN

been gone for a year and you let the economy go to pot and act like bloody savages!

*thanks for pointing out the typo*

The only ones who went around destroying stuff and acting like animals were the Chavs. Everyone else stayed home. They were looting under the banner of a protest, but in reality - they were looting for the sheer hell of it.

It it's any consolation to you, they're being caught and convicted already.

My apologies - double post.

dogstile:
I'm kinda with you on the left side of things, as you put it. Government tripling uni prices while slashing benefits for poorer students (which, if you don't know, was 30 a week and was used by most people I knew who got it for food). People are understandably pissed off.

Good comic though, everyone is pointing blame at the wrong place. The people you need to blame is the absolute bastards rioting.

So what? Most of the scum bags I've seen doing the worst stuff didn't like they attended any university.
If you are upset about something then protest. Don't burn, assault, murder, and riot. Those are the actions of a piece of trash and not a human being. Anyone taking part in these actions should be beat senseless and thrown in a river.

Schoengeist:

If there is any chance of succesful cover-up, it will be covered up.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/03/deaths-police-custody-officers-convicted

It says the majority of those were natural deaths resulting from drug or alcohol abuse and that 87 of those 333 deaths were the result of being held down and asphyxiating; a widely acknowledged and admitted problem with having to restrain someone. Honestly, take away the choke-on-vomit cases and the accidental deaths resulting from a known dangerous manoeuvre and there aren't that many cases left where anything suspicious could even have happened. The recommendatory is for 13 prosecutions based on 'relatively strong' evidence. It also looks like they were in fact tried for the accusation and found innocent, since they then complain about juries not convicting officers. All in all I don't know what they're covering up here.

Plus those are not firearms officers. As I said before in the post you quoted it's important to realise the different work environments and jobs of firearms officers and beat police.

People die, big deal. Especially when they can't breath because they are restrained. Which reminds me of case from my home country, were seven people stood on an already sedated person to restrain him. He died of suffocation and nothing would have happened, if it hadn't been for the fact, that they were filmed. So they received a slap on the wirst.

But Great Britain is different. Except maybe in the case of Ian Tomlinson, were action was only taken (and then very hesitantly) after a video surfaced.

But I forgot: We are talking about the saintly "firearms officers" who are under close scrutiny. I heard the same argument after the Berwyn Heights incident, where some people cited the high professionalism in such units as an evidence against such slip-ups.

But Great Britain is different. Except maybe in the case of Jean Charles de Menezes. However those were very exciting times back then and mistakes happen - to bad he died. But before I get hurt, better an innocent man to die (as long as I don't know him). And his family received money too ...

Skeleon:
Huh? Of course do the people who commit violence and vandalism bear responsibility. But they don't bear sole responsibility. What drove people into the streets originally? What are the underlying issues? What are the problems at hand? Just because there may be explanations for their behaviour doesn't mean that they would be excuses for it. Let's not simply point at the rioters and say they are the problem. They are a problem, but they are not how this all started.

Exactly. The reason the blame game is played, inexpertly at times, is because if 7 days from now:

-New riots would probably start

How would you try to prevent as many people from rioting, either by solving the underlying causes (if computer games did encourage people to act out looting RL, it would be very worthwhile to know this), improving overt causes (try to prevent anything that makes it spiral out of control by organising and opening dialogue effectively) and try to prevent it physically (more police, army, etc.)

Now the last is obviously the weakest one to use. Therefor you try to solve it with the first two and that requires some understanding of why these riots happened.

People always look for some larger thing to blame. It's not senseless enough that this stuff is happening, there has to be an easily fixable cause. Like video games.

I bet there's some branch of psychology that deals with this sort of thing, but the world makes more sense to a lot of people if there's something to blame the senselesness on.

That's just common sense.
Come on people, we all remember that humanity has a history of blaming thing on different forms of art, like books, paintings, movies and now, naturally, videogames. Truth is, it's all about douchebags who should be imprisoned and put to death and those douchebags trying to put the blame on someone else.

ReiverCorrupter:

JoJoDeathunter:

ReiverCorrupter:

I'm not a moral realist, values come down to individual will as far as I see it. So agreeing to disagree is perfectly reasonable. However, I will leave you with this thought: the holocaust couldn't have been perpetrated by a few individuals alone, no matter how bloodthirsty they were. The necessary conditions for the holocaust also included the lack of critical thinking and the downright willful ignorance of the German people. A lesser evil than those who ran the gas chambers to be sure, but still an evil by any reasonable account.

Even deontology, which ignores virtues and vices and merely judges people by their actions, requires that people be rational agents. How could someone possibly be considered a rational agent if they lack an ability to think critically?

The holocaust happened because of a minority of haters and evil people, it's a sad fact that certain times these people will emerge from the cesspool to commit attrocitys. I've met a number of people online and even a couple in real life who I believe could we become capable of that if put in the right circustance. Remember though the Nazi's were a repressive regime who oppressed those who opposed them so you can't blame people for willfully ignoring atrocities for fear of their own life, you and me would very likely act the same way.

Also, no person is a rational agent, that's just silly. Everyone is molded to some degree by their environment and peers, no-one is free from bias. Anyone who believes they are entirely rational is a class A fool.

You seem to be implying that a person is bad if they are driven by hatred. Critical thinking is directly tied to this. If one responds emotionally to an argument without analyzing it then one can easily be driven to extremes. While I of course agree that no one is a completely rational agent, it doesn't mean that there aren't different levels of rationality. A person who is incapable or unwilling to analyze claims for truth or falsehood has a very limited agency. While it is true that the basis for action ultimately resides at an emotional level, we also need the rational ability to analyze a situation and act so that we bring about what we desire.

While it is true that the Nazis rose to power partially due to violence and intimidation, it would be impossible for them to do so solely by those means. It is quite daft to think that the entire country assented to Nazi rule out of fear, even though that may have been the case at the very end after they had already come to power. The Nazis and their philosophy had the won the support of many ordinary people because of the spectacles they put on and their incredibly effective use of propaganda, both of which rely upon a lack of critical thinking.

Furthermore, someone who is unaccustomed to thinking critically and derives most of their views from faith and indoctrination is much more likely to respond to criticism with fanaticism rather than rational argument. If you value rational argument and understanding as a source of conflict resolution rather than violence, then you must admit the indispensability of critical thinking. How can a person be 'good' if they are incapable of adopting and entertaining opposing views and accepting that they might be wrong? Being a bigoted self-righteous ass and lacking critical thinking go hand-in-hand. Surely your definition of a 'good person' precludes application to such people?

Critical thinking is certainly a useful asset and one required for many important positions. However to paraphase To Kill A Mockingbird, most people are basically good but have a few blind spots in their morality. Everyone has them, including me and you, we just don't realise as we accept them without even thinking about it. Someone without critical thinking can certainly be good and to suggest otherwise is simply bigoted, take the majority of young children for example who have virtually no critical thinking skills but are generally innocent and adorable.

Another example I would put is G W Bush, I disagree with many of his ideas and things he did in power but I still think he's good at heart, just misguided in his application in my opinion.

Schoengeist:

JoJoDeathunter:

Sources please. Any evidence that badness isn't limited to a minority of assholes such as the rioters?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e76BZialpPk

Uh all I see is around ten posh people fighting. Last time I checked, the human population of Earth stands significantly higher than that.

JoJoDeathunter:

ReiverCorrupter:

JoJoDeathunter:

The holocaust happened because of a minority of haters and evil people, it's a sad fact that certain times these people will emerge from the cesspool to commit attrocitys. I've met a number of people online and even a couple in real life who I believe could we become capable of that if put in the right circustance. Remember though the Nazi's were a repressive regime who oppressed those who opposed them so you can't blame people for willfully ignoring atrocities for fear of their own life, you and me would very likely act the same way.

Also, no person is a rational agent, that's just silly. Everyone is molded to some degree by their environment and peers, no-one is free from bias. Anyone who believes they are entirely rational is a class A fool.

You seem to be implying that a person is bad if they are driven by hatred. Critical thinking is directly tied to this. If one responds emotionally to an argument without analyzing it then one can easily be driven to extremes. While I of course agree that no one is a completely rational agent, it doesn't mean that there aren't different levels of rationality. A person who is incapable or unwilling to analyze claims for truth or falsehood has a very limited agency. While it is true that the basis for action ultimately resides at an emotional level, we also need the rational ability to analyze a situation and act so that we bring about what we desire.

While it is true that the Nazis rose to power partially due to violence and intimidation, it would be impossible for them to do so solely by those means. It is quite daft to think that the entire country assented to Nazi rule out of fear, even though that may have been the case at the very end after they had already come to power. The Nazis and their philosophy had the won the support of many ordinary people because of the spectacles they put on and their incredibly effective use of propaganda, both of which rely upon a lack of critical thinking.

Furthermore, someone who is unaccustomed to thinking critically and derives most of their views from faith and indoctrination is much more likely to respond to criticism with fanaticism rather than rational argument. If you value rational argument and understanding as a source of conflict resolution rather than violence, then you must admit the indispensability of critical thinking. How can a person be 'good' if they are incapable of adopting and entertaining opposing views and accepting that they might be wrong? Being a bigoted self-righteous ass and lacking critical thinking go hand-in-hand. Surely your definition of a 'good person' precludes application to such people?

Critical thinking is certainly a useful asset and one required for many important positions. However to paraphase To Kill A Mockingbird, most people are basically good but have a few blind spots in their morality. Everyone has them, including me and you, we just don't realise as we accept them without even thinking about it. Someone without critical thinking can certainly be good and to suggest otherwise is simply bigoted, take the majority of young children for example who have virtually no critical thinking skills but are generally innocent and adorable.

Another example I would put is G W Bush, I disagree with many of his ideas and things he did in power but I still think he's good at heart, just misguided in his application in my opinion.

As Nietzsche put it, "I often laugh at those who think themselves good because their claws are blunt."

You can take most people and if you put them in the right circumstances they can either be saints or demons. The human mind doesn't exist in a vacuum, it exists in order to respond to the world around it.

The police call it the 10-80-10 rule: 10% of the people in a crowd would never commit a crime. Another 10% would always commit a crime. With the other 80% it completely depends on the situation.

When I say people suck, I don't mean that they are always doing bad shit with the worst intentions, that's ridiculous. I'm saying that the majority of people don't think things through, they could be made to do just about anything with the proper manipulation. If you want to judge people solely by their accumulative actions without reference to their characters then you're going to end up saying that a clever sociopath who obeys all the laws but feels no compassion whatsoever is a better person than the average Joe who has made a few mistakes and genuinely feels remorse.

If one lacks critical thinking skills then one has a character that is capable of doing just about anything given the right circumstances. It doesn't make sense to call people good or bad. This is why I judge people on their character traits, not what they do. A character trait is much more constant than people's actions. Value systems are subjective, as I said, and are almost always a result of indoctrination. Critical thinking, however, is a universal trait that everyone can have. While it hardly ensures that people make the right decisions, it at least prevents them from making stupid decisions. I don't see why you think it's so controversial to say that a person who acts without thinking things through exhibits a fundamental character flaw.

Schoengeist:

ReiverCorrupter:

Since your economy can't afford to grant these people the benefits they want, I think you should probably let a lot of their visas expire, otherwise you'll have more violence on your hands. It's a shame, but you can't take on other peoples' burdens when your own people are struggling. You'll have to raise taxes and give stimuli to the business sector in order to make up for the loss of cheap labor.

So after we deported all those "misfits", the working class has to flat out subsidise the business sector for the priviledge to work there? And that's going to improve the situation for the remaining people how exactly?

Umm... no... the government would subsidize the business sector to improve the conditions of the working class. Once the working class has more money they can also spend more and improve the economy as a whole. But from what I've heard the immigrants are the targets of the riots, so the problem doesn't lie with them. But still, it seems pretty F-ed up to me that businesses would be allowed to give jobs to immigrants instead of improving conditions for the existing working class. Sure it's good for the immigrants and we should have compassion for their plight, but what ever happened to taking care of your own?

I'm not a fan of conservatives but it really sounds like the liberal middle class is taking out its feelings of white guilt on the lower class. There's no such thing as a one world society, while one should treat other peoples with respect and help them when possible, one's first duty is to one's own people. If Brits stand in the same relation to other Brits as they do to someone from India, then what does it mean to be British? Holding a piece of paper? Better recycle all of the history books then.

You know, if I heard this much sense on CNN, I'd actually watch it for news. As it is, I watch it for a good laugh.

uguito-93:

SgtFoley:

uguito-93:
Its this kind of situation that has me questioning the value of freedom. Dont get me wrong, its something that i have always seen as an essential human right, but then again it also allows scumbags to start shit like what happened in London. Talk about a double edged sword.

Not really. People just need to learn that there is a time and a place for police brutality. Large scale riots like the one in London are most definatly the correct time and place. You would not believe how fast a riot will stop when you start firing tear gas at them then move in to beat the crap out of everybody with clubs.

Thats a good point but it wasn't really what I was getting at. The thing I was talking about was how in a truly free society people will be able to do things like this by abusing their right to freedom while in an Orwellian society nothing like this would happen but people would essentially have no rights. But you're right, there has to me times where law enforcement is allowed to take extreme measures.

In an orwellian society, you would get a similar situation that occured over long periods of time rather than in bursts like this riot, and it would be the government performing the dickery.

ReiverCorrupter:
You'll have to raise taxes and give stimuli to the business sector in order to make up for the loss of cheap labor.

ReiverCorrupter:

Umm... no... the government would subsidize the business sector to improve the conditions of the working class.

From where does the government take the money to subsidize the business? I read about new taxes, who's going to pay them?

Not that I'm a believer in the trickle-down-effect anyway.

It happens in France every year. Deal with it, London.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here