Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => Off Topic => Topic started by: goodsamaritan on August 09, 2011, 10:25:02 pm
-
Yo Tyler, Miles, and other Brits!
What is with the London Riots? Looting? Mugging people, stealing from people?
Are there just too many hungry, down trodden people there?
Or is it a racial celebration? Planet of the apes?
Those aren't civilized people.
They're animals devolved.
(I have never seen anything like that in my country so I'm thinking it's a racial thing.)
Tell us the real score.
-
Basically, these people are just looking to loot and rob, nothing more. The real problem is that the police are greatly handicapped by excessive laws protecting violent criminals. What should have been done years ago was to arm any and all British police with guns and allow them to be as trigger-happy as the LA police, plus tighten up the riot act etc. Trouble is also, that Cameron has been doing an efficiency drive to reduce the numbers of police officers and police now have to fill out so many forms for every single crime that they have to ignore "minor" crimes like looting and burglary and target more serious crimes like murder instead.
The French have a very efficient riot police also which sorts out mobs very quickly.
-
Also, unlike the US which has prisons galore and allows lots of prison-overcrowding, the UK has cut down on the number of prisons due to cost and blasted EU-inspired human rights laws protect the guilty more than the innocent, so less over-crowding exists. With so many in US jails, such people are unable to commit crime while in jail, which admirably reduces the crime-rate over there as a result. Plus they had that wonderful zero-tolerance policy in New York which resulted in remarkable successes.
-
VIVA LA REVOLUTION!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biJgILxGK0o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvKJnXTjFNg
-
right tyler, give cops guns, that's a great idea! how about letting ordinary citizens have guns, duh
-
right tyler, give cops guns, that's a great idea! how about letting ordinary citizens have guns, duh
Why not? If all the peaceful residents in those areas had owned guns, most of the would-be robbers/looters would have been too terrified of doing anything, the few who did loot would get shot dead, thus reducing crime admirably. Of course, one has to implement rules so that one is deprived of a gun-licence as soon as one commits some criminal offence, no matter how minor etc., but that's all that's needed.
-
Well, it seems the violence and looting is spreading all over the country. Now, the police are considering the use of plastic bullets, though they still stupidly refuse to use water-cannons.Maybe, after a long time, these morons will eventually get the idea of using real bullets. Then we will quickly see an end to this nonsense.
-
Now, the police are considering the use of plastic bullets,
I guessed that would be coming. The British Government used them in N. Ireland when things got out of control there and found that they could be lethal at close range.
In the Chicago riots of 1968, Mayor Richard Daley gave the order to "shoot to kill" arsonists.
-
Of course, one has to implement rules so that one is deprived of a gun-licence as soon as one commits some criminal offence, no matter how minor etc., but that's all that's needed.
We have a saying, "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will own guns."
-
Multiculturalism not working?
-
This is no country for young men. The country doesn't have anything for them, the country doesn't like them and wants everyone to be a degenerate sissy, that's why they're angry and don't care about the country, because it doesn't care about them. The spark that ignited the action was a police murder. They need to get rid of machines on farms and let all young men work them instead, and get some wilderness like the USA for them to hunt and stuff.
-
I want to blame feminism some how.
-
The trouble is that multiculturalism in the UK goes about things the wrong way round. In the US, for example, it's considered appropriate for immigrants to change their first names to Anglo-Saxon ones, regardless of origin, thus making themselves more like everybody else in a way. Similiarly, in Thailand, the numerous Chinese immigrants there were forced to change their surnames into Thai ones, resulting in a more integrated Chinese community in Thailand without endless clashes with the locals etc. In other words, it should be expected of immigrants to adopt the way of life/customs of the resident population rather than the other way round, in order to make integration easier. In Britain, it's the opposite system with sharia law etc. being openly tolerated, which just creates more tension.
One thing I also noticed in Austria was that the richer, more educated immigrants from countries like Turkey or Persia always integrated very easily into Austrian society. The poorer, uneducated ones never bothered to make the effort.
-
Why not? If all the peaceful residents in those areas had owned guns, most of the would-be robbers/looters would have been too terrified of doing anything, the few who did loot would get shot dead, thus reducing crime admirably. Of course, one has to implement rules so that one is deprived of a gun-licence as soon as one commits some criminal offence, no matter how minor etc., but that's all that's needed.
I would count being shot and killed as being "deprived."
-
I believe in human biological diversity. It explains what people are too afraid to admit it.
-
...In the US, for example, it's considered appropriate for immigrants to change their first names to Anglo-Saxon ones, regardless of origin, thus making themselves more like everybody else...
Maybe 100 years ago, but not today. The only reason the US isn't erupting into this sort of widespread chaotic violence is that, in general, Americans are wealthier than Brits by a smidgeon. Give us a few more weeks or months of recession and watch unemployment rates rise another few percent and all bets are off. The multicultural experiment in the United States is an accident waiting to happen, just like it was in other countries...
-
Rioting is a symptom of a problem (oppressive government). But I wouldn't expect the government to solve the problem by becoming less oppressive. The response by those in power will be to pin the blame elsewhere: the failure of feminism, multiculturalism, trade with other countries, etc. By "cracking down" on rioting and the scapegoats for the problem, the government will become even more oppressive, only making the problem worse. If nationalistic solutions are sought out, we will have more military conflicts, unfortunately. I think this is coming, especially when you see that civil unrest seems to be spreading. The United States is approaching the boiling point.
-
I believe in human biological diversity. It explains what people are too afraid to admit it.
Egalitarianism As A Revolt Against Nature by Murray Rothbard sums up the view rather well:http://mises.org/resources/3147/Egalitarianism-as-a-Revolt-Against-Nature-and-Other-Essays (http://mises.org/resources/3147/Egalitarianism-as-a-Revolt-Against-Nature-and-Other-Essays)
-
I believe in human biological diversity. It explains what people are too afraid to admit it.
Explain what you mean by that, exactly.
As for egalitarianism comment by the other poster, what mystifies me is the number of retarded socialists/liberals in the world. I mean, anyone even vaguely sentient should be able to grasp the fact that equality does not exist in Nature, except in death. The US constitution should read, instead, " no beings are created equal etc."
-
Rioting is a symptom of a problem (oppressive government). But I wouldn't expect the government to solve the problem by becoming less oppressive. The response by those in power will be to pin the blame elsewhere: the failure of feminism, multiculturalism, trade with other countries, etc. By "cracking down" on rioting and the scapegoats for the problem, the government will become even more oppressive, only making the problem worse. If nationalistic solutions are sought out, we will have more military conflicts, unfortunately. I think this is coming, especially when you see that civil unrest seems to be spreading. The United States is approaching the boiling point.
The problem, however, can be listed as "laziness", "incompetence" etc. Only by making the police stronger will we crush such idiocy. We need tanks and water-cannons and real bullets and so on.
-
Maybe 100 years ago, but not today. The only reason the US isn't erupting into this sort of widespread chaotic violence is that, in general, Americans are wealthier than Brits by a smidgeon. Give us a few more weeks or months of recession and watch unemployment rates rise another few percent and all bets are off. The multicultural experiment in the United States is an accident waiting to happen, just like it was in other countries...
Like I said beforehand, if people were forced to integrate, there would be no problems... In other words, plaquards in spanish should be removed etc.
-
Explain what you mean by that, exactly.
As for egalitarianism comment by the other poster, what mystifies me is the number of retarded socialists/liberals in the world. I mean, anyone even vaguely sentient should be able to grasp the fact that equality does not exist in Nature, except in death. The US constitution should read, instead, " no beings are created equal etc."
You may be on to something there.... LOL
At least I suppose there is an illusion to that illusory goal in their constitution. ;D
(BTW I don't have any issues with the US or any other country.)
Funny, the Brits are always held up as the paragons of decency and fairness in the world. On a one to one basis I have not noticed this to be inaccurate.
Did you see the video of the surveillance camera watching a guy helping a wounded guy to his feet and then another guy coming in and stealing from the wounded guy's backpack? hmmmmmmm something's out of whack there.
-
Why not? If all the peaceful residents in those areas had owned guns, most of the would-be robbers/looters would have been too terrified of doing anything, the few who did loot would get shot dead, thus reducing crime admirably. Of course, one has to implement rules so that one is deprived of a gun-licence as soon as one commits some criminal offence, no matter how minor etc., but that's all that's needed.
Can't agree there Tyler.
Pass out guns and then you have the idiocy you have in the US where people get in a wee fight after a few beers etc etc and you have an awesome shooting spree egged on by ideological nutbars coming out of the woodwork who would have been restricted previously to standing on a soapbox demonstrating their idiocy with their mouth rather than a volley of lead.
There is a problem in the US with guns. Britain will not be helped with that problem added to their list. Problem is that people with bad tempers and wild imaginations, get to act out their fantasies.
What I see is a failed multi-cultural policy, combined with over-population.
-
I want to blame feminism some how.
ROFLMAO
hmmmm somehow I want to believe you. ;D
-
I'm not inclined to blame the feminists. I've found them to be generally harmless, as a group. I prefer to blame the bankers, the lawyers and the liberals.
-
Like I said beforehand, if people were forced to integrate, there would be no problems... In other words, plaquards in spanish should be removed etc.
Hmmm so everyone in North America should be forced to speak their local Indian (aboriginal Indian I mean) dialect.... Hmmmmm that would be confusing.
And the Aussies should be forced to speak whatever the dialect of the locals were when they rolled in.... hmmmm confusing.
Then do they have to adopt their customs and religion too? ;D Wow
That would be really confusing in the Philippines with all the languages that have been there.
The picture of GW Bush smoking a peace pipe, passing out wampum, with the other members of the G8 in a wigwam. Now that I would like to see.
-
Kind of reminds me of the time I went on a canoe trip down the mighty Churchill River. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill_River_(Atlantic)
There was a WASP (me) an Indian (from India) a Brit and a Newfoundlander.
Long story, but we ended up at Muskrat Falls and decided we'd had our fun and decided to hitch a ride to our destination Happy Valley/GooseBay. BTW this is the serious boonies with no such thing as a transporation system with taxis etc.. Well we got picked up by a group of German Air Force personnel who were out on the river for the day.
As we were about to get in the truck, the Brit was very upset about getting in with the Germans soldiers as he had lost close relatives in WW2. He started to get a wee bit self righteous, when the Indian (from India) guy looked at him and called him a hypocrite. He said what about my people who were enslaved and robbed blind by your people.
Anyways everyone cooled down and we accepted the ride to GooseBay. They were and remained, close friends.
-
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/video/video-britain-must-resist-culture-of-fear-cameron/article2124923/
-
Well lets restrict people from having sugar and processed foods, from television, media, government, and civilization. Who gets to decide what is good and bad? It makes no sense. Where do you draw the line?
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDDwDezlVyM
Disturbing.
Animals.
Police with guns, martial law, round up these animals, ship them out to exile in an island where they can victimize each other.
London is officially stricken off of people's tourist stops.
Gunless police is stupid.
Is this true? Gunless police in London?
-
Yes, abundantly disturbing. I'm glad I don't live in or near a large city.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tigA5OubpFQ
A different perspective of the riots.
Ghetto, young people, government failure.
Young vs Old.
Watch it.
-
Gunless police is stupid.
Is this true? Gunless police in London?
The London police do have a couple of police units with guns but most are forbidden to carry weapons.
-
Well lets restrict people from having sugar and processed foods, from television, media, government, and civilization. Who gets to decide what is good and bad? It makes no sense. Where do you draw the line?
Best would be a more libertarian society where people could do whatever they wanted within reason such as own guns or kill dozens of rioters in self-defence without going to jail etc.
-
Can't agree there Tyler.
Pass out guns and then you have the idiocy you have in the US where people get in a wee fight after a few beers etc etc and you have an awesome shooting spree egged on by ideological nutbars coming out of the woodwork who would have been restricted previously to standing on a soapbox demonstrating their idiocy with their mouth rather than a volley of lead.
There is a problem in the US with guns. Britain will not be helped with that problem added to their list. Problem is that people with bad tempers and wild imaginations, get to act out their fantasies.
What I see is a failed multi-cultural policy, combined with over-population.
I agree that it allows some of the nuts to go around killing people, but, really, the obvious solution to that is to have fewer restrictions. I mean, all those US school shoot-outs could have been nipped in the bud if teachers were allowed and expected to carry guns on school grounds, for example.
-
My understanding from people who have kids going to school is that a lot of larger schools have metal detectors etc. (I am not sure of details)
In Columbine the children who did the damage had already done a lot of damage by the time they contacted teachers. If the teachers had guns then the kids would have found a clandestine way of doing it. Kids are not so stupid.
My memories (not fond) of teachers is that I would not want them to be given guns. Not sufficiently mentally stable in a lot of cases.
I cannot offer a quick solution to what is going on in your country. I am not sure that anyone can. You live there so you know better of course. I do not envy you, but it will pass.
This type of action/result by young men (probably mostly) is a combination of poverty, hopelessness, probably because of future employment prospects not looking too bright.
This is exactly the result that Christina Hoff Sommers talked about in "The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men" http://www.amazon.ca/War-Against-Boys-Misguided-Feminism/dp/0684849569
Which I why I found it difficult to discount Wodgina's comment about feminism.
-
I do not envy you, but it will pass.
Hopefully not before something has changed. There is a reason why this is happening, and the riots must continue until it is addressed properly.
-
That old, hoary argument that riots are based on poverty is patently ridiculous. I mean, there have been endless societies around the world which were utterly destitute but had virtually no crime-rate. No, riots are started out by mindless idiots for no valid reason and the only easy way to stop them is to exact such harsh penalties that they don't happen again.
-
It's not poverty, it's abandonment. No one has any respect for these young men, no one values them, no one wants them, they are seen as a nuisance and left to rot with nothing to look forward to, no purpose or prospects of improvement. They need to be given a purpose, something that society will value and respect them for. I hope they do not stop fighting until they are heard.
-
It's not poverty, it's abandonment. No one has any respect for these young men, no one values them, no one wants them, they are seen as a nuisance and left to rot with nothing to look forward to, no purpose or prospects of improvement. They need to be given a purpose, something that society will value and respect them for. I hope they do not stop fighting until they are heard.
B*llsh*t. The reason why people have no respect for them is because of the way they behave re rioting etc. A 1st-rate person would say, instead:- "ask not for what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country".
-
Hmmm so everyone in North America should be forced to speak their local Indian (aboriginal Indian I mean) dialect.... Hmmmmm that would be confusing.
And the Aussies should be forced to speak whatever the dialect of the locals were when they rolled in.... hmmmm confusing.
Then do they have to adopt their customs and religion too? ;D Wow
That would be really confusing in the Philippines with all the languages that have been there.
The picture of GW Bush smoking a peace pipe, passing out wampum, with the other members of the G8 in a wigwam. Now that I would like to see.
Except that the dominant culture is anglo-saxon in the US and in Australia. Point disproven....
-
Except that the dominant culture is anglo-saxon in the US and in Australia. Point disproven....
Wasn't when we'all dropped in to say hello in 1492.
OR when y'all dropped in on the original Aussies so long ago.
AND North Am. ain't Anglo-Saxon now either. You might wanna visit.
Bottom line is that our ancestors popped in, dropped off some diseases which killed off the vast majority, although who knew at the time. Then we came in with guns and killed off the rest leaving a pitiful few to lick their wounds in the corner. It was a case of "tough titty".
Now you are suggesting that these immigrants act in a different manner than your fore bearers? (and mine)
I am not suggesting that they are right in acting like this. No one is and all the guilty should cool their heels in the slammer, just like anyone who impinges on anyone else.
Just not sure that giving the public Carte Blanche to permit cultural genocide as was practiced in the new lands that the Anglo Saxons stumbled upon way back when, is the way to go. Hey you let 'em in.
-
It's not poverty, it's abandonment. No one has any respect for these young men, no one values them, no one wants them, they are seen as a nuisance and left to rot with nothing to look forward to, no purpose or prospects of improvement. They need to be given a purpose, something that society will value and respect them for. I hope they do not stop fighting until they are heard.
Probably why the USA keeps fighting wars and recruits soldiers... give them a new purpose... maybe these rioters need to be given labor intensive jobs to focus their energy. Government pump prime the economy to make bridges to nowhere and pay these people for manual labor.
-
I bet you these men are born to single mothers. I would bet my house.
Their mothers rode the welfare/feminism gravy train and this is the outcome. English are so unbelievably soft, we left the UK a long time ago because of whats happening now. It took a bit longer than expected however everything is starting to unravel. Sad.
-
I bet you these men are born to single mothers. I would bet my house.
Their mothers rode the welfare/feminism gravy train and this is the outcome. English are so unbelievably soft, we left the UK a long time ago because of whats happening now. It took a bit longer than expected however everything is starting to unravel. Sad.
I agree. I have read that there are whole sections of some large US cities that are urban high rise ghettos where women are in this boat. Problem is that when you have a lot of young men with no job, no hope and time on their hands, you have a lot of testosterone looking for a thrill.
This may be an oversimplification, but too accurate to dismiss.
-
I like being around Latin women, African American women, Asian women, Women with British accents especially of West Indian or African decent. Multiculturalism works for me.
all this stuff is just flips of a coin
the crackdown on crime and gated safety brought an influx/plague of what the brits would call 'wankers' to New York and made the city practically devoid of any real culture anymore. Just a anemic American dream slumming in the formerly alive streets. From a effective standpoint they certainly have it down by essentially a financial force ghettoizing people way outside the city or to other places (like prisons) in a military moat fashion..so there no longer is a social problem..except boredom.
My take on any and all of these government conversations is that from the true paleo perspective..any lock and key type control of resources is the start point to all social conflicts and removes the ability to ever reference how things should be..because everything is already unfair and far more so then in nature where one can up and move and actually acquire food and resources independent of societies rules and obstructions.
Personally one can argue that pre-civilized societies had it down and these roles and such are 'default' but one can't argue what kind of cultural breakthroughs have happened in just hundreds of years whereas these wern't exactly goals or accomplishments by animals or primitives. If one believe in human progress in any way then its foolish to think that we don't need to increasingly update contracts and take new factors or developments into consideration to accommodate new ways of thinking about human interaction. Everything comes at a cost..and sometimes that cost is less efficient societies or pain in the ass things that make no sense rather then the simplicity of patriarchy or whatever that 'works'. If people want to follow traditions to the extreme there are examples of Islamists and Hasidic Jews and such who turn to old ways and separate from society within society..yet this proves pretty much impossible as humanity has already chosen its course and people will always be tempted by the new nature. Also these people suck.
The modern system no matter what style of government makes PEOPLE under the thumb of other PEOPLE..which creates responsibility to help others. Just how it is. The real danger is governments being able to be taken control by organizations who practice unfettered greed even at the cost of resources which in many cases are not replaceable. Just about any way to make a living impacts everyone else. The systems themselves (like medical coverage) and all those other things are problematic and possibly fascistic..but at the very source of it..people DO contribute to factors which cause much of others disease and discomfort...so its naive to think that people only have responsibility to themselves...or that they ever have rights to anything while others do not. These are always rooted in some kind of unfairness which has nothing to do with whether one person is stronger than another or whatever resolves things in nature..but things people are born into with statistically little true hope of change unless people change them.
-
I bet you these men are born to single mothers. I would bet my house.
Their mothers rode the welfare/feminism gravy train and this is the outcome.
So that's the only reason then. So bad fathers are not at fault here? What would make women want to be single in the first place. Hmm... I wonder... :P l)
-
Wasn't when we'all dropped in to say hello in 1492.
OR when y'all dropped in on the original Aussies so long ago.
AND North Am. ain't Anglo-Saxon now either. You might wanna visit.
Bottom line is that our ancestors popped in, dropped off some diseases which killed off the vast majority, although who knew at the time. Then we came in with guns and killed off the rest leaving a pitiful few to lick their wounds in the corner. It was a case of "tough titty".
Now you are suggesting that these immigrants act in a different manner than your fore bearers? (and mine)
I am not suggesting that they are right in acting like this. No one is and all the guilty should cool their heels in the slammer, just like anyone who impinges on anyone else.
Just not sure that giving the public Carte Blanche to permit cultural genocide as was practiced in the new lands that the Anglo Saxons stumbled upon way back when, is the way to go. Hey you let 'em in.
All your points are invalid in a ridiculous way. For one thing, the American culture got started with the Constitution way after 1492. Plus, aboriginal culture now forms only a tiny part of overall Australian culture. And besides I am talking about the present, not the dead past. The number of non-Anglo-Saxons nowadays is also irrelevant as I am talking about the dominant culture not the people. I mean, you don't see Asian immigrants to the USA choosing to give their children Chinese first names, for example, it's Anglo-Saxon ones they usually give them.
As for "cultural genocide" that's truly absurd. I mean, banning sharia law and the burqa in the UK would not be committing cultural genocide as sharia law is alive and well in parts of the Middle-East. Besides, it's a question of "face". When you are invited into someone's home, you are expected to be polite and not smash your host's furniture for a laugh or because you resent his success in life. Same applies when you are an immigrant in a foreign country. Although immigration seems actually irrelevant in these riots, as many rioters weren't immigrants at all.
Incidentally, the poverty/fatherless society claims are bogus, now that the identity of some of the looters has been made known. A rich businessman's daughter, for example...
Besides, not having a father is no excuse for appalling behaviour. There are many people who have been sexually abused by their parents or worse who've behaved well in life.
Hmm, all this anti-women stuff must be really pissing off the female members here. I mean, problems in any society are always caused by both genders, for obvious reasons. Still, women also have their delusions, such as the notion that if women controlled the world, that there would no longer be any wars.
-
What is truly disgraceful is that the police have admitted that the reason why they couldn't deal with the looters was because they were trying to disperse the vigilante groups as well. Yet another case of the authorities protecting the guilty and harming the innocent through stupidity. I mean, the vigilantes were far more effective than the police in knocking some sense into the rioters, with the help of baseball bats etc.
-
So that's the only reason then. So bad fathers are not at fault here? What would make women want to be single in the first place. Hmm... I wonder... :P l)
Maybe they should of considered whether the father was the type to stick around.
-
All your points are invalid in a ridiculous way. For one thing, the American culture got started with the Constitution way after 1492. Plus, aboriginal culture now forms only a tiny part of overall Australian culture. And besides I am talking about the present, not the dead past. The number of non-Anglo-Saxons nowadays is also irrelevant as I am talking about the dominant culture not the people. I mean, you don't see Asian immigrants to the USA choosing to give their children Chinese first names, for example, it's Anglo-Saxon ones they usually give them.
As for "cultural genocide" that's truly absurd. I mean, banning sharia law and the burqa in the UK would not be committing cultural genocide as sharia law is alive and well in parts of the Middle-East. Besides, it's a question of "face". When you are invited into someone's home, you are expected to be polite and not smash your host's furniture for a laugh or because you resent his success in life. Same applies when you are an immigrant in a foreign country. Although immigration seems actually irrelevant in these riots, as many rioters weren't immigrants at all.
Incidentally, the poverty/fatherless society claims are bogus, now that the identity of some of the looters has been made known. A rich businessman's daughter, for example...
Besides, not having a father is no excuse for appalling behaviour. There are many people who have been sexually abused by their parents or worse who've behaved well in life.
Hmm, all this anti-women stuff must be really pissing off the female members here. I mean, problems in any society are always caused by both genders, for obvious reasons. Still, women also have their delusions, such as the notion that if women controlled the world, that there would no longer be any wars.
American culture is just Anglo-Saxon culture transplanted to the country that was inhabited by the first nations in North Am. and Australia. The new arrivals (Anglo-Saxons) did not integrate into the local indigenous populations any more than the new arrivals in Anglo-Saxonly predominantly Britain are doing.
In the dead past our ancestors did roughly what the immigrants to your country are doing now, just in a slower fashion. They probably want to take over and with their higher birthrate they no doubt will. I have read that the US is slowly being turned into a non-white neighbourhood and even a date when honky will be overtaken has been speculated.
People never integrate into the host society. The first few are like Uncle Toms but then after their foot is in the door they go back to the way they were.
The Anglo-Saxons and every other group that came to North Am. smashed the furniture of all the aboriginal occupants. It's survival of the ones with the bigger muscles and that appears to be what is going on in your country. I get that you are at war. The war will not stop until one side or the other is killed off one way or another just like the North Am aboriginals. This is no great sin, just the way humans are wired.
BTW think again about the naming theory of yours. The Asians/Africans/European/Orientals who emigrate into North Am. do indeed call their children names that none of us WASPS can pronounce or even remember. When I go kiteboarding I have a heck of a time remembering or even understanding the names of people I meet. My Indian (from India) friends do the same.
-
Maybe you can do what your ancestors did back in 1755 with the "expulsion of the Acadians" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acadians
Now that certainly was an act of kindness and gentleness on the part of your forebearers.
A group of non-political simple farmer/fisher folk who left the politics of Europe behind, who wanted to live in peace out of any political climate. Just live and farm. They were successful and hard working. They reclaimed land from the ocean and created a very successful society who lived in harmony with everyone including the aboriginals.
Then the Brits ripped them out, separated families from one another and shipped them off to a foreign land that was basically swampland. AND why did they do this? Was it because the people were rioting in the streets or causing problems? No. It was because they would not sign allegiance to the King. A sheet of paper. Go figure.
-
So that's the only reason then. So bad fathers are not at fault here? What would make women want to be single in the first place. Hmm... I wonder... :P l)
I was not implying that one or the other, (bad mothers or bad fathers) are to blame.
People see a hole in a fence and they jump through it. We all do it.
If a girl wants a baby or couples with a male and has one in the belief that he will stick around, it is simplified by the welfare system providing sustenance and the legal system allowing suing the guy for support.
Previously there was pressure on the girl to get a strong commitment from a guy before consenting to having a sexual contact. Obviously rape is a separate issue.
Nature has provided a few instincts that have maintained the survival of our species.
Males have a strong drive to have sex which has the (sometimes) unintended consequence of creating a child.
Women have a strong drive to have children.
Sometimes the drives in the respective persons are so strong that tomorrow is not taken into account.
There have been men who dump their children since the beginning of the world. Saint Augustine was in this group.
There have been women who pick up "something" in a bar just to get themselves pregnant. A friend of mine's wife is a result of one of those couplings. She's never met her father. Boy is she f#*ked up. But she is a hell of a mother herself. She would kill anybody who hurt her kids. She spoils them and loves them to death. (figuratively speaking of course)
-
The naming theory works. One only has to look at the media and higher education in the US to see that most of the Asians have adopted anglo-saxon names. It's mainly only the ones who haven't succeeded who keep their original non-western first names.
And it is quite possible for others to adopt an alien culture. One only has to look at the Bosnian Muslims, who were indigenous Christians before the Turks invaded.
-
The naming theory works. One only has to look at the media and higher education in the US to see that most of the Asians have adopted anglo-saxon names. It's mainly only the ones who haven't succeeded who keep their original non-western first names.
And it is quite possible for others to adopt an alien culture. One only has to look at the Bosnian Muslims, who were indigenous Christians before the Turks invaded.
Sorry Tyler,
the successful (if a Doctor or successful business person or lawyer or other such professional category) category is being invoked, all my foreign born friends call their kiddies names that I cannot pronounce and have to consciously practice to get right in some cases.
The town I live in which is the capital of Canada is by far dominated by the presence of people from countries I had only barely heard of when growing up. This is true all across Canada. Even the poor outpost sections have Doctors, lawyers, etc., who have every religion, ethnicity and linguistic background imaginable.
The world is multi-cultural.
On my street alone there are: a Tibettan married to a French Canadian whose parents are German and Dutch. They go to a Tibbettan church sometimes and practice Yoga. Their daughter is named a typically North Am. name and speaks Tibettan and French and English and can sign (deaf speak)
My ancestors are Scottish, Irish, English and Swiss. My daughters have added French. In my immediate blood family, German and Haitian have been added.
Another neighbour is from the Caribbean married to an Anglo. Another neighbour is a Chinese married to a honkie. ;D (not sure what background)
Down the street are Russians, Bulgarians, Muslims, you name it. I am sure that a large percentage of Africa and China live here.
In the air every imaginable language is spoken. There are ethnic stores of every variety. You can buy probably every delicacy from around the world. Every imaginable church, mosque, temple, etc is happily, peacefully functioning. There are ethnic sections in town where people speak no English.
You should get out more often.
-
Hello TylerDurden. The blatantly racist, bigoted rant you've been spewing is exactly why I hesitate to allow my real name to be associated with this site.
Just in case you care...
-
Tyler,
To get down to basics, your countrymen in the past have one of the most pathetic records in the annals of history on moving into sovereign nations, plundering and pillaging, raping, and subjugating locals into being slaves to your money machines. I am surprised that some of the people who post here have not brought up the subject.
Maybe you could give some examples of how y'all moved into a country and converted to their language and religion and delicately helped out with no expectation of remuneration.
Maybe it's payback time. Some call it Karma. Karma is the equal reflection for actions taken.
It is one thing to do something and feel regret, but it is another thing entirely to get self-righteous when somebody does it back to you.
(I was writing this as Eric replied)
-
His "rant" sounded more nationalist than racist to me.
-
Hello Geoff Purcell (aka TylerDurden). The blatantly racist, bigoted rant you've been spewing is exactly why I hesitate to allow my real name to be associated with this site.
Just in case you care...
I'm confused,
Why does it say "Last edit By TylerDurban" on this post?
-
First of all, raw-al, as usual, you have completely gotten the wrong end of the stick. I was talking about CULTURE, not genetics/ethnicity for god's sake. People all over the world can peacefully adopt a different culture. There are endless other cases, such as the Christianisation of pagan Europe way back when.
Then there's the really moronic mentions of slaughter by the British in the past. First of all, this is wholly irrelevant, of course, since almost every nation/tribe/ethnic group on Earth has gone in for the old rape and pillage in the past. It seems fashionable to mention the British excesses, but there are plenty of other crimes such as the Arab invasion of Europe in the Dark Ages, the Mongol invasion of Europe and Asia in the Middle-Ages etc.. More to the point, I was not advocating mass slaughter of ethnic groups, so it is truly disgraceful to even suggest that that was what I meant, I merely talked about assimilating a different culture for greater integration into society, nothing more.
Hmm, I did state that those particular rioters(who, anyway, as was made clear in the news right from the start, come from all ethnicities) should be shot or at least beaten up by the police, but these are criminals for god's sake. It so happens that I, as a UK citizen, would not appreciate it if some idiot tried to set fire to my house. Now, maybe some village-idiots here might be happy to see their own houses burnt to the ground while they pass out food and water to the rioters and wait for the police to come around, but who cares...
Interesting, Eric. You previously did not want your real name revealed on this site which we fixed for you, yet happily mention my own real name, trying to violate my right to privacy. Hypocrisy and double-standards..... Besides, you previously unfairly attacked this whole forum on spurious grounds(re moronic mention of "cults"), so it does look as though you are just returning in order to troll.
-
I'm confused,
Why does it say "Last edit By TylerDurban" on this post?
I merely corrected a spelling-mistake in that drivel of a message. "been" instead of "be".
-
Interesting, Eric. You previously did not want your real name revealed on this site which we fixed for you, yet happily mention my own real name, trying to violate my right to privacy...
Except that you have your own website (http://www.rawpaleodiet.com/testimonials/geoff-purcell-uk/ (http://www.rawpaleodiet.com/testimonials/geoff-purcell-uk/)) where you freely use your real name and expound on the virtues of the Raw Paleo Diet, and you've mentioned your real name on this site in other places. So how much privacy am I actually stealing from you?
And regarding trolling, re-read the pages of animosity you've been spewing in this thread. Who's the troll?
-
Hello Geoff Purcell (aka TylerDurden). The blatantly racist, bigoted rant you've been spewing is exactly why I hesitate to allow my real name to be associated with this site.
Just in case you care...
Well I don't know if you checked out the 'Women' thread, but most of these conversations (TD or not) are often bigoted, racist, etc..its the caveman way essentially. I personally do agree with Mel Gibson and some other folks that at the end of the day we need to acknowledge to some extent that individuals are different and 'not equal' and not always tolerate all this PC crap in discussing such things on those terms. The problem is that he and others tend to take things way too far in not being respectful towards others' point of view and experience. People that are PC need to respect challenges to their viewpoint and people that are 'naturalistic' need to acknowledge that things change and don't have simple solutions.
In other words, just because in nature people have taken on certain roles does not mean contemporary societies cannot change those roles. It does mean they might have consequences particularly for the people who don't benefit as much from such.
As per the looters and unrest which will likely only spread and get worse...there is going to have to be some GOVERNMENT solution to such things that is not just us-against-them violence. IMO as a wake up...basially there isn't going to be an unraveling of social programs or return to some constitutional interpretation (here in the US or elsewhere) to how government functions..nor should there be as these things are unprepared for how truly complex people are. Everything in the past ONLY worked by marginalizing other people (women/blacks etc..) and in creating gaps between individuals more so then other times in history - nevermind in 'nature' - and at a price of removing all kinds of freedoms to drink clean water and find clean food and just live. Even medieval serfs only had to work less then 20 hours a week or something and they always had clean food and booze. The shitty aspects of the world we live in are not due to liberal policies but to industry and greed. Modern liberal policies (like conservative policies) can be a tool for others to capitalize and hold on to such resources and create ignorance.
Its true that constant striving for equality and such brings up a tremendous amount of problems that some would rather not deal with..but hell we get to pick up our food from a store and live in a relatively safe dwelling free of raids from angrier lusting savages.
I think even most people even on the right do not believe we will solve problems by returning to some extreme but just to more simplistic model..that it is not all a big conspiracy.
since people are forced to pay taxes and such, individuals that receive benefits should now be forced to meet more strict requirements to receive them. (I hesitate to write: like in China) which serve as incentives and benchmarks not to be an asshole.
If people want some kind of basic medical coverage (which is necessary even for healthy people in case of physical accidents and such) then they should have to comply with basic rules..like they can't have more then 2 kids. If people are unemployed for more than three months they should HAVE to get up and go to some non-bs public program that makes or constructs things. We should concentrate on the crack down of real food by corporations via government and lobby for policies where all the things that are 'bad' like fast food and such should go the way of cigarettes and just be taxed to death so that only hipsters can afford them as novelty items.
-
Except that you have your own website (http://www.rawpaleodiet.com/testimonials/geoff-purcell-uk/ (http://www.rawpaleodiet.com/testimonials/geoff-purcell-uk/)) where you freely use your real name and expound on the virtues of the Raw Paleo Diet, and you've mentioned your real name on this site in other places. So how much privacy am I actually stealing from you?
That isn't my own website, it's GS's, to which I merely contribute articles, the testimonial was done with great reluctance and in a good cause. I very rarely have mentioned my name here, usually it's been PP and others who have done so, and I then reluctantly admitted to it. Doesn't change the fact of your hypocrisy and double-standards attitude.
And regarding trolling, re-read the pages of animosity you've been spewing in this thread. Who's the troll?
Nothing wrong with my statements. I was legitimately criticising the usual lame excuses given about criminals re absent fathers/poverty etc, while some others were practically cheering the rioters! And you and one or two others maniacally over-reacted to my comments, ridiculously accusing me of promoting genocide, when I was actually suggesting minor things such as changing names, removing sharia law and the like. As for you being a troll, well you previously quit the forum because you disapproved of it for mythical, dubious reasons. Why would you come back if not to troll, then? Hmm, or perhaps it's just that you are the anarchistic type who always has "issues" with anyone in a position of authority, no matter what the situation?
What is truly disgraceful is the attitude of some members here, who seem to approve of criminals. I mean, these rioters were stealing things like televisions and luxury goods and the like. Now, if the rioters were genuinely starving and only stole food and drink, I could understand that - I could even understand people shouting loudly during a demonstration/protest. But applauding rioters who were killing people, setting fires to peoples' homes, stripping people naked and robbing them etc., as a result of boredom and a desire for luxury goods, is just sick. Well, anyway, it seems to have blown over, curfews will probably be coming in, and there will be no further need for groups of vigilantes with baseball bats hanging around the neighbourhood..
-
...As for you being a troll, well you previously quit the forum because you disapproved of it for mythical, dubious reasons. Why would you come back if not to troll, then?
I never left the website. I had my username changed so that it wasn't my real name. I then wanted something in between, not complete anonymity but at the same time not my full name, so I started and now use a new account with my first name as my username. I'd have changed the old one to "Eric" too, but can't as the way the board is structured doesn't give me that privilege.
As for my trolling, the only threads I can recall where I've challenged anyone are this one (challenging your racist, bigoted and nationalistic statements) and other threads where I challenged cheromiya_kid for his banning of a member that I didn't feel deserved it. If those two issues constitute trolling, well then I suppose I'm a troll and I guess you should ban me.
-
I never left the website. I had my username changed so that it wasn't my real name. I then wanted something in between, not complete anonymity but at the same time not my full name, so I started and now use a new account with my first name as my username. I'd have changed the old one to "Eric" too, but can't as the way the board is structured doesn't give me that privilege.
You, at first wanted your account deleted completely. The only reason you chose the other option was because the 1st option wasn't allowed for obvious reasons re the search-engine.
As for my trolling, the only threads I can recall where I've challenged anyone are this one (challenging your racist, bigoted and nationalistic statements) and other threads where I challenged cheromiya_kid for his banning of a member that I didn't feel deserved it. If those two issues constitute trolling, well then I suppose I'm a troll and I guess you should ban me.
I made no racist, nationalistic, bigoted comments. All I suggested were minor methods already put in place in other countries which did actually help improve relations between immigrant communities and their host nation, such as the name-changing law in Thailand. About the only "offensive" thing I said was that the rioters ought to have been shot and that I supported the baseball-bat-wielding vigilantes defending shopping/restaurant districts from the looters. This was because the police clearly hadn't a clue how to deal swiftly with the situation, so someone else had to step in. Condemning criminals is not bigoted, it's perfectly understandable, especially in the case of a person(me) whose house has been burgled several times, who suffered an attempted but failed mugging etc.
-
Condemning criminals is not bigoted, it's perfectly understandable, especially in the case of a person(me) whose house has been burgled several times, who suffered an attempted but failed mugging etc.
Imagine how the folks in Iraq felt when y'all stormed into town (in the alive present), with cannons blazing like John Wayne, killing everything in your path, so you could secure oil with your old arch rival, the US.
Y'all have a long history of walking into Iraq and being not neighbourly and surprise, surprise karma knocks on your door.
But then I guess that is just disgraceful criminal-like hypocritical drivel from a crackpot, insane, dairy addicted Nazi, bleeding liberal, socialist pig like me... ;D :D
-
Imagine how the folks in Iraq felt when y'all stormed into town (in the alive present), with cannons blazing like John Wayne, killing everything in your path, so you could secure oil with your old arch rival, the US.
Y'all have a long history of walking into Iraq and being not neighbourly and surprise, surprise karma knocks on your door.
But then I guess that is just disgraceful criminal-like hypocritical drivel from a crackpot, insane, dairy addicted Nazi, bleeding liberal, socialist pig like me... ;D :D
Didn't Canada participate in Iraq? And, anyway, I was always against the Iraq War, because I knew that the Christians there would get wiped out etc., so you can't hold that against me. Indeed, most people in the UK were against the war, unlike in the US, but Blair forced us into it with that bogus pretence of the 45 minute warning and weapons of mass destruction nonsense. Democracies suck re peoples' rights, we should have had Prince Charles rule as a benevolent dictator ages ago. He at least usually listens to what the masses want, and would have got rid of the notion of invading other countries unnecessarily.
You still seem to be under the delusion that these riots were some sort of ethnic "war". It wasn't, didn't you see all the white faces everywhere among the looters?
As for the criminals, I stand by what I said before. Indeed, if I'd been in charge, I would have heeded Stalin's famous quote:- "Death solves all problems - no man, no problem." Imagine the State not having to pay for expensive long stays in prisons.
-
I had to ask my GF to verify ;D but Canada did not participate in the Iraq.
It did not take any "weapons of mass deduction" to figure out what that was all about.
BTW I do not believe that ordinary citizens of any country are the cause of war. It is typically waged for some or other economic reasons, * by people who have something to gain personally, like Bush/Cheney and their band of looters and backers, who made a fortune off of the deaths of countless people, not to mention the misery of the soldiers and the people of Iraq.
* (except in the case of racial hatred which would obviously not be a factor here.)
The whole topic of democracy VS Monarchy is a whole other question.
When you spoke of Sharia law and "they should adopt our culture" I assumed you were alluding to assimilation of other cultures.
So I am a bit confused.
I heard it was about university fees being raised. That does not sound like a justification for violence, so there has to be more.
-
I mentioned Sharia law, because at least one community in the UK actually tried to install sharia law for all residents, at one stage - I don't care about sharia law in Saudi Arabia and the like, and do not approve of pursuing foreign wars to make everyone be like us. I just mean, when in Rome live as the Romans do. As for "adopting" a culture, minor requirements like changing one's name (like in Thailand) or needing to speak English or have an education etc. all seem rather reasonable to me as it makes life easier for both immigrants and the host country.
-
http://www.myhealthblog.org/2011/08/12/london-riots-malaysian-ashraf-haziq-beaten-jaw-broken-then-robbed-interviewed/
-
I believe it was in "The Tipping Point" by Malcolm Gladwell that he described how New York City dealt with the crime issue in the subway system. I've heard others dispute what Malcolm says but it's a place to start.
-
You're talking about the zero-tolerance policy, I suppose.
Just read an interesting article. A guy who opportunistically stole a bottle of water from a broken window in a Lidl supermarket store got nabbed by the police and is getting full 6 months in jail. The only reason he isn't getting more time in jail is that he wasn't one of the real looters, he just did the minor theft on impulse. So, fortunately, the courts have seen sense and will presumably lock the serious rioters away for a decade or two at least.
At least, the media is turning against the looters now. Before, they provided the usual lame excuses for riots such as absent fathers/poverty etc., but not after photos were shown of people running off with expensive TV sets etc.
-
You're talking about the zero-tolerance policy, I suppose.
Sorry I don't remember the details but essentially there was a serious problem with petty problems like not paying subway fees, theft etc.
The Police came down like a ton of bricks and prosecuted every single violation to the full extent of the law bringing paddy wagons in and carting off the offenders. There was more to the story, but this is the essence.
Seems to have worked because when we visited there a few years ago, the subway was awesomely friendly with people tripping over themselves to be helpful. We were pleasantly surprised. In fact a relative who lived in Manhattan told us it is one of the safest places on the planet. Go figure.
-
Sadly, it seems I was wrong re harsh punishments, at least for those under 18:-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8696787/UK-riots-young-yobs-back-on-streets-despite-David-Camerons-pledge.html
HR laws really need to be reworked so that criminals don't get away with crimes.
Interesting to read about Mark Duggan, the guy shot by the police being the nephew of a known gangster:-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8697208/UK-riots-Mark-Duggan-was-nephew-of-Manchester-gangster-Desmond-Noonan.html
Most riots are started out of greed or a desire for violence or kick-started by rogues with political motives. Sure, on occasions, they can occur as a result of genuine grievances such as the Middle-Eastern uprisings in recent months and the riots that preceded the fall of the Soviet Union, but the latter are the exceptions.
-
Well I don't know if you checked out the 'Women' thread, but most of these conversations (TD or not) are often bigoted, racist, etc..its the caveman way essentially. I personally do agree with Mel Gibson and some other folks that at the end of the day we need to acknowledge to some extent that individuals are different and 'not equal' and not always tolerate all this PC crap in discussing such things on those terms. The problem is that he and others tend to take things way too far in not being respectful towards others' point of view and experience. People that are PC need to respect challenges to their viewpoint and people that are 'naturalistic' need to acknowledge that things change and don't have simple solutions.
In other words, just because in nature people have taken on certain roles does not mean contemporary societies cannot change those roles. It does mean they might have consequences particularly for the people who don't benefit as much from such.
As per the looters and unrest which will likely only spread and get worse...there is going to have to be some GOVERNMENT solution to such things that is not just us-against-them violence. IMO as a wake up...basially there isn't going to be an unraveling of social programs or return to some constitutional interpretation (here in the US or elsewhere) to how government functions..nor should there be as these things are unprepared for how truly complex people are. Everything in the past ONLY worked by marginalizing other people (women/blacks etc..) and in creating gaps between individuals more so then other times in history - nevermind in 'nature' - and at a price of removing all kinds of freedoms to drink clean water and find clean food and just live. Even medieval serfs only had to work less then 20 hours a week or something and they always had clean food and booze. The shitty aspects of the world we live in are not due to liberal policies but to industry and greed. Modern liberal policies (like conservative policies) can be a tool for others to capitalize and hold on to such resources and create ignorance.
Its true that constant striving for equality and such brings up a tremendous amount of problems that some would rather not deal with..but hell we get to pick up our food from a store and live in a relatively safe dwelling free of raids from angrier lusting savages.
I think even most people even on the right do not believe we will solve problems by returning to some extreme but just to more simplistic model..that it is not all a big conspiracy.
since people are forced to pay taxes and such, individuals that receive benefits should now be forced to meet more strict requirements to receive them. (I hesitate to write: like in China) which serve as incentives and benchmarks not to be an asshole.
If people want some kind of basic medical coverage (which is necessary even for healthy people in case of physical accidents and such) then they should have to comply with basic rules..like they can't have more then 2 kids. If people are unemployed for more than three months they should HAVE to get up and go to some non-bs public program that makes or constructs things. We should concentrate on the crack down of real food by corporations via government and lobby for policies where all the things that are 'bad' like fast food and such should go the way of cigarettes and just be taxed to death so that only hipsters can afford them as novelty items.
Please quote one bigoted or racist comment from the 'women' thread.
-
David Cameron is apparently introducing a zero-tolerance policy like in the US. He has an American advisor, a former police officer who suggested the idea.
-
Sounds like a good idea.
-
A number of journalists in the UK are now claiming that the reason behind the riots was that some white and Asian working-class people are also adopting black gang culture.
-
David Cameron is apparently introducing a zero-tolerance policy like in the US. He has an American advisor, a former police officer who suggested the idea.
Yeah, the approach is also referred to as community policing, the broken windows theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory and the quality of life approach. All these terms could be viewed as elements used in William Bratton's overall approach.
The idea sounded good to me when the media reported James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling's 1982 proposal of the broken windows theory and their findings and Bratton's success with cleaning up the NYC subways and reducing subway crime seemed to confirm it. I had noticed myself that the Italian North End neighborhood of Boston was more well-kept and seemed to have lower crime than other neighborhoods, though some people told me that this was due to the mafia dealing harshly with petty crime that they weren't running--but that's a form of community policing and zero tolerance enforcement too, just private instead of public.
Since then there have been criticisms. This one is particularly unusual and likely controversial:
In the best-seller Freakonomics, economist Steven D. Levitt and co-author Stephen J. Dubner both confirm and cast doubt on the notion that the broken windows theory was responsible for New York's drop in crime. Levitt noticed that years before the 1990s, abortion was legalized. Women who were least able to raise kids (the poor, drug addicted and unstable) were able to get abortions, so the number of children being born in broken families was decreasing. Most crimes committed in New York are committed by 16- to 24-year old males; when this demographic decreased in number, the crime rate followed. At the same time, Levitt also found that the greater number of police as well an increased incarceration rate had contributed to the decline in crime. Levitt's book is based on published scientific studies that have been subject to peer-review. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory
Here's another:
Bratton / Timoney;
Zero Tolerance, European Experience
http://www.lacp.org/Articles%20-%20Expert%20-%20Our%20Opinion/020919-Zero_Tolerance-AJ.html
We have been assembling a general consensus of international perceptions of the media-heralded "zero tolerance" policing theory, its patent incompatibility with Community Policing methods and precepts, and the flawed scholarship with which William Bratton and John Timoney presented their results on European speaking tours.
It will be interesting to see whether it works in the UK.
-
Thanks PP. I read that also but couldn't recall which book it was in.
BTW Tyler I was giving possible explanations for the issue, not to excuse anyone or justify these activities, but to provide a stepping off point to look into prevention of similar issues in the future.
Prevention is much simpler than mopping up.
This is the idea behind the Paleo diet... prevention
-
A number of journalists in the UK are now claiming that the reason behind the riots was that some white and Asian working-class people are also adopting black gang culture.
I have noticed this phenomenon in my own community. Here in Kentucky we are about as far removed from the ghettos that produced the gang culture as you can get, and yet there are droves of white middle class and working class young men who act, talk, and think as if they were a part of that ghetto thug culture. Within that culture there are a lot of simple minded people who believe it's honorable to retaliate against those who harm their home dogs. There is an eye for an eye mentality in gang life that has led to much of the gang violence in the black community. This may be the case with the riots.
"Why can't we all just get along"
Rodney King
-
I have noticed this phenomenon in my own community. Here in Kentucky we are about as far removed from the ghettos that produced the gang culture as you can get, and yet there are droves of white middle class and working class young men who act, talk, and think as if they were a part of that ghetto thug culture. Within that culture there are a lot of simple minded people who believe it's honorable to retaliate against those who harm their home dogs. There is an eye for an eye mentality in gang life that has led to much of the gang violence in the black community. This may be the case with the riots.
That is exactly the outcome that Christina Hoff Sommers http://www.amazon.ca/War-Against-Boys-Misguided-Feminism/dp/0684849569 suggested in "The War Against Boys". It will only get worse.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMvuoGji3yU
Perfect Storm: The England Riots Documentary
http://wideshut.co.uk - A look at the wider context surrounding the recent England Riots.
I was enlightened by this documentary.
Very good.
It's the bankers!!!
-
GS,
Interesting, thanks.
Someone should teach spelling to the documentary makers.
You know the crazy thing about all of this is that there is always someone sitting in the background making money off all this. Someone will have to repair their house/store/car so the car builder will make a buck. In Libya someone is making money off of selling the guns to the military and the uniforms. Someone is making money off of supplying the Police with all the riot gear. The price tag for all this is paid for by the "Po folks" who work. The politicians go on spending it like there's no tomorrow.
-
Sounds like a good idea.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iWKulQzeYw
-
Gotta love Keiser. Straddles the line between tongue in cheek news commentary and humor. On par with Comedy Central and The Colbert Report, in my opinion.
-
Now New York is preparing for riots: http://www.infowars.com/new-york-cops-prepare-for-civil-unrest/ (http://www.infowars.com/new-york-cops-prepare-for-civil-unrest/)
In a way, they might materialize as a self-fulfilling prophecy.
-
Geez...everything is going to plan
-
For his part in decrying social media, Cameron was praised by none other than Communist China, which habitually censors the Internet to hide political corruption or prevent legitimate protesters from receiving media attention. The Communist state routinely uses such powers, which Senator Joe Lieberman has called to be introduced in the United States, to cover up atrocities and abuses against its own citizens.
Twitter, Facebook and Youtube are all banned in China and even sanitized government approved versions of these websites are now being shut down for long periods of time so that they can “remove all politically sensitive content under orders from Chinese internet authorities”.
-
Hmm, despite my misgivings that the Chinese are odious Communists and have a somewhat restrictive government, they always seem to be being more sensible than anywhere else in the world as regards the economy, death-penalty stance and a hundred other things.
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/janetdaley/8713091/UK-riots-The-end-of-the-liberals-great-moral-delusion.html
-
Hmm, despite my misgivings that the Chinese are odious Communists and have a somewhat restrictive government, they always seem to be being more sensible than anywhere else in the world as regards the economy, death-penalty stance and a hundred other things.
You do realize that China executes for many crimes other than murder, right? Here's a quote from the Wiki on the death penalty in China:
"...Capital punishment is applied flexibly to a wide range of crimes, some of which are punishable by death in no other judicial system in the world. Economic crimes such as tax fraud have appeared routinely among the dockets of those receiving the death sentence, as have drug offences. Capital punishment in China can be imposed on crimes against national symbols and treasures, such as theft of cultural relics and (before 1997) the killing of pandas.[7] Corruption, property crimes such as theft, and smuggling gold, silver or other precious metals are also amongst the 55 crimes that are eligible for the death penalty in China.
Capital punishment is also imposed on inchoate offenses, that is, attempted crimes which are not actually fully carried out, including repeat offenses such as attempted fraud. The recidivistic nature of the offenses, not their seriousness per se, is what is adjudicated to merit the capital sentence..."
What do you think?
-
I am well aware of that, which is why I am so in favour. In the West, fraud and corruption, which are heinous offences which routinely destroy the lives of individuals and families, are usually "punished" with very lenient, short sentences in open prisons because they are seen as white-collar crimes. Same goes for killing wildlife - sentences in the West for killing wildlife are pathetic, since wildlife are a national treasure, and in a way irreplaceable given vanishing habitats etc., execution seems reasonable as a deterrent, sort of like stealing the Crown Jewels in the old days was a capital offence. Plus, I disagree with the absurd notion that human life is somehow worth "more" than the life of an animal. It's all a matter of numbers, so since there are only c.123,000 gorillas in the world and c.6.94 billion human beings, that means that each gorilla's life is worth as much as the combined lives of 56,422.76 human beings.
Theft of other peoples' property seems reasonable as a capital offence. Simple theft could be "rewarded" with the lopping off of a hand, Islamic-style. Smuggling gold and silver probably need a lighter sentence, but each country to its own...
-
I am well aware of that, which is why I am so in favour. In the West, fraud and corruption, which are heinous offences which routinely destroy the lives of individuals and families, are usually "punished" with very lenient, short sentences in open prisons because they are seen as white-collar crimes. Same goes for killing wildlife - sentences in the West for killing wildlife are pathetic, since wildlife are a national treasure, and in a way irreplaceable given vanishing habitats etc., execution seems reasonable as a deterrent, sort of like stealing the Crown Jewels in the old days was a capital offence. Plus, I disagree with the absurd notion that human life is somehow worth "more" than the life of an animal. It's all a matter of numbers, so since there are only c.123,000 gorillas in the world and c.6.94 billion human beings, that means that each gorilla's life is worth as much as the combined lives of 56,422.76 human beings.
Theft of other peoples' property seems reasonable as a capital offence. Simple theft could be "rewarded" with the lopping off of a hand, Islamic-style. Smuggling gold and silver probably need a lighter sentence, but each country to its own...
So a teenager who steals a tube of lipstick on a dare or whim should lose a hand?
Geoff, I don't mean this in an insulting way, so please don't take it that way. However, I really have to say that your nutritional opinions seem far, FAR better thought through than your opinions on crime, and really, politics in general.
Again, that's not meant as an insult.
-
Tribal men share everything: there was no private property within Paleolithic tribes. It’s clear that private property was brought about by agriculture and the end of nomadic life in the Neolithic era. Even a few years ago, the notion of private property was unknown for Polynesians: if you have more than them, they take away from you; if they have more than you, they give you.
Just like the Neolithic and modern diets, the social structures born out of the Neolithic way of life are incompatible with our genetic dispositions and are therefore not sustainable. That’s one more reason why every civilization ends up in collapse.
-
So a teenager who steals a tube of lipstick on a dare or whim should lose a hand?
Geoff, I don't mean this in an insulting way, so please don't take it that way. However, I really have to say that your nutritional opinions seem far, FAR better thought through than your opinions on crime, and really, politics in general.
Again, that's not meant as an insult.
Islamic law does not per se insist on cutting a hand off on the 1st occasion, and I don't think they view the theft of just a lip-stick as real "theft" as such. Invariably, the penalty only happens after the thief has been caught on several occasions(2 or 3 times) stealing something serious. Needless to say, shoplifting of minor items is going to be a very, very rare crime in a country with such a law. Those looters in the UK would never have dared to commit such crime in the face of such a penalty.
-
Tribal men share everything: there was no private property within Paleolithic tribes. It’s clear that private property was brought about by agriculture and the end of nomadic life in the Neolithic era. Even a few years ago, the notion of private property was unknown for Polynesians: if you have more than them, they take away from you; if they have more than you, they give you.
Just like the Neolithic and modern diets, the social structures born out of the Neolithic way of life are incompatible with our genetic dispositions and are therefore not sustainable. That’s one more reason why every civilization ends up in collapse.
Tribal men are not members of paleolithic tribes, you conflate the two. Not all tribal men share everything, that is just a flat out lie. Some tribal people may live communally, but most tribes have customs for what property is owned. Gift economies can function like private-property economies, so no currency is needed.. A tribe is just a kinship-based group, a form of large, extended family.
Paleolithic men formed hunting bands, and were the primary providers. Women were of biological necessity forced to care for the young, and limited to hunting small game animals and gathering fruit, berries, edible plants, etc. Egalitarianism is a myth, social stratification the norm. The more intelligent, strong, cunning, etc. would have been given first choice for eating, mating, etc.
Civilization ends in collapse because individuals lose interest in their own affairs, they hand over power to a small group of individuals who promise utopia: free health care, bread and circuses, etc. This socialist utopian thinking comes to dominate a society and then it collapses because no one is producing, there are too many parasites.
It is as if you had a tribe where everyone was the chief, and no one wanted to hunt. It would not last long.
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8713298/London-riots-were-orchestrated-by-outsiders.html
-
Tribal men are not members of paleolithic tribes, you conflate the two.
I’m referring to tribal people in Paleolithic era, in case it was not clear enough. I wasn’t there, but it is logical that private property is a consequence of agriculture.
Not all tribal men share everything, that is just a flat out lie.
Ah, you call me a liar because you misunderstood what I wrote… >D
Civilization ends in collapse because individuals lose interest in their own affairs, they hand over power to a small group of individuals who promise utopia: free health care, bread and circuses, etc. This socialist utopian thinking comes to dominate a society and then it collapses because no one is producing, there are too many parasites.
So, you know it. It’s invaluable to have somebody with such a great knowledge. l)
-
I am well aware of that, which is why I am so in favour. In the West, fraud and corruption, which are heinous offences which routinely destroy the lives of individuals and families, are usually "punished" with very lenient, short sentences in open prisons because they are seen as white-collar crimes. Same goes for killing wildlife - sentences in the West for killing wildlife are pathetic, since wildlife are a national treasure, and in a way irreplaceable given vanishing habitats etc., execution seems reasonable as a deterrent, sort of like stealing the Crown Jewels in the old days was a capital offence. Plus, I disagree with the absurd notion that human life is somehow worth "more" than the life of an animal. It's all a matter of numbers, so since there are only c.123,000 gorillas in the world and c.6.94 billion human beings, that means that each gorilla's life is worth as much as the combined lives of 56,422.76 human beings.
Wow TD/GP, for once I agree with you. I like your application of mathematics to the value of a gorilla relative to the value of a person. I've never thought of it that way before.
Perhaps when a poacher is caught killing a gorilla, the proper punishment is executing everyone in his village?
-
Geoff, please help me get a little clarity on your position. If a hunter kills a deer out of season, that warrants the death penalty?
How about if someone illegally gathers and eats some clams or oysters? The death penalty is appropriate then, too?
For that matter, I know quite a few people who kill and eat deer for food. If they happen to be out of work, due to their factory closing and their job going overseas, they might kill a deer out of season for extra food. Should that warrant the death penalty? For that matter, if someone kills any wild animal for food, do you think they should get the death penalty?
If the answer to any of those is yes, then I will be experiencing disappointment.
-
Wow TD/GP, for once I agree with you. I like your application of mathematics to the value of a gorilla relative to the value of a person. I've never thought of it that way before.
Perhaps when a poacher is caught killing a gorilla, the proper punishment is executing everyone in his village?
It would certainly work far more as a deterrent than the usual minor fines plus confiscation of the relevant animal trophies, for slaughtering one or more of the very few remaining breeding pairs of a species within one's country. Indeed, some worthless hunters have pretended that they were "defending" themselves when they deliberately killed a rare animal, so as to avoid a prison-sentence.
I remember one marvellous Japanese initiative/disincentive whereby the relatives of people who committed suicide on railway-tracks would be forced to pay for the cost of cleaning up the mess etc. Perhaps massive fines/confiscation of assets on poachers and poachers' relatives or local, nearby (de facto complicit) residents would make people think twice re poaching.
-
Geoff, please help me get a little clarity on your position. If a hunter kills a deer out of season, that warrants the death penalty?
How about if someone illegally gathers and eats some clams or oysters? The death penalty is appropriate then, too?
For that matter, I know quite a few people who kill and eat deer for food. If they happen to be out of work, due to their factory closing and their job going overseas, they might kill a deer out of season for extra food. Should that warrant the death penalty? For that matter, if someone kills any wild animal for food, do you think they should get the death penalty?
If the answer to any of those is yes, then I will be experiencing disappointment.
It is irrelevant if people are losing their jobs. The State by and large provides plenty of food for those who are homeless/jobless re soup-kitchens etc. No need for killing wildlife. A few hundred years ago, it was considered perfectly OK to execute poachers, I just wish we had the sense to retain such laws.
In the case of deer/clams/oysters, these are already quite plentiful, I was mainly referring to the wilful slaughter of rare species like lynxes, stealing very rare wild birds' eggs and the like. That said, it makes far more sense, from an ecological perspective, to introduce more natural top predators like wolves so that they can kill the deer etc., rather than humans.
-
...If a hunter kills a deer out of season, that warrants the death penalty?
I don't speak for GP/TD, but as a hunter I say HELL YEAH! Wildlife is part of everyone's natural heritage. While I have nothing against hunting (I do it, obviously), there are covenants with the whitetail nation that must be honored for the hunt to remain an ethical practice. Poaching, for many reasons, violates this covenant. If a hunter chooses to poach and violate this covenant, then it seems reasonable to me to remove him or her from the population.
-
I don't speak for GP/TD, but as a hunter I say HELL YEAH! Wildlife is part of everyone's natural heritage. While I have nothing against hunting (I do it, obviously), there are covenants with the whitetail nation that must be honored for the hunt to remain an ethical practice. Poaching, for many reasons, violates this covenant. If a hunter chooses to poach and violate this covenant, then it seems reasonable to me to remove him or her from the population.
What if someone is out of work, their children are hungry, and their choices are soup kitchen food, or killing a deer out of season? The death penalty?
-
What if someone is out of work, their children are hungry, and their choices are soup kitchen food, or killing a deer out of season? The death penalty?
How about confiscation of all assets and he and his family get sentenced to hard labour in prison for life.
-
How about confiscation of all assets and he and his family get sentenced to hard labour in prison for life.
I see King Richard, and who might I be so bold gets to choose who lives and dies....... Ye ?
Do you anticipate a trial or just "off with his head".
The pesky ole "Magna Carta" should be dispensed with too, eh Tyler.....
Civil rights are just for pussies, wastrels and hangashores.
Bring back press gangs and stocks. That'll show the unlanded classes, who is the boss...
Ah yes, let's harken back to the days of yore, when men were men.... LOL
At least I am just joking! ;D ;D ;D I get the impression you are serious....
-
It would certainly work far more as a deterrent than the usual minor fines plus confiscation of the relevant animal trophies, for slaughtering one or more of the very few remaining breeding pairs of a species within one's country. Indeed, some worthless hunters have pretended that they were "defending" themselves when they deliberately killed a rare animal, so as to avoid a prison-sentence.
In Canada if you poach you lose whatever is used in the process, guns, vehicle, equipment, and you are fined. You also are out of the running for legally being involved in hunting for a period of time. These rules may vary.
Canada is not quite as restricted in the amounts of animals available as in European countries where the population per square kilometer is more of an issue.
Problem is Tyler that if you know anything about the legal system, it is easy to be falsely accused or set up and to be at the wrong place at the right time. Laws are also to protect the innocent and if you just happen to be the innocent one falsely accused then it would be your neck doing the stretching.
I used to work with young offenders and it was pretty easy to see that the ones who got caught, were scapegoats for the real offenders which in some cases were adults who had broken laws. Legal matters are never back and white, once you really put the nuts and bolts work of investigating what really happened. This is not some namby pamby, liberal, socialist, apologist, pussy, excuses. It's more like being Sherlock Holmes and getting to the bottom, to get what really happened and who was really the culprit and why. As opposed to Watson stumbling around like some well-meaning dullard.
Kings in the past used your angry type of response to do whatever they pleased for whatever political reason they chose, sort of like the recent example of G. Bush sending off some innocent soldiers to Iraq to line his friends and co-workers pockets.
The devil is in the details of these great pronouncements as to who should live and die.
I suspect that your article on what happened re: the planning of the riots by outsiders will get to the immediate cause and then the real causes can be seen in the distance from that viewpoint.
I am not saying you are completely wrong. I am saying that cooler heads should prevail. Wait till the dust has settled and you have the time to sift through the rhetoric to get to the solution(s)
-
Well, stocks were effectively used in the past to counter/control people with very unpleasant behaviour. Quite an effective deterrent. And the kings were actually most effective at deterring the poachers, just wish they hadn't wiped out so many animals during their hunts.
The issue re courts is all very well, but the human rights issues/laws have become so extreme that criminals now have more rights than the non-criminal. For example, the UK courts allowed some Afghan plane hijackers to go free because they pretended they were fleeing from afghan persecution and the HR laws forbade them from being deported. Meanwhile, ordinary UK householders routinely get sentenced to jail if they harm a burglar in any serious way.
What you are saying, basically, is that it's better for a 100 killers to go free than that an innocent man gets put in jail or executed. I would disagree in the one case of the wildlife issue, as it is an irreplaceable resource, and human life, now that it's in the billions, is eminently expendable, while wildlife is definitely not. So, I would happily see a 100 guilty poachers get shot/have all family assets confiscated etc. and have a dozen innocent men get wrongly executed for poachery, as the alternative is to just wait a few more centuries before the few remaining wildlife parks etc. become a thing of the past.
-
The problem with the liberal idiocies re HR laws is that, sure, many people are innocent of the specific crime they are accused of. But the problem is that the police mostly aim at people who have already been suspected/accused/or convicted of other crimes, so one can be reasonably certain that most people who are innocent of a particular crime will be guilty of something else. That's why I'm so keen on zero-tolerance laws. as they target people for minor crimes that people previously got away with, but, in the process, these laws get rid of other people who commit far more serious crimes.
-
I guess you won't mind then if I frame you for robbery and you are arrested, convicted and get a hand chopped off, because you must have been guilty of something, right?
People have been falsely convicted by that sort of thinking of "He must be guilty, else the police wouldn't have arrested him."
At any rate, it's useless for anyone to argue with TD on this. He won't change his mind, and no one should be surprised by his views as he has already quoted some rather brutal quotes by Chingis Khan and others favorably.
In one way the death penalty and extremity chopping may not be so bad--they don't resemble slavery as much as imprisonment, chain gangs, work camps and "re-education" camps do, and I suppose they are more traditional/Paleo (along with exile/banishment), so maybe there's some benefit to it that we aren't aware of. Nomadic peoples can't have prisons or chain gangs, so nomadic peoples (like the Arabs used to be) tend to have to use exile and capital punishments as their most severe punishments (and my guess is that exile probably often resulted in death--because it meant either trying to survive on one's own in the no-man's land between peoples or trying to join an enemy people that might not accept an exiled enemy).
The really primitive peoples seem to use less harsh punishments more often--like having the guilty party stand and receive a tongue lashing from the tribe or be given the silent treatment for a while, or just go through a shamanic cleansing ritual or something. However, I haven't read a lot about this, so I'm largely guessing based on a few brief mentions here and there, and on the other hand, at least one observer reported that the Bushmen tend to take justice into their own hands and shoot each other with poison arrows whenever they think they've been wronged, and then leave it to fate whether the poison will kill the accused or not. Interestingly, they weren't reported to continue the attack if the accused survived the poison, as though the spirits had decided he should live. I didn't read of women ever being shot like this, though, so I don't know what the punishments were for females or children. Another oddity about this was that the men who were shot and nearly killed didn't seem to think it was a big deal and would point to the various scars where they had been shot by fellow tribal members. Granted, this was only according to one outside observer and other observers have reported about more peaceful-seeming Bushmen, and in a way even the Bushmen who were shooting each other up seemed peaceful because they didn't seem to get worked up about it. It was more like "Oh yeah, we shoot each other up quite a bit and sometimes someone dies--no big deal." LOL
-
I guess you won't mind then if I frame you for robbery and you are arrested, convicted and get a hand chopped off, because you must have been guilty of something, right?
People have been falsely convicted by that sort of thinking of "He must be guilty, else the police wouldn't have arrested him."
At any rate, it's useless for anyone to argue with TD on this. He won't change his mind, and no one should be surprised by his views as he has already quoted some rather brutal quotes by Chingis Khan and others favorably.
Palaeo times seem to have been full of perpetual warfare between tribes.
As for the silly Chingis Khan comment, I have also previously cited quotations by Gandhi and many other pacifists. My only concern is if the quotation is reflected in real life, really.
As regards framing remark, that's absurd. Except in a police-state, it is extremely difficult for someone to frame a person who has never previously committed a crime. It's so much easier to frame someone who has been previously convicted, and who has gotten away with some of his past crimes. I have no issue with the notion of someone being wrongly jailed for murder if he has previously gotten away with armed robbery but never got caught doing the latter.
-
Palaeo times seem to have been full of perpetual warfare between tribes.
As for the silly Chingis Khan comment, I have also previously cited quotations by Gandhi and many other pacifists. My only concern is if the quotation is reflected in real life, really.
As regards framing remark, that's absurd. Except in a police-state, it is extremely difficult for someone to frame a person who has never previously committed a crime. It's so much easier to frame someone who has been previously convicted, and who has gotten away with some of his past crimes. I have no issue with the notion of someone being wrongly jailed for murder if he has previously gotten away with armed robbery but never got caught doing the latter.
Darryl Hunt, Winston-Salem, NC. NO previous record. He has since been exonerated, and another man confessed to the crime. In your world, he'd already have been executed LONG before DNA evidence proved him innocent. IOW, like I said before, your nutritional opinions are better thought through than your political ones.
Raw-al said it well...cooler heads than yours need to prevail.
-
No previous record, perhaps he just wasn't caught re his past other crimes. Besides, this is just cherry-picking, as the police largely target the more suspicious types(ie the ones who were previously involved in other crimes etc.)
The real point re all this is the greater deterrent of harsh penalties. Obviously, there will always be mistakes even in the most benevolent societies, but weakening sentences overall does not deter the more criminally-prone in society. I doubt there is a shoplifting problem in the Middle-East , for example, whereas in the west it is all-pervasive.
-
Palaeo times seem to have been full of perpetual warfare between tribes.
Well, I wasn't there, but some have made that claim, apparently with disagreements over whether they tended to be small-scale skirmishes or included significant wholesale slaughters (there is some evidence for the latter even among chimpanzees, from Jane Goodall's research, when resources become scarce), and that does basically support what I was saying about Bushmen reportedly shooting each other up with poison arrows in self-appointed justice, so thanks for basically making my point.
BTW, I'm not advocating that people shoot each other up with poison arrows today. ;D Traditional nomadic society was simple and robust, even antifragile, and thus could survive and even thrive with such minor disputes and skirmishes occurring relatively frequently, but modern society is too large, complex, interconnected and fragile and would likely be overly disrupted by such activities and they could even spiral into catastrophes, such as the recent British riots.
As for the silly Chingis Khan comment, I have also previously cited quotations by Gandhi and many other pacifists. My only concern is if the quotation is reflected in real life, really.
I'm not sure what the point of that is, but wouldn't you agree that your overall remarks fall more in line with the Great Khan than with the Mahatma (not that that's all necessarily bad, mind you)?
As regards framing remark, that's absurd. Except in a police-state, it is extremely difficult for someone to frame a person....
Heh, heh, heh, you're tempting me. ;) Seriously, though, the presumption of guilt you argued for is characteristic of a police state, so by instituting it, you would likely encourage the development of a police state.
who has never previously committed a crime. It's so much easier to frame someone who has been previously convicted, and who has gotten away with some of his past crimes. I have no issue with the notion of someone being wrongly jailed for murder if he has previously gotten away with armed robbery but never got caught doing the latter.
More of the same presumed-guilty appeal-to-ignorance fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). The problem with this fallacy is not only can an innocent person get convicted falsely of murder as a result, but the real killer thus remains on the loose to do more killings. It can also spiral into guilt by association ("He wouldn't associate with known criminals unless he was a criminal himself"). Both of these fallacies were institutionalized in the Soviet system.
In the old Soviet Union, a prisoner was, in essence, assumed to be guilty. The "burden of proof" fell upon the defendant to prove his innocence rather than upon the prosecution to prove his guilt. By way of contrast, in the United States, the burden of proof has traditionally been upon the State. To adopt the model of the Soviet Union is to commit a basic logical fallacy, an "appeal to ignorance" (argumentum ad ignorantiam).
(This fallacy occurs whenever someone claims that X is true because it cannot be or has not been proven false.)
As David Kelley says in his book, The Art of Reasoning, "To assert that someone is guilty is to make a positive claim: that he committed a certain act.... A defendant is on trial only because he has been charged with a crime, so those who brought charges have the initial burden of backing them up." (First edition, 1988, p. 129.)
Since many of us could not prove we were not at a certain place at a particular time, the Soviet prosecutors enjoyed an enviable rate of success.
Laws prohibiting the use of cell phones by everyone fall into this same category. The authorities are implicitly assuming that you and every other person who might use a cell phone are or would endanger others via your actions. While there is nothing improper per se in having a law against "distracted driving," laws that punish the innocent (and not just those who actually harm others) commit the fallacy of an appeal to ignorance.
"In a closed society where everyone is guilty, the only crime is getting caught." --Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.
-
You are exaggerating as usual. The fact is that most of Europe holds to Napoleonic Law which states that one is presumed to have the burden of guilt until proven innocent in court:-
http://www.nowpublic.com/opinions/code-napol-laying-down-law-qu-bec-louisiana-and-france
. It's only anglo-saxon law which is the opposite.
The issue of guilt by association is particularly relevant re terrorism. For example, Peru got nowhere re imprisoning its Marxist guerillas because the police etc. stuck rigidly to the law. The terrorists would just melt away into the mountains etc. whenever raids occurred. It wasn't until various rightwing militias/government soldiers started killing off anyone who vaguely passively sympathised with the terrorists or shot dead any relatives of terrorists , that the shining path etc. were finished off. The sheer hypocrisy is that once that Japanese Peruvian president etc. got the job done, they were then hypocritically targetted for violating the human rights of the terrorists etc.
Same goes for the Boer War. The British failed to win until they started setting up concentration camps where they housed the families of the Boer fighters.
As for my quotations, like I said, they all vary. In the past, they were more pacifistic. It also depends on the views of other forum-members. For example, I used a few quotations relevant to william when he was still here. In the case of "people" who make moronic excuses for looters when there are simpler reasons such as greed, violence, stupidity, the availability of facebook etc., I naturally will choose harsher quotations for my sig.
-
Palaeo times seem to have been full of perpetual warfare between tribes.
A book I read by Gabriel Camps http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_Camps says the exact opposite :
“La préhistoire – à la recherche du paradis perdu” http://livre.fnac.com/a129287/Gabriel-Camps-La-Prehistoire
I guess the situation may have been somewhat different during the middle and upper Paleolithic after the fire was mastered and widely used to cook food than in the lower Paleolithic.
-
You are exaggerating as usual.
Exaggerating what? Vague claims do not a case make.
The fact is that most of Europe holds to Napoleonic Law
Are you sure you're not the one who is exaggerating here? European laws have changed since Napoleon:
In 1808, a "Code of Criminal Instruction" (Code d'instruction criminelle) was published. ... The resulting code is the basis of the modern so-called "inquisitorial system" of criminal courts, used in France and many civil law countries — though, of course, it has significantly changed since Napoléon's days (especially, with improvements of the right of the defense).
....the Napoleonic code was in use until the introduction of the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch in 1900 as the first common civil code for the entire German Empire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_code#The_French_codes_today
I'm no European legal scholar, but this is what I found on the European laws regarding presumption of innocence today:
The presumption of innocence, as understood at present in most European countries, is based on Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 of the UN ... as follows :
"Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed." (translated from French, http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presomption_d'innocence
The understanding I received from American rightwing Libertarian radio talk show host David Brudnoy (who called himself "to the right of Genghis Khan") was that the French system is more neutral in some respects than the American system. Rather than being tilted against the defense and adopting a principle of presumed guilt, he seemed to indicate that the French courts take a stance of neutrally trying via investigation to determine the facts, whatever they may be, and judging based on the facts, with the idea being that the truth should win out, rather than an adversarial system where whichever side has the best lawyer(s) presumably tends to win. From him it sounded like a decent system. In quickly searching the topic I didn't find anything to indicate that defendants are presumed guilty by French or German courts.
And even Napoleon reportedly supported the concept of presumption of innocence, at least publicly and theoretically:
The French Revolution's Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen had declared that suspects were presumed to be innocent until they had been declared to be guilty by a court. A concern of Bonaparte's was the possibility of arbitrary arrest, or excessive remand (imprisonment prior to a trial). Bonaparte remarked that care should be taken to preserve personal freedoms especially when the case was before the Imperial Court: "these courts would have a great strength, they should be prohibited from abusing this situation against weak citizen without connections." However, remand still was the normal procedure for suspects of severe crimes, such as murder.
The possibility for justice to endorse lengthy remand periods was one reason why the Napoleonic Code was criticized for de facto presumption of guilt, particularly in common law countries. Another reason was the combination of magistrate and prosecutor in one position. [5] However, the legal proceedings certainly did not have de jure presumption of guilt; for instance, the juror's oath explicitly recommended that the jury did not betray the interests of the defendants, and took attention of the means of defense. ....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_code#The_French_codes_today
Of course, tyrants tend to ignore whatever the paper laws say when it suits them.
The issue of guilt by association is particularly relevant re terrorism. For example, Peru got nowhere re imprisoning its Marxist guerillas because the police etc. stuck rigidly to the law. The terrorists would just melt away into the mountains etc. whenever raids occurred. It wasn't until various rightwing militias/government soldiers started killing off anyone who vaguely passively sympathised with the terrorists or shot dead any relatives of terrorists , that the shining path etc. were finished off.
Hoo boy. You're just proving my point with this talk. I must admit that this sort of thinking is tempting when facing fanatical jihadists or Shining Path guerrillas, and constitutional liberties do tend to get restricted during times of war and crisis (such as when martial law is instituted), but Ron Paul and others make compelling arguments for holding on to our constitutional rights. Some say that democracy with a bill of rights is no longer possible in today's world of weapons of mass destruction and suicide bombers. It will be interesting to see how things develop.
As for my quotations, like I said, they all vary. In the past, they were more pacifistic. It also depends on the views of other forum-members. For example, I used a few quotations relevant to william when he was still here. In the case of "people" who make moronic excuses for looters when there are simpler reasons such as greed, violence, stupidity, the availability of facebook etc., I naturally will choose harsher quotations for my sig.
Maybe it's a natural human tendency to want the harshest punishments dished out to our enemies and those we see as threats, and for the greatest liberties to apply to us?
Your open embrace of brutality is refreshing in its honesty, but I suspect it might turn newbies off and give ammunition to critics who claim that raw Paleo dieters embrace blindly emulating violent "savages" in so-called neo-Rousseauian fashion.
-
The whole point of the noble savage theory was that primitive tribes were supposedly pacifistic, implying that that was basic human nature. In the past, I have shown again and again that the opposite was true, in history/prehistory and that violence was simply part of basic human nature. And I was not "embracing brutality", I merely subscribe to the notion of "like cures like" so burning down(or confiscating) the houses of those looters/rioters seems appropriate given that they burned other peoples' houses etc. Similiarly, the death penalty seems appropriate for the crime of murder etc.
The bit about Napoleonic law seems to be quite different from what you claim. That is, Napoleonic law means that judges have far more power than lawyers in common (anglo-phone) law. Plus, civil(roman/napoleonic) law is more fixed whereas common(anglophone) law is more haphazard, changing randomly. Seems better to have a fixed rule-book than one that changes randomly at the whim of a jury etc.
-
My point is not to let 100 poachers go free to save one innocent. That is clearly an exaggeration.
In days gone by people in power whether they be called Kings or rogues have used the power invested in them by dint of self-created laws, as in the case of kings or laws of the jungle, in the case of rogues or bullies, have used such Draconian laws as you have suggested, to get rid of people that they didn't like or who stood between themselves and money or power or fame.
The legal system doesn't let scads of hoodlums free as you are suggesting. There are some that flow through the cracks in both directions such as the guilty or the innocent. If you read a story in the newspapers and then tar the whole system based on an article or group of articles written by people with a certain political bent, well then you can believe any number of outcomes or justifications.
At one time not going to church in England was a major crime punishable with jail etc. Some people today in the world have that viewpoint. Would you also subscribe to that Draconian viewpoint? Should they be shot as in some countries nowadays? Who gets to choose who dies? Do you get to decide that the neighbour on your right side is a scumbag and should die?
I remember years ago when I was a flight instructor, a student from the Middle East pointed that out to me. He was sad one day and when I said "why so glum chum" he looked at me and said "You would not understand, You live in Canada and you don't have to worry, my brother was hauled away by the Police and killed because a neighbour called the Police and lied to them".
Remember, that could be your child. In that light it suddenly does not seem so bad to have a system that at least on the surface attempts to weed out the truth.
-
I merely subscribe to the notion of "like cures like" so burning down(or confiscating) the houses of those looters/rioters seems appropriate given that they burned other peoples' houses etc. Similiarly, the death penalty seems appropriate for the crime of murder etc.
We watched a quite chilling movie recently about a young man in the US who was railroaded through the legal system, accused of murder despite massive evidence against and virtually none for. He was somewhat mentally challenged and poor and there was reasons why the persons who convicted him wanted him hung, that had to do with getting reelected to their legal appointment and there was also other reasons that had nothing to do with the boy's innocence.
The truly chilling part was that before he was executed he wrote a very concise and chilling statement that if he could, he would make the persons responsible for his death, pay. The text of his letter was read at the and of the movie and contained a rendition of what would happen to the ones responsible. Basically it was revenge plain and simple.
The spooky part was that the persons he talked about died horrible deaths and even their children died, all within six months to a year of his execution. This was true story. Can't remember the name of the movie. l)
-
Seems better to have a fixed rule-book than one that changes randomly at the whim of a jury etc.
You really don't worry about abuses of power by prosecutors and police, do you? In this country, black people were lynched with impunity in parts of the Deep South for many decades, even after slavery ended. I can promise you that the police and prosecutors and judges in those areas all knew exactly who did the lynching...and rarely did anything about it.
Even today, the death penalty in the US is used far more often against the killers of white people, than against people who kill blacks/Hispanics/Asians/etc.. Killing a white person is a quick way to get the death penalty. Killing a black person gets you a few years in jail.
Geoff, what you're forgetting is that the system is inherently biased...and the people who it's biased against know it....whether they're black, Hispanic, or just poor.
The world is not as simple as you're painting it, and, like I said before, your nutritional opinions are better researched than your political ones.
-
Whatever the past "theory," what I meant was that "savage" is generally equated with violence and embracing extreme violence falls into that stereotype:
sav·age (svj)
adj.
1. Not domesticated or cultivated; wild: savage beasts of the jungle.
2. Not civilized; barbaric: a people living in a savage state.
3. Ferocious; fierce: in a savage temper.
4. Vicious or merciless; brutal: a savage attack on a political rival. See Synonyms at cruel.
5. Lacking polish or manners; rude.
n.
1. A person regarded as primitive or uncivilized.
2. A person regarded as brutal, fierce, or vicious.
tr.v. sav·aged, sav·ag·ing, sav·ag·es
1. To assault ferociously.
2. To attack without restraint or pity: The critics savaged the new play.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/savage
Your critics won't care if some theorist(s) of the past actually believed that "savages" were peaceful. If you do hold these extreme views you've been spouting, it might be best to keep them to yourself. I doubt you'll pay any attention to what I or anyone else says, though.
You've only further affirmed my original main point, which was that given your past remarks and quotes it should be no surprise to anyone that you hold these views on presumed guilty, an eye-for-an-eye (which Gandhi followed with "making the whole world blind," by the way), and the like, and that it's pointless to try to convince you otherwise.
And I was not "embracing brutality"...
I think you'd have a hard time convincing most people of that, given your statements in this thread and others. Vegans/vegetarians who claim that meat eaters tend to be violent "savages" would have a field day with this stuff. Who could blame them, really, except that one person does not a rule make. At least it's helpful in demonstrating that not everyone becomes calm and serene after years of eating a RPD and thus keeping us humble and grounded. ;D
The bit about Napoleonic law seems to be quite different from what you claim. That is, Napoleonic law means that judges have far more power than lawyers in common (anglo-phone) law.
That jibes completely with my understanding and what I reported, so I don't know what you're going on about. I merely responded to your claim that the courts of continental Europe hold a presumption of guilt regarding defendants.
Plus, civil(roman/napoleonic) law is more fixed whereas common(anglophone) law is more haphazard, changing randomly. Seems better to have a fixed rule-book than one that changes randomly at the whim of a jury etc.
Nowhere in any of this does it say that the courts of France or Germany or other Western European continental nations currently have a presumption of guilt. I'm still waiting for a single supporting source on that.
My point is not to let 100 poachers go free to save one innocent. That is clearly an exaggeration.
In days gone by people in power whether they be called Kings or rogues have used the power invested in them by dint of self-created laws, as in the case of kings or laws of the jungle, in the case of rogues or bullies, have used such Draconian laws as you have suggested, to get rid of people that they didn't like or who stood between themselves and money or power or fame.
...
You may be right. My mother told a story that fishing for salmon was completely illegal in my grandfather's youth (it's legal today, within certain limitations) in the early part of the 20th century, per the laws of the colonial government. Does anyone know if there's any truth to this?
There's also the legend of Robin Hood, where the bad king John makes it treasonous for anyone other than himself and his hunting parties to hunt the deer of the royal forests, upon pain of death. Apparently the law goes back before King John, but the corruption of the forresters or the arbitrariness of the laws or the enforcement may have been particularly bad under his rule: Historically, death or mutilation was the maximum punishment -- often times, offenders were imprisoned and fined. The fines and fees were a great money maker for the crown and forest officials. And the wealthy and powerful often wanted to curb the forest laws as much as the poor did. One 12th century writer wrote "The forest has its own laws, based, it is said, not on the Common Law of the realm, but on the arbitrary legislation of the King; so that what is done in accordance with forest law is not called 'just' without qualification, but 'just', according to forest law."(quoted in Young, p. 66) Many of the barons who rebelled against King John were concerned about the forest laws. (http://www.boldoutlaw.com/robbeg/robbeg3.html)
-
One method of legal process that I like and implemented as much as possible when dealing with youth justice (proper committee name was "Extrajudicial Sanctions") was the aboriginal system. In this system you forgo the pleasure of the British and French system where one person decides the fate of someone and or reveals their blindness and ineptitude or in some cases the fact that they should not have had chili for lunch.
It may have a name (possibly "Healing Circle") but regardless....
The tribal elders gather in a circle. The offender is discussed in a prescribed manner. One person speaks till they have finished everything that they have to say. No one is allowed to interrupt or question out of turn. Then the next person in the circle is afforded the opportunity to say everything that they want on the issue without interruption etc. Then the next person, etc.
This continues around and around the circle. If one person wishes to forgo their turn, it just continues around the circle until every person declines to speak further. Then a decision is voted on.
This process is hard for the moderator (me in our case) to keep from being derailed by the mouthy, dominant ones, but is very effective. The silent ones are drawn out and frequently make observations and give opinions that are outstanding.
-
Yes, I've read about that. Where did you do that?
-
Your open embrace of brutality is refreshing in its honesty, but I suspect it might turn newbies off and give ammunition to critics who claim that raw Paleo dieters embrace blindly emulating violent "savages" in so-called neo-Rousseauian fashion.
Yes, and not only newbies.
The whole point of the noble savage theory was that primitive tribes were supposedly pacifistic, implying that that was basic human nature. In the past, I have shown again and again that the opposite was true, in history/prehistory and that violence was simply part of basic human nature.
What I read led me to think that human widespread violence against its own kind started with the use of fire for cooking (middle or upper Paleolithic) and blew up with the emergence of agriculture (Neolithic). I gave a serious reference here (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/off-topic/yo-brits!-what-is-the-real-story-about-the-london-riots-looting-mayhem/msg75631/#msg75631) but I had no feedback. We may refer also to the bonobos chimps that are the nearest animals to our kind and are peaceful while the common chimps are less so. More generally, animals are very seldom killing the members of their own species.
And I was not "embracing brutality", I merely subscribe to the notion of "like cures like" so burning down(or confiscating) the houses of those looters/rioters seems appropriate given that they burned other peoples' houses etc. Similiarly, the death penalty seems appropriate for the crime of murder etc.
If that’s not brutality, what is it? It’s exactly the politics the Nazis followed in occupied territories as well as the one followed by the French during the war in Algeria (lex talionis). According to anthropologist Margaret Mead, the Arapesh tribes of New Guinea have an opposite behavior.
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8714097/China-tries-to-stop-women-marrying-for-money-rather-than-love.html
The above article is indicative of what I meant re China, despite being oppressive in some respects, usually getting things right far more often than Western nations have. I wish I were a Chinese living in China, as that would protect me more easily against the coming economic storm.
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8714097/China-tries-to-stop-women-marrying-for-money-rather-than-love.html
The above article is indicative of what I meant re China, despite being oppressive in some respects, usually getting things right far more often than Western nations have. I wish I were a Chinese living in China, as that would protect me more easily against the coming economic storm.
Thanks for the link Tyler, interesting.
What I got from that is that divorce is as prevalent there as it is here. As usual the government is trying to manipulate to reduce the stats. This does not work any more than it does here in North. Am. where the divorce courts try to discourage it by slam dunking the guy into making him part of the working poor with ridiculous settlements.
The worst excesses of this thought processes seem to be the judges with a religious bent such as Catholics or those with strong ties to feminist organizations. One judge I dealt with had received awards from local feminist organizations that his wife was tied to. And these scum are given their job for life.
This probably sounds like a rant (guilty as accused ;D)
Divorce is the modern disease. It is probably related to affluence and the modern appliances making life so easy that we have to time to stop and look at each other, complain and spend quality time together complaining. ;D ;D ;D
Personally I have no desire to move to China. I think if you actually moved there you would be soon packing your bags to come back home. The Chinese have their own culture and mindset where they submit easily to those in power. It would shock your system. It only looks like a good idea. But go for it. Let us know how it worked out.
-
OK, I will address many of the above faulty points made by the various posters on this page, some seemingly based on fantasy(such as a film) or emotions, logic being surprisingly absent in most cases:-
First of all, please never mention Margaret Meade ever again. She was a well-known fraudster who wrote utter lies about Samoa:-
http://www.discovery.org/a/1169 (http://www.discovery.org/a/1169)
Of course, there are many similiar fraudsters in anthropology such as Jared Diamond.
Re brutality:- Treating others the same way they treat society is not brutal, it's just common sense, nothing more.
Re bonobos:- There seems to be some disagreement here. Some state that common chimpanzees have evolved more than bonobos since splitting from ancient pre-humans, so that that is the only reason why bonobos are closer to us genetically:-
http://ericmjohnson.posterous.com/bonobos-are-genetically-closer-to-humans-than (http://ericmjohnson.posterous.com/bonobos-are-genetically-closer-to-humans-than)
So, that doesn't demolish the killer-ape hypothesis.
Re presumption of guilt:- Correct, it seems, but this change happened only recently, historically, as there is a an 1895 article stating that presumption of guilt still existed in France. The one saving grace is that in such countries with civil Roman law, the judges are forbidden from making laws, re "case law". The real problem with anglophone law has always been that judges were allowed to dictate the law, and that has led to huge abuses of the human rights act, which has led to numerous criminals avoiding being convicted of their crimes.
Re cherimoya's comments:- Hmm, I did note, for example, that the Innocence Project had shown that more convicted innocents were black or hispanic, but that, like with most race-based issues, is likely rather due to class-related -issues, nothing more. I'm sure that wealthy people living in Santa Barbara are far less likely to be falsely arrested than poor people in South Central LA, regardless of skin-colour. As far as abuse of power is concerned, that occurs in all societies , even your current one, sometimes even benefitting the criminals.
Re Kings:- Clearly, you have not read much history. if you had, you would have come across the term "enlightened despot", where the ruling monarchs in question were way more benevolent than any comparable political system. Take Austria, for example, they had the enlightened Habsburg monarchs for 600 years, now Austria has a so-called "democracy" in which 2 ruling political parties, the socialists and the conservatives, make sure that no one can get the top jobs unless they are a card-carrying member of one of those 2 political parties etc.. It was amusing to find that so many people born in the lands formerly belonging to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, such as modern Slovaks, Hungarians etc. were distraught at the recent death of the last Royal Habsburg this year, because, of course, the Habsburgs were far better rulers than the Communist and post-Communist governments they'd had.
Of course, it is a common mistake for people throughout history to falsely assume that their particular time and culture is always the most superior one in history, but any serious perusal of history will show the opposite.
Re China:- I would have to be Chinese and speak Chinese to get the full benefits of relocating to China, I suspect. Well, if I'm lucky in my next reincarnation..... ;)
-
I didn’t know that Jared Diamond is a fraudster (? apparently there’s some controversy about some points of his writings, but it doesn’t invalidate the bulk of his work) and I don't think it's so clear cut about Mead as well:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Mead
Translation:
In 1983, five years after the death of Margaret Mead, anthropologist Derek Freeman published Margaret Mead and Samoa: The Making and Unmaking of An Anthropological Myth, in which he calls into question the main conclusions of Mead about sexuality in Samoan society, believing that his informants had misled her. After years of discussions, many anthropologists believe that the truth of the matter can never be established, although many elements in the debate suggests that Freeman’s criticism is probably unfounded.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Mead excerpts:
In 1983, five years after Mead had died, New Zealand anthropologist Derek Freeman, published Margaret Mead and Samoa: The Making and Unmaking of an Anthropological Myth, in which he challenged Mead's major findings about sexuality in Samoan society, citing statements of her surviving informants' claiming that she had coaxed them into giving her the answers she wanted. Most anthropologists have been highly critical of Freeman's arguments, even if they are often skeptical of Mead's popular works, such as Coming of Age in Samoa. A frequent critique of Freeman is that he regularly misrepresented Mead's research and views.[19][20] In a recent evaluation of the debate, anthropologist Paul Shankman concluded that:
There is now a large body of criticism of Freeman's work from a number of perspectives in which Mead, Samoa, and anthropology appear in a very different light than they do in Freeman's work. Indeed, the immense significance that Freeman gave his critique looks like "much ado about nothing" to many of his critics.[21]
On January 19, 1979, President Jimmy Carter announced that he was awarding the Presidential Medal of Freedom posthumously to Mead. U.N. Ambassador Andrew Young presented the award to Mead's daughter at a special program honoring Mead's contributions, sponsored by the American Museum of Natural History, where she spent many years of her career. The citation read:[24]
"Margaret Mead was both a student of civilization and an exemplar of it. To a public of millions, she brought the central insight of cultural anthropology: that varying cultural patterns express an underlying human unity. She mastered her discipline, but she also transcended it. Intrepid, independent, plain spoken, fearless, she remains a model for the young and a teacher from whom all may learn."
The 2006 music video for "If Everyone Cared" by Nickelback ends with her quote: "Never doubt that a small group of committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
In addition, there are several schools named after Margaret Mead in the United States: a junior high school in Elk Grove Village, Illinois,[25] an elementary school in Sammamish, Washington[26] and another in Sheepshead Bay, Brooklyn, New York.[27]
Thus, I do not understand your stance on this matter. It nullifies one of the most important reason to eat raw paleo and it seems to me highly counterproductive for the whole raw paleo diet standpoint.
Cheers
François
-
I should have added that responding to violence with (more) violence launch a vicious circle ending up in an escalation of violence. Probably in a so called “civilized” society there’s sometimes no other alternative, but within a tribe it would quickly be a disaster in which the whole tribe could be destroyed.
Shouldn’t a reasonable society inquire why a person acted with violence and care of him/her (starting with proper nutrition and love!) instead of punishing him/her?
-
Wikipedia has always been extremely dodgy as a reference point, the above article is appalling in its pro-Meade bias. Margaret Meade has already been totally discredited re her evidence in the anthropological community other than the most extreme Leftwing "anthropologists". Sadly, I don't have the time to deal with the article permanently as I already have to spend time to deal with the raw foodism and three dozen other pages, merely in order to make sure no idiot deletes useful info or adds dodgy data.
Jared Diamond has made many errors of judgement, some so severe that one can reasonably state that he is too biased to be considered a valid anthropologist.
-
I should have added that responding to violence with (more) violence launch a vicious circle ending up in an escalation of violence. Probably in a so called “civilized” society there’s sometimes no other alternative, but within a tribe it would quickly be a disaster in which the whole tribe could be destroyed.
Shouldn’t a reasonable society inquire why a person acted with violence and care of him/her (starting with proper nutrition and love!) instead of punishing him/her?
Some people are beyond redemption. Besides, I have nothing against vendettas, as they have been an intrinsic part of many societies in the past, tribal or otherwise.
-
Re cherimoya's comments:- Hmm, I did note, for example, that the Innocence Project had shown that more convicted innocents were black or hispanic, but that, like with most race-based issues, is likely rather due to class-related -issues, nothing more. I'm sure that wealthy people living in Santa Barbara are far less likely to be falsely arrested than poor people in South Central LA, regardless of skin-colour. As far as abuse of power is concerned, that occurs in all societies , even your current one, sometimes even benefitting the criminals.
You conveniently and completely ignored my point about killers of white people being more likely to get the death penalty, than killers of other races. Are white lives worth more?
-
You conveniently and completely ignored my point about killers of white people being more likely to get the death penalty, than killers of other races. Are white lives worth more?
Like I said above, it is far more likely to be a class-related issue, nothing to do with race. It's a well-known fact, for example, that the media/police get more worked up about an upper-middle-class child being kidnapped than the child of working-class parents. We had similiar issues in the UK, where the murder of an upper-middle-class child raised endless articles in the media, while, at the same time, the murder of a recent immigrant who was a prostitute was barely mentioned.
Oh, I read one explanation re that claim of yours, it was suggested somewhere that since whites form most of the US population, that they therefore likely formed most of the murder victims, and therefore that would explain the anomaly.
-
Don't kill the poachers, kill the people who destroyed the forests and live in the cities where the animals could be living. Tyler, if you weren't living in your house some animals could be living there, therefore you should be killed.
-
Don't kill the poachers, kill the people who destroyed the forests and live in the cities where the animals could be living. Tyler, if you weren't living in your house some animals could be living there, therefore you should be killed.
Not valid. I don't have children. If an extreme animal-rights issue ever came up, it would make far more sense to start killing off those families with a dozen children or more, as that would benefit the environment much quicker. Rather more seriously, there is little one can do about damage already sustained, all we can do is try to prevent more damage from happening via punishing poachers and the like, and to try to expand the areas of wildlife parks already in existence, plus introducing one-child policies in relevant high-birth-rate countries(yet another great idea from China).
-
It's not about animal rights, it's about human 'rights'. Animal rights do not matter, because it's not animals who will fight back against oppression.
It's your fault that the number of wild-life is limited, because you have destroyed the forests to build your cities. Now that you've destroyed the forests, you want to prevent people from living off of the small amount that remains. People hunting for food are not responsible for the small number of wildlife, it's people who do not hunt for food who are responsible. The people who wiped the buffalo to starve the native Americans; the people who hunted for fun; to make the wild 'civilized'; and to sell parts of animals. They did this because they do not need the wild animals to survive. These are the people who should be killed.
-
It's not about animal rights, it's about human 'rights'. Animal rights do not matter, because it's not animals who will fight back against oppression.
It's your fault that the number of wild-life is limited, because you have destroyed the forests to build your cities. Now that you've destroyed the forests, you want to prevent people from living off of the small amount that remains. People hunting for food are not responsible for the small number of wildlife, it's people who do not hunt for food who are responsible. The people who wiped the buffalo to starve the native Americans; the people who hunted for fun; to make the wild 'civilized'; and to sell parts of animals. They did this because they do not need the wild animals to survive. These are the people who should be killed.
Not remotely valid. First of all, technology, if used responsibly, could easily lead to more wildlife being spared. Granted, it might mean a future involving plants grown in hydroponic tanks, meats being grown in test-tubes, humans being shifted off-planet etc., but most of that is a futuristic possibility.More to the point, it's an absurd illusion that hunter-gatherer tribes left wildlife alone - haven't you read about most of the large animals in Australia being wiped out at the same time that humans migrated to Australia, then there's the extinction of mammoths and other large game being wiped out c. 30,000 to 40,000 years ago in Europe/Asia by decidedly non-urban human tribes.
-
30,000 to 40,000 years ago the fire was well mastered and widely used! -d
BTW, I'm open to other sources than Wikipedia concerning Margaret Mead.
-
Like I said above, it is far more likely to be a class-related issue, nothing to do with race. It's a well-known fact, for example, that the media/police get more worked up about an upper-middle-class child being kidnapped than the child of working-class parents. We had similiar issues in the UK, where the murder of an upper-middle-class child raised endless articles in the media, while, at the same time, the murder of a recent immigrant who was a prostitute was barely mentioned.
Oh, I read one explanation re that claim of yours, it was suggested somewhere that since whites form most of the US population, that they therefore likely formed most of the murder victims, and therefore that would explain the anomaly.
No, Geoff, that's not how statistics work. Take a look at this link--
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-penalty-black-and-white-who-lives-who-dies-who-decides#Fig. 7 (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-penalty-black-and-white-who-lives-who-dies-who-decides#Fig. 7)
Here's a quote from that article--
"...One of the most sophisticated of the studies reviewed by the GAO was the study of race and the death penalty in Georgia. This study looked at 2400 cases processed in Georgia over a seven year period. It showed that, even when controlling for the many variables which might make one case worse than another, defendants whose victims were white, faced, on average, odds of receiving a death sentence that were 4.3 times higher than similarly situated defendants whose victims were black.17 The study controlled for hundreds of variables such as the level of violence in the crime and the prior criminal record of the defendant..."
-
The above study seems to come from a biased source, thus strongly suggesting that the study did not control all variables, such as class etc.. I can find mentions of other studies which debunk this sort of notion re the death penalty, anyway:-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010606/aponline142749_001.htm
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1985-08-26/news/8502250855_1_death-row-convictions-or-sentences-death-sentence
I mean, one could argue that men are discriminated too because they vastly outnumber women on Death Row, but there's obviously a similiar, simpler explanation for that, namely that men commit far more crime than women.
Then there's this study which purports to claim that there is some(steadily decreasing) racial bias in Southern States but not anywhere else, as regards the death penalty(pdf file provided in other links on google):-
http://www.nber.org/papers/w16981
In other words, there is considerable disagreement re all this.
Anyway, my own stance re the death penalty and other harsh penalties is this:-
1) The death penalty acts as an effective deterrent. For example, 1 other site cited statistics that the death penalty in Texas led to a reduction of 8 possible murders for every criminal executed for murder. The point is that with parole etc., most sentences are now way too lenient, and we no longer have the option of deporting our criminal element to the colonies(eg:-Australia). Well, I'd love for those looters to be deported to Antarctica or the emptier spaces of Siberia, but, sadly, that will never happen.
2) The Chinese, as I recall, use the organs of their executed criminals to help those in need. I like that, sort of forcing a criminal to give something back to society.
3) I have on several occasions been robbed, burgled and even once I endured a failed mugging. If sentences were much harsher, I strongly suspect that most of the criminals involved, most of whom I know were definitely long-term offenders given their skill/persistence etc., would instead have been in jail rather than making my life a misery. Several of my holidays were ruined by such thefts. Well, it's been said that a Conservative is a Liberal who's just been mugged by reality. Perhaps you lot will eventually experience the "benefits" of contact with criminals, and eventually come to my way of thinking.
-
OK, I will address many of the above faulty points made by the various posters on this page, some seemingly based on fantasy(such as a film) or emotions, logic being surprisingly absent in most cases:-
First of all, please never mention Margaret Meade ever again. She was a well-known fraudster who wrote utter lies about Samoa:-
http://www.discovery.org/a/1169
Please never post biased religious science-attacking sites like that again regarding scientific matters. They are no more credible than Meade was. This was explained to you before when you posted a polemical Protestant Christian site as evidence on this anthropological matter, and now a Catholic variant with the same religious agenda. You're behaving no better than William did. Shame!
-
Please never post biased religious science-attacking sites like that again regarding scientific matters. They are no more credible than Meade was. This was explained to you before when you posted a polemical Protestant Christian site as evidence on this anthropological matter, and now a Catholic variant with the same religious agenda. Shame!
There are dozens of websites attacking Mead given her fraud. This just happened to be a random one I selected given time constraints. Plenty of other sources for you to choose from.
-
No wonder. l)
-
Incidentally, while I'm in favour of the death penalty, I do also favour organisations like the Innocence Project which endeavour to correct judicial mistakes.
-
Cool. O0
-
Perhaps you lot will eventually experience the "benefits" of contact with criminals, and eventually come to my way of thinking.
As long as we're wishing bad things on each other, perhaps you or someone you care about will get fired from a job or falsely accused of a crime, and you will come to MY way.
-
Yes, I've read about that. Where did you do that?
I was the chair of our local Extra-Judicial Sanctions Committee. This was a system set up to essentially keep under 18 year olds from a getting a criminal record for minor items. It morphed over the years, but essentially if the child admitted doing whatever it was, and agreed to abide by the judgement of the committee then they could do as we decided and the record would be file 13nd in two years.
There are two directions for the contract with the child. The best, most effective method was mediation. I was a teacher for teaching mediators. Mediation obviously required there to be a victim and a perpetrator is in theft. It couldn't be drinking underage as the society would be the victim in that case.
Basically if the victim and the perpetrator agreed to mediation, then they were brought together in a very prescribed way with very specific and strenuously agreed to rules of conduct and given the opportunity to see each other's side of the story.
As an outsider it may seem a bit weird or ineffective but my experience and all the experiences of the other committees in the province were that it was very effective and had a profound effect on all participants.
The perpetrator got to see and hear the victim explain what it felt like to be violated and had to justify what they had thoughtlessly done, while the victim got to put a face to the criminal act and see the opportunity to put the youngster on the track to being a stronger and wiser person.
The victim got the opportunity to create a contract which the child had to fulfill. Then the child had to agree to and fulfill the contract.
Bearing in mind of course that our legal system is based on the common law of England which is based on precedence and precedence case law from sometimes back in the 18th century had made children not liable for their torts and therefore you cannot go after children for financial or contractual obligations.
I used to know the specific case it was based on. Basically it was a young child who went to a jewellery shop and asked for a very expensive piece of jewellery from the shopkeeper. The shopkeeper knew the boy's parents had lots of money, so he sold it to him and billed the parents. I forget some of the details but I think the parents passed away and the shopkeeper tried to get the money, but had to sue and he was unsuccessful.
-
Oh, I read one explanation re that claim of yours, it was suggested somewhere that since whites form most of the US population, that they therefore likely formed most of the murder victims, and therefore that would explain the anomaly.
That answer is not even remotely related to his statement.
-
I should have added that responding to violence with (more) violence launch a vicious circle ending up in an escalation of violence. Probably in a so called “civilized” society there’s sometimes no other alternative, but within a tribe it would quickly be a disaster in which the whole tribe could be destroyed.
Shouldn’t a reasonable society inquire why a person acted with violence and care of him/her (starting with proper nutrition and love!) instead of punishing him/her?
Now that makes sense.
-
Some people are beyond redemption. Besides, I have nothing against vendettas, as they have been an intrinsic part of many societies in the past, tribal or otherwise.
So you are suggesting we should live like the inbred nutbars who have ancient tribal hatreds....?
Would be a bit confusing living on my street. There are a a wide variety of people with different national backgrounds. How the heck could you live in peace, which is what you suggested before, was your ultimate goal, if you want to live like inbred hillbillies...?
-
That answer is not even remotely related to his statement.
Actually it was. Cherimoya was saying that killers of white people were more likely to be executed than killers of blacks/hispanics. I pointed out that since white people are greater in numbers than blacks/hispanics and also form far more of the victims, that therefore, statistically, one would expect killers of white people to be more likely to get a death-sentence, simply due to the numbers involved.
And, anyway, those studies I referred to in a previous post are pretty indicative of the wrongheadedness of the notion that the death penalty somehow is heavily biased against particular groups.
-
So you are suggesting we should live like the inbred nutbars who have ancient tribal hatreds....?
Would be a bit confusing living on my street. There are a a wide variety of people with different national backgrounds. How the heck could you live in peace, which is what you suggested before, was your ultimate goal, if you want to live like inbred hillbillies...?
First of all, there are hundreds of fascinating modern societies in which vendettas occur, ranging from Albania to Corsica to Azerbaijan to the Mafias like the Dranghetta etc. etc. Vendettas were even common-place in such an eminently civilised society as Ancient Greece etc. Vendettas are a part of history, like it or not.
Secondly that "inbred hillbillies" remark is somewhat unfortunate since you have been making some easily avoidable grammatical errors in previous posts which I had to correct(eg:- "There is two directions for the contract with the child"!, since altered by me). One crime I can't stand is crime against grammar! ;) :P
Hmm, I have interestingly noted, in the past,that racist remarks are still considered acceptable in Western society provided they are socially sanctioned. So it's usually considered OK to make jokes/snide remarks about blondes or redheads or Muslims or Arabs or even poor white farmers in the US(re the terms "rednecks/hillbillies")
As for vendettas, I suppose they would only occur if both the criminals and the law-abiders were similiarly armed. If criminals found it far more difficult to obtain weapons, then the law-abiders would be in control and quite safe.
-
Actually it was. Cherimoya was saying that killers of white people were more likely to be executed than killers of blacks/hispanics. I pointed out that since white people are greater in numbers than blacks/hispanics and also form far more of the victims, that therefore, statistically, one would expect killers of white people to be more likely to get a death-sentence, simply due to the numbers involved.
And, anyway, those studies I referred to in a previous post are pretty indicative of the wrongheadedness of the notion that the death penalty somehow is heavily biased against particular groups.
Blah blah blah, black/brown people don't matter, blah blah blah...yeah, we get it.
-
Blah blah blah, black/brown people don't matter, blah blah blah...yeah, we get it.
As usual, you are just twisting what I said. And you utterly failed to address any of my main points lately, preferring to just utter emotionally-based drivel. Besides, all races "matter", not just two of them.
-
OK, it seems the original subject of the thread, the rioting, has long ago been dealt with by the police, with the thread subsequently being hijacked onto totally unrelated subjects by non-UKers who were clearly largely unaware of what was actually going on in the riots. Best to just lock the thread as it's now just a pointless clash over politics.