Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

What's wrong with society?

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
In our modern society, a teacher who puts a plaster on a child can be sued for abuse. Teachers cannot discipline children; they will not take it. They can walk out; they know their rights.

People show no respect, either for themselves, or for each other. Courtesy, politeness, where are they now? Those who show them are increasingly rare. Political correctness has gone too far. People bend over backwards to support those in a minority; ordinary hardworking people now form the unsupported minority. People no longer expect to work; they expect things to be done, or handed to them. I am at university, but I have had to work hard to get there. I work to do the best I can, because I have an opportunity that I know is not handed to everyone; I am duty bound to make the most of it.

This lack of discipline, both in society and of the self, is abhorrent, and needs stopping. I believe that we need to reintroduce National Service in to the UK, so that the people of this country can experience and hopefully pick up some of the qualities that the Services instill;
Pride
Discipline
Duty
Teamwork
Motivation.


Is there anyone who thinks that this is neo-Fascist and verging on heresy in this PC world, or do people have any sort of agreement?
«1345678

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I agree whole heartedly, National service would do wonders. But it would be political suicide, and many people would liken it to that of a facist state.
    However there are many countries where people are expected to perform a short stint in the armed forces, and it does wonders for them.
    It's a pity they wont make it work here.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    (Take a big pinch of salt)

    What we need is drugs, and lots of them. <IMG SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> If people used cannabis like they drink alcohol think about the reduction in crime.

    You say that people have no respect for each other nowadays? I agree, but give them a couple of happy pills at the weekend and they'll hugging each other within hours - Black, White Yellow it wont matter.


    Seriously though, National Service is a very good idea. Pride amongst all things is something missing from our society. I for one, would be happy to serve my country.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by DJP:
    <STRONG>This lack of discipline, both in society and of the self, is abhorrent, and needs stopping. I believe that we need to reintroduce National Service in to the UK, so that the people of this country can experience and hopefully pick up some of the qualities that the Services instill;
    Pride
    Discipline
    Duty
    Teamwork
    Motivation.
    </STRONG>

    But is instilling some sort of National pride really going to make a difference? All it does is make you realise you're all in the same boat. Why not suggest we vote in a Communist government?

    People have so many choices today - that's the problem. But it's one of the wonderful things about living here and now. Whether you abuse those choices is entirely up to you.

    It's dependent on discipline and upbringing. It's all very well blaming the state for not providing for you, but it's only because there's a 'state' that there's something other than the self to blame.

    I blame parenting. <IMG SRC="tongue.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Okay, fair enough. But parents cannot discipline children any more, can they?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You're kidding, right? I live along a main London road, and the families I see walking along it couldn't give a shit about their children.

    Maybe that's a place to start - actually caring....or rather, demonstrating that emotion....
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Can't say as I support the whole idea of introducing National Service. I want to join the armed forces when I leave Uni but I'm doing it through choice. I want to help and protect my country and others worse off than myself. This is my choicethough. I come from a very loving family - I have always been encouraged to follow my dreams yet not to the extent that I disrespect other people. Parental responsibility is sadly lacking in this day and age. Children should be taught to love and respect by being loved and respected. I'm not saying that this would solve societies problems completely but figure that it may make one hell of a difference!!!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Parental responsibility is sadly lacking in this day and age.
    Hear hear. I was in a playground looking after my ickle cousin and this boy walked up to this other boy and started kicking him, and this boy's parents did nothing. So I decided to pull this fight/attack apart, and I told the other boy to 'leave him alone' and the little shit's mum came up and said 'who the hell do you think you are?!?!' I can see where the kid gets it from <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">

    Deviating from the topic slightly, it does my head in when parents expect the schools to discipline and teach their children about morals when they should be doing it themselves. <IMG SRC="mad.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    National service would just teach the little thugs to be more lethal, disciplined little thugs. The law should be changed to give power back to the law abiding. If a person is attacked or robbed, they should be allowed to use whatever force neccessary to defend themselves and their property, without fear of being penalised by the 'law'.

    If responsible people were allowed to carry handguns (and were fully trained in using them in this situation), there would be a lot less street crime eventually. There can only be a certain number of street criminals; killing them will bring down the numbers dramatically.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Define 'Responsible' <IMG SRC="cool.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The old system of handgun licensing was perfectly adequate in determining whether a person was fit to own a gun, and would be for this scheme. It would still be in place, if it weren't for a few bent policemen...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Diesel,

    Stop posting your propaganda crap on this board - voila, it's gone permanently,...

    You too can follow this route. Ball's in your court now. <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Apathy:
    <STRONG>The old system of handgun licensing was perfectly adequate in determining whether a person was fit to own a gun, and would be for this scheme. It would still be in place, if it weren't for a few bent policemen...</STRONG>

    Dunblane.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Vox populi, vox Dei:
    <STRONG>

    Dunblane.</STRONG>


    Well to be fair, if the rules had been followed by the police, he wouldnt have got his hands on any guns whatsoever. The police should never have given him a licence by their own rules at the time..They did.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Thomas Hamilton was a paedophile. So was the chief of police, as were several other senior officers. It doesn't take a genius to work out what sort of arrangement they had. Special branch covered it up.

    Official corruption in its sickest guise. <IMG SRC="mad.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Vox populi, vox Dei:
    <STRONG>

    Dunblane.</STRONG>


    so what? Take guns away from the MAJORITY of law abiding citizens who never committed or intended to commit a crime with their legally owned firearms? How can that be remotely just to base it on one stupid event?

    Yes Dunblane was indeed a tragedy - but the knee jerk reaction of banning all handguns was just stupid, not to mention the fact it did very very little to reduce crime.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by DevilMan:
    <STRONG>

    Yes Dunblane was indeed a tragedy - but the knee jerk reaction of banning all handguns was just stupid, not to mention the fact it did very very little to reduce crime.</STRONG>

    I'll correct you there: gun crime has been rising steadily since the ban. And the weapon that's increasing in popularity the quickest? That's right, the handgun.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Apathy:
    <STRONG>

    I'll correct you there: gun crime has been rising steadily since the ban. And the weapon that's increasing in popularity the quickest? That's right, the handgun.</STRONG>

    I don't think that you corrected anything. Were you not just proving the point that was made? Sorry to be awkward but couldn't work that one out.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by DevilMan:
    <STRONG>
    not to mention the fact it did very very little to reduce crime.</STRONG>

    I'm getting use to repeating myself here because people don't seem to read posts properly. <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">

    DevilMan is suggesting that the ban did have a very small reducing effect on the crime rate.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Apathy:
    <STRONG>
    I'm getting use to repeating myself here because people don't seem to read posts properly. <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
    </STRONG>

    Oooooh, get you!!! <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> I did read it properly and just was struggling to see your point. I do see it now however .....
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Squinty, which/what propaganda? Admittedly I haven't had time to visit much the last few days...tenant's electric meter went out and we had to rebuild the service into the house...amazing how much of your time a few wires can take.

    I've tried to stop by for a quick look when possible though...was it the funny sideways sight joke? Hardly propaganda but I thought it was pretty funny and that it makes a 'political' statement that stands alone but I'm guessing that it went over the heads of everyone on thesite.

    Do let me know...if I offend and didn't mean to there is always the 'mystery' of it all...like using the (w) word without realizing that it was like using the (n) word here...imagine the embarassment to me and mine...had to mope about the house for days over it.

    BTW, George Carlin is one of my minor heroes so hope you appreciate the saring of some sentaments that I endorce.

    <IMG SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    This all makes very depressing reading!
    Respect and discipline have been lost? Society's falling apart?

    Sure, there are lots of problems in today's society, but lets not exaggerate the situation or over-analyse ourselves.

    And I don't think National Service is the answer.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Apathy:
    <STRONG>The law should be changed to give power back to the law abiding. If a person is attacked or robbed, they should be allowed to use whatever force neccessary to defend themselves and their property, without fear of being penalised by the 'law'.</STRONG>

    The 'reasonable' force law already exists. Unfortunately there is also the excessive force element, which says you cannot kill someone who doesn't threaten you own life.

    Lets put it this way, why should you - Apathy - who has already decided that 'pikeys' and muggers should be killed, be allowed to act as judge, jury and executioner. The reason that element of the law exists is to protect us from people like you...

    <STRONG>
    There can only be a certain number of street criminals; killing them will bring down the numbers dramatically.</STRONG>

    Why stop at street criminals? Why not people who speed, afterall speeding can kill. What about drug dealers? How about a mandatory death penalty for ANY law breakers?

    And what is 'street crime' anyway?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Man Of Kent:
    <STRONG>The 'reasonable' force law already exists. Unfortunately there is also the excessive force element, which says you cannot kill someone who doesn't threaten you own life.

    Lets put it this way, why should you - Apathy - who has already decided that 'pikeys' and muggers should be killed, be allowed to act as judge, jury and executioner. The reason that element of the law exists is to protect us from people like you...

    </STRONG>
    Why do you need protecting from people like me? Are you a mugger or a pikey?

    If somebody attacks you physically, they are threatenning your life. You don't know how far they'll go in trying to steal your possesions, or their full intentions.
    Originally posted by Man Of Kent:
    <STRONG>

    Why stop at street criminals? Why not people who speed, afterall speeding can kill. What about drug dealers? How about a mandatory death penalty for ANY law breakers?

    And what is 'street crime' anyway?</STRONG>

    Drug dealers should also be shot. Fuck-ups using heroine, meth and crack commit most of the street crime. Without them, there would be far less of a problem. Deal with the pikey problem too, and society will be better for all of us.

    'Street crime' is commonly understood to mean violent attacks against people on the street.

    BTW, that 'why not give everybody the same punishment for everything' argument is truly pathetic. <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">

    [ 16-04-2002: Message edited by: Apathy ]
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't believe the "thugs" would stay thugs at all.
    I was in the cadets for 4 years, as soon as I became a corporal, I made it my mission to turn the little scroats into something respectable.
    Whenever the officers had their backs turned, I made the cadets sorry for answering me back, or picking on other cadets. I disciplined them fairly, but severely. They knew that when I was on duty, not to mess with me, and the squadron was better for it.
    If someone pissed me off, only being 18 I knew I could get away with a lot more than the officers. I gave them "stress"* posistions, cleaning duties, and on several occasions threatend to make their lives hell if they didn't improve.
    And it worked, they knew that i only dished out punishment to people who deserved it, and I didn't pick on people.

    National service would do the same, the scroats would be taught to work in a team, to look out for themselves and others, and to function as normal human beings.


    *stress posistion:The cadet is made to stand/sit/lie in a certain posistion, they are not able to move. Favourite one was lying them so their head was over a puddle with their arms behind their back. If they moved, they were dunked. If they spoke, they were dunked. If they got tired, they held the posistion or they got a wet face.
    We also liked to make them stand out in the rain, with the other cadets watching them through the windows, or from the safety of a dry area, or making them run round a circuit, following them, if they slowed down you slapped the back of their head...it was tough but fair.
    They didnt call me Corporal Punishment for nothing.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Apathy:
    <STRONG>Why do you need protecting from people like me? Are you a mugger or a pikey?</STRONG>

    We need protecting from people who think it is their 'right' to decide who lives and who dies based on what 'crime' they committed.

    'I AM THE LAW' comes from comic books, you seem to want that as reality.

    <STRONG>
    If somebody attacks you physically, they are threatenning your life. You don't know how far they'll go in trying to steal your possesions, or their full intentions.</STRONG>

    Precisely my point. You DON'T know, yet you want to kill them anyway.

    The man running towards you arms outstretched (as if to push you) may actually be saving you from falling masonary...yet you would shoot him? Afterall you can't wait to find out what his true intentions are, now can you...

    and someone who is attacking you ISN'T always going to be a threat to your life. The man who punches you in the face hasn't threatened your life.

    <STRONG>
    Drug dealers should also be shot. Fuck-ups using heroine, meth and crack commit most of the street crime. Without them, there would be far less of a problem. Deal with the pikey problem too, and society will be better for all of us.
    </STRONG>

    Addiction is an illness, not a crime. It would be better to treat these people rather than kill them. Or do you advocate the death of Prince Harry?

    <STRONG>
    BTW, that 'why not give everybody the same punishment for everything' argument is truly pathetic. <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
    </STRONG>

    I entirely agree.

    However, the point (which you missed <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> ) was - where do you stop? What is acceptable crime and what isn't. Is a death by mugging less of a crime than a death by reckless driving. The outcome is the same and both show a disregard for human life...

    [ 16-04-2002: Message edited by: Man Of Kent ]
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Whowhere:
    <STRONG>I was in the cadets for 4 years, as soon as I became a corporal, I made it my mission to turn the little scroats into something respectable.
    Whenever the officers had their backs turned, I made the cadets sorry for answering me back, or picking on other cadets. I disciplined them fairly, but severely. They knew that when I was on duty, not to mess with me, and the squadron was better for it.
    If someone pissed me off, only being 18 I knew I could get away with a lot more than the officers. I gave them "stress"* posistions, cleaning duties, and on several occasions threatend to make their lives hell if they didn't improve.</STRONG>

    I was a pretty lazy corporal. I was doing most of an NCOs duties before my promotion anyway so I kinda deserved it. I didn't feelt he need to make a career out of it but I felt I should be recognised for what I was doing anyway.

    Anyway, one favourite punishment in our squadron was to pick pebbles off the parade ground. We had this tarmac parade square round the back and alongside was an area of gravel. Inevitably, some stones ended up on the tarmac, so cadets would be sent to pick them up and put them back on the gravel patch. This was very popular with our CWO, a 6'4" basketball player - not a guy to be messed with!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Man Of Kent:
    <STRONG>Addiction is an illness, not a crime. It would be better to treat these people rather than kill them. Or do you advocate the death of Prince Harry?</STRONG>

    Thats rather a bad example since Harry is not what I'd call an "addict" - he tried cannabis a couple of times, this does not make him Iggy Pop.

    And he's hardly going to die from a bit of has is he? Iggy Pop on the other hand...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Apathy:
    <STRONG>

    I'm getting use to repeating myself here because people don't seem to read posts properly. <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">

    DevilMan is suggesting that the ban did have a very small reducing effect on the crime rate.</STRONG>


    youre right - I should have asserted that point. From what I saw, the 97 ban was to have the net effect or intention of crime reduction - the irony is however that crime went up and the very thing they beleived was a root cause of it, is an increasingly popular choice to commit crime with.

    Dunblane clearly was not an adequate reason to ban handguns. England, like here in the US, has a tendancy to react too hastily without investigating or acknowledging reality.

    I can only hope the increase in violent crime is enough reality for them to reconsider.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    <STRONG>
    We need protecting from people who think it is their 'right' to decide who lives and who dies based on what 'crime' they committed.

    'I AM THE LAW' comes from comic books, you seem to want that as reality.

    </STRONG>

    We need protecting from people who care more about the rights of the scumbag than the rights of the victims of said scumbag. That's just the kind of prevailing attitude that has let the situation get so bad.

    If (hypothetically) you were attacked (i.e. someone came up to you and started punching and kicking you), and you happened to have a gun, would you not shoot that person?
    <STRONG>

    Precisely my point. You DON'T know, yet you want to kill them anyway.

    The man running towards you arms outstretched (as if to push you) may actually be saving you from falling masonary...yet you would shoot him? Afterall you can't wait to find out what his true intentions are, now can you...

    and someone who is attacking you ISN'T always going to be a threat to your life. The man who punches you in the face hasn't threatened your life.

    </STRONG>

    If somebody attacks you, it's safe to assume (unless you're an idiot) that they mean to do you harm. Are you aware of all the vulnerable parts of the human body? To address your point, someone repeatedly punching you in the face could easily miss (assuming they cared about your life), and hit your throat, neck, temples, or other similar areas. Then it's goodbye you unless there's a doctor very close by. In order to incapacitate someone, you have to risk killing them.

    To sum up my point, if you attack someone, you risk killing them.

    And that's another pathetic example (falling masonry, lol). If someone's running up to me shouting 'lookout!' I'll assume they're trying to warn me about something. If someone pushes me and seconds later a big rock lands where I was standing, I know their intentions were good. I can't see how anyone could confuse that situation with being attacked, unles they were stupid.
    <STRONG>
    Addiction is an illness, not a crime. It would be better to treat these people rather than kill them. Or do you advocate the death of Prince Harry?

    </STRONG>

    Addiction is not an illness. It is a sign that a person is stupid and weak, but you're right, not a crime. Anyway, you missinterpreted my post. I said kill drug dealers. Then the junkie scum could be treated effectively, and they wouldn't have the opportunity to get addicted again.

    Yet again, you come out with a pathetic example to 'prove' your point. Prince Harry is not a drug addict, nor a drug dealer. He isn't a pikey or a mugger. So why would I advocate his death? <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">

    Before I argue further, define 'reckless driving'.

    [ 16-04-2002: Message edited by: Apathy ]
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Apathy:
    <STRONG>

    Addiction is not an illness. It is a sign that a person is stupid and weak, but you're right, not a crime. Anyway, you missinterpreted my post. I said kill drug dealers. Then the junkie scum could be treated effectively, and they wouldn't have the opportunity to get addicted again.

    [ 16-04-2002: Message edited by: Apathy ]</STRONG>

    Apathy, in one or two cases, I find myself in agreement with a phrase or two, but your attitude worries me, tbh. As far as I recall, the last time someone started discriminating and making decision about what people were like based on origin or behaviour, we ended up with the Holocaust, and the man died in a bunker in Berlin.

    Addiction is a sign that someone is weak and stupid?

    What planet are you on, pal? What experience do you have with addiction? What the hell do you know about it, apart from it being a platform from which you can attack those who you judge to be lesser 'pikeys'?

    Get off the high horse. Put away the plans for Zyklon B, and get out in the real world. Addiction is a problem, and it is something that takes guts, courage and determination to own up to and to deal with. I disagree with drug use, and include in that cigarettes and alcohol. So sue me. But, in this case, pal, I think I have more respect for the druggies who try and break the system. Their courage, determination and focus, not to mention foresight in realisation knock your qualities (such as they are) in to a cocked hat.

    Ball's in your court pal. Defend yourself.


    Edited, because the sun's shining, and I don't want to be nasty;
    If you can make the grade between judgemental tripe and reasoned argument, then I think you'll be a star in the forum. Until that point, then you'll just take hassle.

    [ 16-04-2002: Message edited by: DJP ]
Sign In or Register to comment.