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 ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Apathy, I welcome you to the site!
<IMG SRC="tongue.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Prove that national service makes people "better". No government should have the right to send it's citizens into seriously life threatening situations.
stats please..... <IMG SRC="smile.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Back when the states had a draft in place, a young offendor was brought before the judge and the judge would provide him with the option of either hard time or 2 years service.
Oftentimes, not always though, the offendor would choose the military - it would give them the swift kick in the ass that was needed to reform their lives and become useful members of society - not to mention serve their country, which everyone should feel duty bound to do anyway.
Why not work with service like that ? While I acknowledge it isnt a cure all and that some will inevitably find their way back to crime - the military provides structure, rules, balance and accountability - something most young criminals dont have.
Hey I agree - education would be the best of all alternatives. On the devils advocate side however, and having worked in some pretty lousy parts of the world with kids - I can say that the promise of education to some, may not be fully appreciated without the swift kick in the ass boot camp would obviously provide.
Poverty can be tackled - after would be thugs and lowlifes are taught to appreciate the fact that other opportunities exist. What I oppose however is charity in any form on the sole basis theyre poor - everyone must work to realize a better life - otherwise we'll make no changes.
I'd be careful with that, Dunblane is in Scotland (although the government that banned handguns lives in England).
Duly noted. I still stand by it though - it was a hasty, knee jerk reaction to a tragedy that was simply unjustifiable. With the increase in crimes commited with guns in England - its just stupid.
[ 16-04-2002: Message edited by: DevilMan ]
On Usenet, there's a well known rule. The first person to bring up Hitler or the Nazis in a thread has automatically lost the argument/flamewar. <IMG SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
But hell, I'm having fun so...
I have never been addicted to anything. That is my experience. If I understand you correctly, you're implying that I'm not qualified to criticise drug addicts because I'm not an addict myself. If you want me to explain the futile nature of that argument, I will.
And all pikeys are lesser beings, so there are no 'lesser pikeys' <IMG SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> But I digress...
Everybody knows the effects of various drugs. For example if you take heroine or crack, you'll get a high. This high feels great, and you'll want to experience it again. Do it enough times, and you'll become addicted. Being addicted means that you'll be in physical and mental pain if you don't take the drug. I'm not going to go listing all the negative effects of crack and heroine, you all know this stuff.
Anybody who chooses to take these drugs, with full knowledge of what the consequences are, is a retarded idiot. I have no respect for anyone that stupid. I can't even comprehend how anyone could be that stupid to be honest.
So I should change my views, lie, and suck up to people who disagree with me in the hope that they'll start to like me and let me join their gang? Thanks for your advice, but I'm not a sychophant.
Let's do this, shall we?
I'm not implying that you're not qualified to comment because you're not an addict, I'm implying that you're not qualified to judge in the harsh way you do. Until you know what it's like to be addicted, and to be physically so desperate for something that you would cut off your own limbs, then don't comment.
Addiction is an illness.
Just because it's usually self imposed doesn't mean it isn't. If you go and sleep with someone with AIDS, and you get it, then you have an illness. Just because you didn't have to sleep with them does not, repeat not, make it any less of an illness. Try and comprehend that, eh?
Read where the inverted commas are; lesser 'pikeys' is fundamentally different to 'lesser pikeys'. One implies a statement of subjective judgement, the other a subgroup of a judgemental form.
I know I will take flak from those who do drugs recreationally here, but I must point out that I personally find drugs repulsive and the concept alien. Now, that's my own view. If others want to take them, fine by me. I don't want to; doesn't appeal.
However.
If you read the point of my comment, then it refers to those who are breaking the addiction, not those who are beginning it. And for them I do have respect, for the reasons outlined so clearly in your post. And for you, I recommend reading glasses.
No, you should stick to your views, but argue them in a manner conducive to reason, not bluster. Support your argument with logic and fact, and tolerate those who disagree. They are entitled to their own opinion, as you are.
My advice is as ever, freely given. You're not a syncophant. You're no speller, either.
Your court.
<IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
What about those who turn to it for comfort when they feel their lives are worthless? What about kids who are following in the footsteps of their fathers or older siblings because it's a role they've been socialised into? Are these retarded idiots? No, these are people who need help, not to be patronised by some arrogant fucktard like you.
Some of my friends have been through this, calling them retarded and stupid only shows your own ignorance of the situation.
Seems the only retarded idiot here is you. I have no respect for someone this stupid. I can't even comprehend how anyone can be as stupid as you to be honest. :P <IMG SRC="mad.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
You should stop being a bigot, stop being arrogant towards anyone you consider to be 'inferior' and then, only then, will I listen to a word of the putrid shit that you spout.
You clearly have some good thoughts in that head of yours. Shame they're clouded by your insipid bigotry.
Are you qualified to judge child molestors? Have you ever molested a child? Until you've molested a child, you can't possibly judge these people in a harsh way.
How does that sound? I think this clearly illustrates what a poorly thought out argument you made.
I conceed that point, addiction is an illness. Your example backs up my argument that these people are retarded idiots for knowingly making themselves ill.
I just thought I'd make things clear, given the confusion there seems to be on this board about pikeys and their attributes.
That is my view entirely. However, there is a world of difference between smoking some pot every now and again and being addicted to heroine. The former is harmless to everyone but the smoker, the latter is a burden on society because the filthy junkie scumbag will steal from the rest of us to fund his habbit.
The fact that they have these supposed qualities you mentioned doesn't negate the fact that they are stupid. You could argue that a ganda is brave in defending it's flock against a fox. However, it is still stupid.
My arguments are based on common sense. I do tolerate people who disagree with me, everyone's entitled to their opinion. I'm intolerant of the aforementioned stupid people, for the reasons given.
Lol, neither are you <IMG SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Stracha_Khan
Their lives are worthless. If they had any worth, they'd do something about whatever was making them feel bad. These are the people who wouldn't get past childhood if 'survival of the fittest' was still in effect.
Yes, they're retarded idiots. There are no excuses for drug addiction. If they weren't retarded idiots, they'd find a real solution to their problems rather than get wasted.
The people I consider to be inferior are those who cause harm to other people due to their own stupidity and greed. If I wish to point out that they're stupid, and a problem to the rest of us, I will.
I see you have no half decent arguments, only a few insults and some emotionally charged guff. Try harder next time you read my putrid shit.
[ 16-04-2002: Message edited by: Apathy ]
And go DJP.
i dont see that suggestion anywhere but you have to agree - some people are beyond help and are only a burden on society.
removing them from this reality may relieve society of such a burden.
Let's deal with these points, then.
Addiction is a physical illness. You have conceded that, and thank you for bowing to the inevitable. What, then, defines an illness? Is it something which one acquires for pleasure? No, it isn't. Is it, then, something which you can be treated for with drugs or therapy? Yes, it is.
Ah.
Child molestors. Hm. I think your argument has fallen down. Addiction is a physiological reaction to an imbalance of chemicals within the body, and the subsequent dependency on that imbalance to retain basic metabolic functions. Being a child molestor is a conscious decision, and something which is a thought process. If you wish to argue the neurolinguistic aspects of it, then feel free, just not with me. Drawing parallels between drug addiction and child abuse are poorly done, and illustrative of an unsubstantiated argument. But, let us leave that aside.
Your judgement as I commented upon it is of the degenerative and generalistic terms of drug abusers. Not all are deliberate. An uncle of mine was briefly addicted to morphine, which was accidentally overdosed in a chemotherapy treatment for cancer. I wouldn't insult the dead, if I were you, and particularly not those of my family.
And, just quickly; try not to refer to people with swear words. It's not necessary, and dumbs down a relatively intelligent argument.
I would ask whether, in your liberal tolerance of the individual pot smoker, this, or cigarettes, or alcohol are something that you yourself indulge in? I don't know, that's why I ask.
If we wish to follow your own precedent here, and jump subjects with a loose connection?
You could, then, argue that a Marine who runs in to enemy fire in order to save the life of his comrades is stupid. Or one who throws himself upon a grenade for the same purpose. There are, believe it or not, individuals within a social group who are bigger than themselves, and make sacrifices.
You do not, I would argue, call these individuals "stupid".
You call them "heroes". You honour them, and their memories. And if you don't, then what kind of honour do you have?
See where I'm going? You can draw wacky parallels both ways, pal, and I will twist things with the best of them.
[You're not a lawyer, are you? Just a thought]
I must concede the point to you, also. I am no speller. But it was irritating me, so;
syc·o·phant (sk-fnt, sk-)
n. "A servile self-seeker who attempts to win favor by flattering influential people."
So there we are. Marvellous.
And since I'm in the mood, let's deal with the points you raised in answer to Stracha_Khan.
Lives, human lives, are never worthless. The Charter of Human Rights says they're not, the entire civilised world says they're not, and this country has fought wars to prove that they're not. I would rather not insult the memories of those who have died in conflice to preserve this principle. If you have ever watched Remembrance Sunday services, you will know the Kohima Memorial;
When you go home, tell them of us, and say;
For your tomorrows, we gave our today.
That's called honour, pal, and people died to protect that. Don't you DARE tell me that lives are worthless.
Yes, there are those who are a burden to society, undoubtedly, but unless we practice genetic selection and eugenics, then there always will be. I think you'll find that in a communal society, there always are. And, since you like to draw nice parallels, your parents, when they cease to be of socio-economic productive age, why not remove them; they're a burden to society? Thin ice, my friend, thin ice...
Like the people in Enron who lost the pensions, you mean? Or are they a different class? Hm...
Or those who start wars...
You want to be careful drawing strange parallels, and then leaving yourself open to the same....
Your court again...
Worthless to you perhaps, but judging by your previous bigotted posts I wouldn't expect anything less.
These people are still human beings and don't deserve to be counted as 'nothings'.
These people, more often than not, don't directly choose to be in that situation, they end up there because of abuse/neglect in childhood (or other social probs).
Most human behaviour is learnt. Most human behaviour to some extent can be changed. So just because someone has a reliance on heroin does not mean that they should be shrugged off as worthless scum. I have seen people come out of the other side.
I think the 'survival of the fittest' notion does still apply in modern society. That doesn't mean that those who aren't quite 'fit enough' should be totally forgotten about.
Maybe it's because there are people like you who could offer them a real solution but instead kick them to the kerb.
These people should be helped to get off the drugs and get their lives back on track.
I do agree the people who cause harm are a problem. Yeah it is stupid, and yes it is greedy, but in order to limit or iradicate this we need to put stops on the causes of drug abuse, instead of treating the symptoms all the time. And seeing as the only "real solution" you have offered so far is to "exterminate them all" (quoted verbatim), I'll take your posts with a large dose of cynicism.
Apologies for the emotionally charged rant, I tend to do that now and again <IMG SRC="smile.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">.
Military service works to assuade people from a life in crime - it worked in the past in the US and is still working rather well in places like Israel and Italy - if a solution to crime presents itself, at least consider it. Id ask you to consider and explain a little more why you hate the military so much - certainly, you have to agree it is a necceccity to have a military?
I dont beleive either that the military makes for a better human being - it does teach him her though values such as discipline, honor and the value of teamwork - something young criminals lack, hence their criminal lifestyle. It gives them much needed structure and rules. Perhaps your alternative is to have the offendor butt raped in prison?
On guns. you have no idea what youre talking about. Physical force should and must be applied in situations where an attacker has no regard for a victims life - tell me - do you honestly beleive you could talk a guy twice your size out of robbing you/killing you / raping you? I dont think youd be saying half the things you are had you been a victim.
The military is necessary for our survival and protection. Take Palestine, they have no army, and because of that are being slaughtered. Any nation foolish enough to not have an armed force of some kind is asking for defeat. even switzerland has an army.
As for physical threats and coercion not solving anything, history has proven that violence or the threat of violence solves EVERYTHING. Ever heard of M.A.D.? The reason we don't use nukes, Mutually Assured Destruction. The threat of our extinction is enough to stop us from nuking someone else.
As for National service, if you were a criminal, and told if you carried on you would be given a helmet, uniform and a rifle, and placed under supervision in Iraq and told to point and shoot at the enemy, wouldn't you think twice about comitting the crime?
Agreed. But you can't do a straight comparisson with other illnesses. Somebody with the flue doesn't keep inhaling flue ridden vapour. The junkie perpetuates his illness deliberately. The junkie knows that if he stops taking heroine, his illness will go away. But he carries on because it's easier to steal than to excercise willpower. Thus the junkie is both weak and stupid.
In what way has my argument fallen down? The child molestor makes a decision to molest children, knowing that it's sick and twisted. The potential junkie makes a decision to take drugs, knowing that he will become addicted and be forced to get large amounts of money somehow to support his addiction.
Both of these people realise the consequences of their actions. The child molestor is evil, and the junkie is stupid.
I think I have made it clear that I class people who knowingly let themselves become addicted to drugs as the retarded idiots. Your Uncle is obviously nothing of the sort, I don't see why you brought that up. And if 'I wouldn't insult...particularly not those of my family' was meant as some kind of threat, I honestly couldn't give a shit.
I use swear words when I want to convey my contempt for the people I'm talking about. Calling someone an 'idiot' could be meant as a playful jest. Calling someone a 'fucking retarded idiot' is obviously an insult, and conveys what I think of drug addicts.
I care far too much about my health to smoke anything. I have never taken any illegal or legal drugs, apart from alchohol. When I drink alchohol, I know my limits. I don't like getting drunk, and I stop drinking long before my reasoning is impaired.
So no, you may not call me a hypocrite.
I think you misunderstood. I did not imply that the ganda was stupid because it was defending it's flock. I'm pointing out that being brave does not make up for being stupid.
The main point I'm trying to argue is that drug addicts are fundamentally stupid for taking drugs in the first place.
And I know what a sycophant is. But I'm sure some of the other posters (who haven't bothered to form proper arguments) will benefit from learning a new word today <IMG SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
I'm sure those soldiers would be extremely sad to see the way our society has become. They did not die so that some filthy junkie scumbag can steal from decent people whilst making his own life worthless. They did not die so that some lazy, stupid, sponging pikey can harrass decent people and steal their property. They did not die so that some greedy, worthless criminal can injure and kill people in order to steal their posessions. And they did not die so that some arrogant, self-centred politicians can take away more of our freedoms and rights every fucking day.
Truly pathetic. I thought we'd passed the stage of 'the same punishment for every crime' ages ago in this thread.
To be honest, I didn't follow the Enron story closely in any way. If you'd like to tell me what they did exactly and how it relates to this argument, I will answer.
I have nothing but contempt for those who start wars too. But that's a whole different argument <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> As it is, they are generally greedy, not stupid and greedy, so I don't see how that example applies here.
Stracha_Khan
In what situation? Being abused/neglected, or being a junkie? If it's the latter you mean, then I have already said that it's their own choice.
I didn't say they should be forgotten about. This whole argument is about finding a solution to various problems, among them drug addicts. I was pointing out that these weak, stupid people are inferior.
And what do you suggest I do? Give money to the next filthy junkie scumbag who approaches me with some bullshit story about why nothing's his fault?
The only effective way of helping these people, as I've already said, is stopping their supply of drugs. The most effective way I can see is to kill drug dealers. When there are no more drugs, then they may be re-habilitated.
kathryn
It's easy to criticise other people's solutions without actually offering one yourself. From what you said about violence and threats not working, I assume you have a different solution. Do share it, we're all ears.
[ 16-04-2002: Message edited by: Apathy ]
If I were a criminal, I might find professional combat and arms training fairly useful. I suppose it depends upon what type of criminal. Also, who's going to stop them going ballistic with their government issued weapons in Iraq and killing their supervisors? Would you feel comfortable standing next to an armed convicted criminal who doesn't particularly like the fact that you're keeping him locked up?
As for the idea of it acting as a deterrant, it wouldn't, just as capital punishment doesn't. The overwhelming majority of criminals do not expect to be caught, or esle they would not commit the crime. If they do not expect to be caught, they're not going to care what the punishment is if they are caught.
Apathy, you have come here and attacked what you percieve to be the lowest form of society, are you by any chance white, middle/upper class?
I'm white, middle class and my dad is a policeman, I myself want to join the police. After all that, I can't even pretend to be as narrow minded as you.
People can become addicted to drugs for a whole host of reasons, they may try some, not knowing what it is and keep on using it unable to stop. Denying them that drug by "killing" the dealers will only make them worse. Heroin addicts that are denied any form of similar drug have been known to go into nervous breakdowns. Denial of a drug that someone is addicted to can be fatal.
What about people who are forced to take drugs? Young girls forced into prositution and drugs by the older man who was really nice to them the week before?
You can't JUST blame individuals for whatever happens, I concede that some people are solely responsible for whatever shitty mess they are in, but some people are drwan into it because of the lifestyle we live in today.
Incorrect. The drug addict's illness is specifically that; he CANNOT stop taking drugs. It's not a matter of how much will power has, his body is chemically dependent upon the drug and, through this altered physiological state, will force him to seek them in the same way as it will force someone to seek food when hungry.
Alcohol impairs reasoning. How, when you have been consuming alcohol, are you in a fit mental state to assess whether your reasoning is impaired? Surely that assessment will be impaired by the alcohol consumed? Explain.
If you represent superiority, then all I can say is roll on inferiority.
Stracha didn't say give them money. Stracha said: "These people should be helped to get off the drugs and get their lives back on track." There is a world of difference.
Clearly you have no understanding of even the most basic market systems. As long as there is a demand for drugs, and money to be made, people will run businesses supplying them. No matter how many drug dealers you kill, new ones will appear to take their place. It's called greed.
America's experiment in prohibiting alcohol in the 1920s showed that illegalising a popular drug has no reducing effect on demand or indeed supply, which is forced to become illegal. Clearly the solution to the drug problem must begin by accepting that simply banning them doesn't work; it puts all the power in the hands of criminals and forces us to spend billions trying to handly the problems they create. Legalise drugs and we'll sort the problem out from there.
To me the military signifies sacrificing for ones country so that they can remain free and strong - an oversimplification perhaps but Im economizing words at least for now.
Guns - there are several schools of thought, Ill provide why I own and carry them.
Self defense - no matter what the ban, there is absolutely no way of guaranteeing they will all be off the street - no way possible. So long as there are guns presumably in the wrong hands, it is prudent to be allowed the option so as to defend oneself from an armed attack. Additionally, gun ownership is more a neccessity than ever - I fear I will sound paranoid here - but with the threat of terrorism on major govt infrastructure, there is the possible breakdown of all / parts of society. This could very easily (albiet a very remote possibility) lead to mass chaos including rioting, looting and general deadly lawlessness.
Sporting> say what you will of hunting but it is a sport and if the above happens (again remote I know) firearms are an ideal tool of securing food. Additionally, shooting is an excellent way to develop hand eye coordination and forces you to develop keen concentration skills.
I won't get drawn into a guns debate, however I will talk about this bit.
Humans, have a natural tendency to be violent. We are territorial, like pack animals. We defend our territory ruthlessly and usually without mercy (Our assault on Iraq and Afghanistan for example).
We get jealous easily, we see a country with something, and we want it. If we can't have it, then noone can have it.
The world is an evil place, more people have died in the last 100 years through war than all the wars throughout history combined. But war is nothing new, we've fought wars for as long as we can remember. Many people remark that prostitution is the oldest profession, I argue that warrior is the oldest job going.
As long as the world is like it is, as long as the world is inhabited by territorial, jealous and emotional human beings then we will need an army in order to uphold our values, protect our people and protect our ideology and beliefs.
So if I am walking down the road and someone wants to mug me then they would also have a gun so I would end up dead...
I don't see how anyone has missed this point.
If guns were easier to get hold of, then kids would get them, angry people, depressed people etc. I do not see how the world would be a better place, I think it would be a more dangerous place.
LMFAO!
It is easier/cheaper to buy a full automatic Uzi in London than it is in the United States. Hell, I could pay for the plane ticket, arrange shipping, buy up full automatic weapons in London, and the sell them in the US with enough profit afterwards to retire.
Such a delusional place you live that you "feel safe"... <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
You miss the point. The criminals will always have the fire arms. You think that just because you pass a law that says that ownership of firearms is illegal will mean that them who exist by the avoidance of law will somehow get overwhelmed with a case of the touchie/feelie's, and choose that one law to obey??? <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
PUL-LEZE!
You cannot really be that naive, can you?
Just because you choose to hide from reality does not mean that it will cease to exist... <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
It's all for the social good you know...men with weapons protecting the weak. Now, imagine...you are strong, not weak and with your trusty atl atl & dart are able to take a gun with stealth...and become a protector of mankind...imagine if you still can...because society needs you to be strond and self sufficient and not a weakling with a broken ego and no wings!
<IMG SRC="eek.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
<img src="http://www.atlatl.net/nav/Belgo.JPG" alt="image">
I have no idea where you came up with that bull shit Thanatos, but weapons are not as prolific in the UK as you might think. The media will latch onto one or 2 stories and imply that we live in a lawless, gun toting society. That is simply not the case. Out of all the robberies that took place in London, only the smallest pecentage involved the use of a firearm.
The chances of anyone in London SEEING a gun, let alone being shot with one are virtually nil.
Can you say the same thing about the states? No, so fuck off and stop hijacking the topic.
Thanatos and Diesel
If you could divert your attention from guns for a brief second, then I think that your comments on the argument perpetuated by Apathy and myself would be very much welcomed. Thanatos, I've read enough of your posts to have some inkling of your honour and respect for men. If you would be so kind as to explain to Apathy the situation as you see it?
Vox populi, vox Dei
Thank you. I'm glad that the substantiative parts of my argument have been read and commented upon by at least one. Your posts, as ever, are welcomed in this argument, especially by me.
This, Apathy, is why it's an illness. Get it now?
A child molestor is not physiologically driven to commit his evil, it is the mind which does so. If he doesn't molest small children, he will feel no physical side effects. An addict will. This is why child molestors, and seial killers, for that matter, are able to take 'cooling off periods', in which their urges subside. Therefore, they can control it. An addict, while, yes getting in to it in the first place, cannot control it once started.
Another example; some pimps like to control the prostitutes working for them by means of drug abuse. How does that fit in?
Apathy
Okay, let's deal with the minor points before raising the issues.
Firstly, I don't think that you did make it clear about drug abuse being voluntary, which is why I raised the point.
Second, then I don't threaten. It was a mere point of etiquette, nothing more. Like your rule about Hitler, I prefer not to have the memories of the dead insulted by some jumped up little guttersnipe like yourself. I can't threaten you, and indeed would not need to do so. I don't go to that level, pal.
Third, you can perfectly well convey contempt without retorting to swearing. I think you'll find that by the tone, style and vocabulary of my rhetoric, I can convey pretty much what I want. And I don't swear. If you want this to be a proper argument, then raise your game a bit, and let's do it properly. Convince with rhetoric and logic, not swearing. A pikey can swear. Are you willing to put yourself on that self-perceived level?
I think we will leave the point about your own alcohol intake alone, but it is worth noting, that. Those who are heroin (minus the 'e', btw, otherwise they're ingesting attractive and dignified females) addicts often started with softer drugs. Maybe you're on the road to alcoholism? I don't think you are, but it could be argued if necessary. I don't want to; we'll leave it.
I'd like to know how you define stupid. What yardstick do you use? A man who is clever, but knows nothing about the value of human life is of less value to me, and to society, than a man, who while never being able to add two numbers can give his own life for his fellow man. Bravery is of more use than intelligence to those who struggle. Be thankful that we do not. Bravery is a quality. Intelligence and learning can be acquired. Think about it.
Er, yes. Personally speaking, I think they already had the picture. But, you know. Feel free to irritate more of them. <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> Makes my life easier.
Yay, another post-teenage rebellion!!
Those soldiers died because they thought they were doing what was right. And they would be proud of the fact that we were not invaded, that their children do not know what it is to live in terror of bombs falling in London, and that we can now have diplomatic relationships with people who we once faced with arms.
They died for our freedom. And with that social freedom comes the ills of society. But while they may be disheartened, there are far more decent people living their lives than these criminals, and, yes, I think they would be satisfied with what they have done.
If you wish to judge; they fought together as men and comrades. They did not fight so that some arrogant, self-centred, 22 year old could whinge and moan about how he wanted to impose a neo-extreme right wing policy on those he considered morally, economically and mentally inferior. I think they fought against that very principle.
Are you implying that your parents' retirement is a crime? I think they may disagree. It's not punishment for crime argument, its universal application of a principle you hold. Which is entirely legitimate to do, and not really pathetic, to be fair.
Finally, let's leave Enron and the wars alone; it's not going to add to the main argument in a significant way.
Kathryn
What you say is idealistic. There is nothing wrong with that, but it isn't really going to work in modern society. The threat of action is what the principle of justice and our courts are based on; if you do x, then y will happen. I would prefer that we did not need Armed Forces, and that their existence was not a necessity now and forever. I don't think that it is the case.
That was well said. *applauds*
It would be something that we can all learn, eh, Apathy, and I include myself in that too.
DevilMan
I agree with your point about the need for Armed forces. And, I also agree with shooting as a sport. I think that the self defence issue is dicey, but fully agree with the sports aspect. It does improve concentration, motor skills, and discipline; you have to know when, where and how long your shooting detail match is.
Whowhere
As ever, we seem to agree.
That was well said. And pretty spot on, too. I'm afraid that that's the way the world is, and that is human nature. We can't really change it. We can hope to try.
To you all;
This has somewhat degenerated in to a thread which is not on the topic of social disorder but leaning towards the value of the human life. It doesn't matter, arguments do. But please, can we not degenerate in to insults, and a gun thread. Let's try and keep on the straight and narrow, and maybe Squinty will appreciate a good quality debate as much as we do.
Edited because I needed to add more, but I pressed the wrong button. <IMG SRC="frown.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> D'oh.
Edited again, because I thought I'd correct some of my own errors. Again.
[ 17-04-2002: Message edited by: DJP ]
[ 17-04-2002: Message edited by: DJP ]
And just had to say that I am not naive. However I am realistic and not an American who just looks on the internet and makes presumptions about a country where he is not resident.
(Sorry to bring up guns but I have to respond if someone patronises me)
If guns were legalised then surely more criminals would have them than now-every mugger or shop lifter would have one and we would live in a lawless society where what could have been a simple crime escalates to murder.
I personally would not want to live in a society like this and I am sure children, elderly people and disabled people may agree with me, in fact the only people that seem to be in favour of guns are (mostly) young men.
(I will go now)
Your point about making assumptions about a country based on the media is highly valid. Most people in the UK do just that to the US, which is why it has an immage of one big lawless ghetto. They tend to shut up when I ask them if they've actually been there.
No one's saying de-restrict the sales of all guns to all people. Quite the opposite: allow the law abiding to carry guns. The criminals already have guns! No mugger ever got his gun by applying for a license. You are being very naive. Shop-lifters, lol!