Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to
and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head
So you basically think that people who have done nothing wrong should be effectively put under house arrest, solely on the grounds of their age?
I think we're getting a way off the original topic here, but i also think that the odd flash in the pan story on the BBC or in the papers isn't enough for me to forget about all the positive things that kids have as well. There are plenty of things available to kids these days that simply weren't available to me as a child. The very fact kids have a medium such as TheSite to debate and air their views is more than i had.
Kids need more than computer games and the internet - they need interaction beyond a computer screen, they need excersice, fresh air, they need to be able to play together.
As nice as it would be to live in a black and white world of right and wrong, good and evil, there are grey areas and compromises that need to be made.
If as i cited earlier, the case in hand was extreme enough, then i would put the rights of the wider community to a safe existance above the rights of the few kids who weren't causing trouble to stay out after curfew, yes.
Yes but it's not your rights you're bargaining with is it? You're saying it's acceptable to compromise the rights of children, who can't vote and so are totally excluded from the decision making process, which seems a pretty illiberal argument to me.
And what are the rights of the wider community that you think would be defended by restricting the freedom of children to move around? The wider community does not have the right to tell children where they can go and at what time. Their parents do, but you, as someone who lives in the same town as them, do not.
Man Of Kent wrote:
But you aren't exactly suggesting a compromise, are you?
How do you mean?
Safe? Or perceptions of safety?
Indrid Cold wrote:
What if in a neighborhood there was a high level of crime commited by 25-30 year olds? Would you like a curfew for adults?
If it were the case that the overwhelming majority of people in their twenties in a given area were criminally invloved and you presented a convincing arguement that a curfew was the best way to tackle it, then yes, curfew for all people in their twenties, or whatever the given demographic.
Indrid Cold wrote:
So the reason you'd let it happen for minors is that "the overwhelming majority" majority of them do crimes or are harassing people? I doubt the amount of ones who do even comes close to "the overwhelming majority".
This is why, if you read the thread back, that i said i thought it could probably be reasonably argued for in the most extreme cases.
So you'd be happy to have a curfew imposed upon you in that case would you? Even though you personally had done nothing wrong, you'd totally accept that for the greater good you would have to be in your house by a certain time, and that if you left your house after that time you'd be treated like a criminal?
You need to ask yourself honestly if you'd be happy to accept the measures you're proposing if it were you it affected, because if not, then it's unreasonable to impose them on others.
This lovely world were everything is fair and as it should be, is a fairy tale.
Though the analogy isn't exact, it's a fair-ish point. I think it's a dangerous opinion to treat in such a black and white manner though. Do you think at some point though, that if one in every 2 - 5 kids from the local school (say) is stealing from your shop that you just have to deal with it? Perhaps at best banning individuals but knowing that's really just the tip of the iceberg?
I don't think these are problems synonymous with being young though. I think political frustration is something felt across the board, by young and old, rich and poor alike. Also, the middle classes make up a large proportion of the UK and i think it's an easy cop out to wave the finger of blame at a faceless class, mildly offensive even.
Your liberal attitude appears to appear and disappear. If you believe that a reasonable retaliation to the school bully is to stab them, then frankly, that's worrying.
Banning individuals that you know are causing problems is fair enough.
But banning kids because one or two steal is no different to banning all Asian people, say, because one or two Asian people shoplift.
It is an exact analogy. Shopkeepers are prejudiced against young people because of the actions of a tiny minority, but that's allowed. That's basically the equivalent of banning all Hollywood actresses from your shop because Winona Ryder has sticky fingers.
Racism is rarely borne out of ideology, to be quite honest. It is often borne out of personal experience- one black lad mugs your mum and your sister, so all black men are muggers. If you believe that black people cause most of your stock loss, is it right for you to ban them from your store? It's exactly the same principle- either you believe that the shopkeeper has the right to do what he wants, or you believe that people should be protected from prejudice.
Don't try and make a distinction where there is none.
The blame is not with the middle-classes, the blame lies solely with a political system that disproporionately grants them power at the expense of everyone else.
Marginal seats decide elections, so it is the demographic of these marginals that are catered for. It's not their fault, but that is how it is.
Young kids off the estate don't fit that demographic, so their wishes are ignored.
I think you misrepresent what I said.
I was wondering how people would treat the scenario if the overwhelming majority of a group was causing loss.
I fail to see how you make the assumption that in marginal seats it’s the middle classes that hold the power to swing the vote or generally how the middle classes are more or less responsible for anything. This isn’t a challenge, it’s a genuine question.
Actual safety, which is why i said in the extreme cases.
And idiot of the week award goes to...
Cracking dissection of the discussion.
Also, this thread had managed to go almost 10 pages without curt exchange of non-view. Well done for bringing it back round to the status quo.