Home Politics & Debate
We are writing some music with the help of a professional band! Share some small positive stories from lockdown to contribute our song over on this thread!

Are young people allowed to do ANYTHING anymore?!

124»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    \
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    SophiA wrote:
    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?

    Easy on the hyperbole!

    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.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,104 I eat threads for breakfast
    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    \
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote:
    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.

    :yes:

    Possibly the worst sign every is "No Ball Games"
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote:
    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.

    Agree. I don't see how the vast majority of kids aren't allowed to do this though.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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.

    But you aren't exactly suggesting a compromise, are you?
    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.

    Safe? Or perceptions of safety?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    SophiA wrote:
    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.

    OK then, when should a child be able to vote and participate in the democratic process?

    The rights of the community members (and i'm not talking whole towns, more like specific estates) to go to the shops, walk the dog or take a stroll without being verbally or phhysically intimidated and attacked. What if the parents aren't or are incapable of controling the kids? When that start effecting my life is exacly when it becomes my business.

    This lovely world were everything is fair and as it should be, is a fairy tale. In order for people to exist as part of a community and a wider society as a whole, then sacrifices have to be made. Is it strictly fair, probably not, is it necessary, definitely.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But you aren't exactly suggesting a compromise, are you?

    How do you mean?

    Safe? Or perceptions of safety?

    Actual safety, which is why i said in the extreme cases.
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    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?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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 ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    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.
    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".
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    \
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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.
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    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.
    You're right there, I forgot you said that. Sorry.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    SophiA wrote:
    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.

    I've stated the situation in which i would accept the curfew.

    If by "treated like a criminal" you mean "taken home" then yes.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I really must log off now and do some work!

    Just to let you all know, though i've evidently been in the minority here (of one!) that i have taken on board a lot of what has been said and that i will be mulling it over for the rest of the evening.

    I've enjoyed debating and am pleased that it hasn't turned into the usual exchange of insults!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    \
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    This lovely world were everything is fair and as it should be, is a fairy tale.
    You do realise that this lovely world does exist, until some people come along and decide that certain people shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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?

    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.
    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.

    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.
    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.

    I think you misrepresent what I said.

    They got what was coming to them. It isn't what should, but it was action borne out of great provocation, and its an understandably reaction.

    MKy point was that the media represent that case as random stabs stranger, because kids are evil and the schools are unsafe. It wasn't represented as a violent bully getting the violence dished back to them.

    I blame the media for a lot of the fear people have about young people.

    As for curfews, about 45% of all gang rapes are committed by about 5% of black men. Should we have a curfew for all black people? I'd love to see the police try and justify that one.

    Troublemakers should be moved on. You won't find many arguments about that. There is no need for curfews and banning orders to achieve this. Perhaps what we really need is the lazy coppers to stop chowing down kebabs in the nick and actually get off their arses and start walking around these estates. But a group of 10 or 20 kids should not be moved on simply because some old dear is frightened, and doesn't like hearing swearing.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    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.

    What I was trying to do was find out people’s opinions when you take the example further; test what people think when the example stops being a tame scenario of the minority spoiling it for the majority. One or two individuals should never taint your opinion of an entire group of people, that’s a no-brainer. Your dissection of my argument is also skewed. I wasn’t questioning people on the basis that one group was responsible for the majority of loss, I was wondering how people would treat the scenario if the overwhelming majority of a group was causing loss.
    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 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.

    I think you're in danger of making kids out to be martyrs as well.
    I think you misrepresent what I said.

    I fail to see how I could, you made it pretty clear.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I was wondering how people would treat the scenario if the overwhelming majority of a group was causing loss.

    It's a straw man argument though.

    Individuals should be targeted if they are thieves. But not groups. It makes sense.
    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.

    It is not an assumption, it is based on facts.

    The demographic of a marginal seat is middle-class, suburban and middle-to-higher income. It isn't any great conspiracy, its just that in a FPTP electoral system the seats which decide elections are those where the electorate is balanced. As you very rarely get a constituency where half the electorate are miners and the other half are farmers, landowners and stockbrokers, what basically happens is that all the political parties must target themselves at winning the votes of the marginal demographic.

    It isn't a great conspiracy, really, its just the result of an outdated and unfair electoral system. A system where the second placed party gets more votes than the winners.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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.

    And idiot of the week award goes to...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Actual safety, which is why i said in the extreme cases.

    Then you punish the guilty and not everyone.

    Punishing others gives a perception that you will therefore be safe from them when in reality you were never at risk.

    Men rape women, should we all be banned from being near them? It would mean that women were "safe"...?
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    So alot of kids cause problems.

    And the police go for the ones playing HOPSCOTCH.

    Fucks sake.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well, I say,

    fuck_the_police.gif


    I've already given my thoughts on this piece of news. Just thought I'd stick that in for good measure.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    Nice new av, btw.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Cheers man
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Spliffie wrote:
    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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.

    You actually expect to be taken seriously when suggesting curfews for adults?

    You don't realise people have things to do like work and look after children at night?

    :rolleyes:
Sign In or Register to comment.