Why Are Riots Escalating in London?

[DaveC426913]

They have social benefits and have nothing whatsoever to complain about.

It's so easy to sit back and judge others about how they ought to feel about their lives.

And then decide they should be shot if they don't like it.

Whatever. This attitude occurs a million times an hour on the internet.

 

[arildno]

It's so easy to sit back and judge others about how they ought to feel about their lives.

And then decide they should be shot if they don't like it.
.

1. Correct. We SHOULD condemn people on social welfare who begin whining and complaining, and demand of them to be grateful, under the threat of reducing the handouts they're getting.
Not to condemn them is deeply immoral, and..inhumane.

2. Where have I said that people should be shot if they don't "like" their lives??

 

[DaveC426913]

I concede. Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion and, it being rhetoric, there is nothing to be gained by arguing those opinions. So I have unsubbed, at least until such time as the thread wanders back to facts and actions.

 

[arildno]

Implying that these social benefits doesn't exist, and aren't factual, is deeply dishonest of you.
THey DO receive welfare hand-outs, and THAT is the incontrovertible fact you have tried to suppress with your insinuations.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

The moral decay of our society is as bad at the top as the bottom
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/p...r-society-is-as-bad-at-the-top-as-the-bottom/

 

[arildno]

The moral decay of our society is as bad at the top as the bottom
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/p...r-society-is-as-bad-at-the-top-as-the-bottom/

I read that piece, Greg.
It is excellent in that without giving any sort of justification for the rioters it points out that there are a lot of the high&mighty who have no reason to regard themselves as sitting upon the moral high ground. Including David Cameron.
That, obviously, do not take away Cameron's duty or right to put down these riots.

 

[MarcoD]

Implying that these social benefits doesn't exist, and aren't factual, is deeply dishonest of you.
THey DO receive welfare hand-outs, and THAT is the incontrovertible fact you have tried to suppress with your insinuations.

The fact that you reduced the whole problem to wealth (the haves and haves-not, and their relation) might well be what is wrong at the heart of the problem.

 

[DaveC426913]

Implying that these social benefits doesn't exist, and aren't factual, is deeply dishonest of you.
THey DO receive welfare hand-outs, and THAT is the incontrovertible fact you have tried to suppress with your insinuations.

This topic keeps popping up on the New Posts list. I don't mind walking away, but I don't like walking away when there are misunderstandings afoot. So I'll clarify.

It was not my intention to imply that the social benefits do not exist.

What is not factual is the opinions that they "gave up in school" and that "they have nothing to complain about", and that handouts are enough.

Those statements are unfounded and indefensible. I'm not claiming they're false, I'm claiming they're neither true not false - they're simply beliefs. And I have no reason to argue your beliefs. Nor do I have the inclination to demand that you defend them or retract them.

 

[arildno]

The fact that you reduced the whole problem to wealth (the haves and haves-not, and their relation) might well be what is wrong at the heart of the problem.

No, I have not.
I have directly pointed my finger at one particularly despicable group:
Leftists who encourage these louts to criminality by blathering on and on about that these louts "ought" to get their "fair share".

Those leftists are actively destroying the social fabric with their dangerous, and deeply immoral, nonsense.

 

[MarcoD]

No, I have not.
I have directly pointed my finger at one particularly despicable group:
Leftists who encourage these louts to criminality by blathering on and on about that these louts "ought" to get their "fair share".

Those leftists are actively destroying the social fabric with their dangerous, and deeply immoral, nonsense.

Leftists? Like in a conspiracy? Are you paranoid?

As far as I saw so far you reduced it to that these are the social lower class which should just be grateful for receiving their gifts. I find that an enormous materialistic oversimplification and it looks to me that you just changed the topic.

Moreover, I have no idea who the leftists are, and what their immoral nonsense is?

 

[drankin]

I wouldn't be too sure of that. If they have denied a livelihood (jobs, infrastructure) to acquire for themselves the basic necessities of life - food, shelter - then, not only are they forced to turn to violence, they are - at least in principle - right to do so since, for them, society has effectively disintegrated.


I would not have expected anyone over the age of 20 would suggest shooting them as an institutionalized solution.

So this was justified?: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...of-a-shy-quiet-quirkylooking-man-2336865.html

Nobody was, "right to do so...". This line of reasoning makes no sense. There is no level of soceity disintegration to make murdering innocent people "right".

 

[Hurkyl]

The moral decay of our society is as bad at the top as the bottom
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/p...r-society-is-as-bad-at-the-top-as-the-bottom/

And in our news media, apparently. I am rather contemptuous of people who pretend to be responding to one topic, but in reality just want to soapbox on some unrelated topic.

 

[kalakoi]

Leftists? Like in a conspiracy? Are you paranoid?

As far as I saw so far you reduced it to that these are the social lower class which should just be grateful for receiving their gifts. I find that an enormous materialistic oversimplification and it looks to me that you just changed the topic.

Moreover, I have no idea who the leftists are, and what their immoral nonsense is?

I've been watching this London riots from the outsides, and i have never been in England but one thing i can say is that i don't believe that people who started and did this should have their fault taken away by then!

As i understood most people who had been in riots are from the minorities neighborhoods, therefore 2nd and 3nd generation of immigrants!

As i believe , this people only went to England to look for a better life, better job and so on!
When this happens we clearly got one problem in hand!
If this people, some as I've read here receive welfare, should be in England to work, other than that and their situation should be re thinkable for the people in power because a population, specially in times of crisis, should have a strong sense of unity between them and not to separate themselves!

The problem of England and most of Europe, specially the cultural western Europe, including Greece in here, is that they have been putting themselves in a bad path as most of the people in their governments can't really get a hold in their countries!

Problem with Europe is the mass capitalism that has swept from about the seventies till today!

Both that and the lack of moral values and lack of strong governments in Europe is making this kind of things to happen more and more!

Also the police is constantly being threatened with excessive use of force, and of killing criminals (seems the case here) that crime just spreads on and on!

Anyway i hope thing go for good because wars are bad things and we should just live in peace, even if that peace only lasts a small moment!

Best regards for everybody!

 

[MarcoD]

Anyway i hope thing go for good because wars are bad things and we should just live in peace, even if that peace only lasts a small moment!

Great, a hippie. Namaste!

I don't agree with some of your analysis, but do agree with some of your sentiments. I am just pointing out that any oversimplification from any side will not solve anything.

 

[arildno]

Leftists? Like in a conspiracy? Are you paranoid?

As far as I saw so far you reduced it to that these are the social lower class which should just be grateful for receiving their gifts. I find that an enormous materialistic oversimplification and it looks to me that you just changed the topic.

Moreover, I have no idea who the leftists are, and what their immoral nonsense is?

As for despicable leftists, you probaby fit that bill precisely, not the least since you ridicule the basic idea that the primary moral obligation of this scum is to be deeply grateful for the handouts they receive.

Furthermore, I haven' changed the topic at all, rather you charged that I "only" reduced it to these scum and their basic lack of morality.
And then, I simply pointed out that I have already said that there are other groups as well who ought to be ashamed ofthemselves.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

The moral decay of our society is as bad at the top as the bottom
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/p...r-society-is-as-bad-at-the-top-as-the-bottom/

When the cat's away the mice will play...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Olpm5mdBJMw

 

[rhody]

If you don't think police can acquire advance knowledge of a protest and then react before trouble starts, shutting down cell service, it has been done already, on August 12th in San Francisco.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/12/bart_polioce_cut_mobile_phone_service/"

The statement also noted that although mobile phone service was curtailed during the expected protest period, train intercoms and courtesy telephones remained available for riders

and

Apparently the Bay Area Rapid Transit District is one step ahead of Cameron's efforts, at least when it comes to using prior restraint to prevent communication over the public mobile phone system.

BART's shutdown of mobile phone service is, at best, troubling. Although the system's electronic message boards had warned during the day of a possible demonstration during Thursday's commute, those warnings made no mention of a mobile-phone service shutdown.

As a result, tens of thousands of transit passengers were deprived of their expected service without warning. As is often the case when police clash with demonstrators – or, in this case, possiblle would-be demonstrators – it was the general public that was adversely affected.

The BART situation was a trivial inconvenience when compared with the savagery of the English rioting, but the response to it by some authorities raises the same spectre of prior restraint and unannounced limitation of individual freedoms

Rhody...

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Life isn’t easy, you have to study and do your homework... or you could become a thug.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOpKc-kN3Bg

 

[Ken Natton]

I am rather contemptuous of people who pretend to be responding to one topic, but in reality just want to soapbox on some unrelated topic.

I’m sorry Hurkyl if I am missing the ‘bleedin’ obvious’ as it were, but I don’t want to make any false assumptions about your meaning. Are you suggesting that Peter Oborne was soapboxing on some unrelated topic? Because if you were I am not sure that is fair. I certainly see the connection that he is making. At least, I could not agree with an argument that sought to justify the actions of the rioters and looters on the basis that they were only helping themselves in the way the MPs had over their expenses. And I’m not entirely sure that that I could agree with an analysis that held that the moral decay at the bottom of British society was caused by the moral decay at the top. It would seem more likely to me that both were symptoms of the same fundamental malaise. But what I certainly do agree with, and is how I read the piece, is that all of the comments about the criminality of the rioters do have a certain hollow ring in the light of the expenses scandal and the phone hacking scandal and all of the other symptoms of moral decay at the top of British society. Again, there are two distinct response required – that to the immediate problem of restoring order, protecting individuals, small businesses and their property; and the longer term response to a moral decay that pervades all sections of British society, not just the underclass. That seems to me to be a valid point to have raised.

 

[arildno]

I think Osborne had an excellent article.
Of course, the "alienation" from societal obligation for the upper crust has very much to do with the democratization of POLITICAL and socially defining power for the last century:
Previously, being rich gave ample opportunities to build a personally rewarding power base, say through making yourself as a Benefactor through charity, or effectively buying a parliament seat.

I.e, the road from mere riches to satisfying wielding power was much shorter than it is today.
Thus, for many rich today, it makes more sense to invest energy&capital in getting even richer, rather than trying to become more powerful.

 

[Ken Natton]

Oh dear arildno, now we are in real danger of getting off topic. But the point is worth making that the ‘upper crust’, the aristocracy, the landed gentry, as it once was, really doesn’t exist anymore. I can anticipate some of the responses that assertion might engender, but the truth is, whatever anachronistic vestiges of it that might linger, as what it was when it mattered, when it made any difference, it does not exist anymore. When we talk about the top of British society we are talking about the politicians, the business leaders, the power brokers, the senior members of the legal profession, the owners and managers of the media and such like. These are the ones of whom it might reasonably be suiggested that they should be setting a better example than they actually are.

 

[arildno]

Oh dear arildno, now we are in real danger of getting off topic. But the point is worth making that the ‘upper crust’, the aristocracy, the landed gentry, as it once was, really doesn’t exist anymore. I can anticipate some of the responses that assertion might engender, but the truth is, whatever anachronistic vestiges of it that might linger, as what it was when it mattered, when it made any difference, it does not exist anymore. When we talk about the top of British society we are talking about the politicians, the business leaders, the power brokers, the senior members of the legal profession, the owners and managers of the media and such like. These are the ones of whom it might reasonably be suiggested that they should be setting a better example than they actually are.

I specifically said "a century" ago.
To narrow it down, I would say that the development of the welfare state post WW2 finally eroded the selfish rationale behind the "noblesse oblige" mentality, that also infused the higher bourgoisie.
The local social power and status of the rich as benefactors eroded as their "social services" were no longer needed. And thus, they themselves stopped bothering about the society at large, and focused their energy on maximizing private profit instead.
Whatever else was left for them to spend their fortunes on?

 

[MarcoD]

As for despicable leftists, you probaby fit that bill precisely, not the least since you ridicule the basic idea that the primary moral obligation of this scum is to be deeply grateful for the handouts they receive.

Furthermore, I haven' changed the topic at all, rather you charged that I "only" reduced it to these scum and their basic lack of morality.
And then, I simply pointed out that I have already said that there are other groups as well who ought to be ashamed ofthemselves.

I hardly consider myself to be leftist, I also doubt that a classification like that makes sense. You did change the topic in my perception since you want to blame 'leftists,' whoever they are.

I pointed out that you oversimplified the riots beyond what is a credible analysis. As far as we know, this was a heterogenous group of mostly young social lower class, but also working people and even the daughter of a millionaire.

What is interesting about these riots is that mostly, in cases of social unrest, people riot against the government, whereas here people turned to looting shops. Criminality, recreational violence, gangculture, materialism, the financial crisis, social tension, lack of moral guidance - take your pick. But to reduce it to 'people who aren't grateful for hand-outs' -a materialist argument- fed by a leftist conspiracy? Horsedung.

 

[vici10]

The intervew on BBC with writer and activist Darcus Howe about riots in England.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn_XZ2ttCMo

 

[Evo]

The intervew on BBC with writer and activist Darcus Howe about riots in England.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn_XZ2ttCMo

OH MY! This is why you want to pre-screen interviewees to make sure they are coherent enough to be interviewed. That made absolutely no sense. It reminded me of an SNL news skit. Of course the subject is not funny, but I think they should have found another person to interview.

 

[Hurkyl]

Are you suggesting that Peter Oborne was soapboxing on some unrelated topic? Because if you were I am not sure that is fair.

Yes, that is exactly my intent.

At best, he was taking advantage of the current crisis to provide a segue into the topic he really wanted to talk about.

At worst, he is using the technique of juxtaposition to try and get you to mentally associate his topic of interest with the horrors of the current crisis.

That seems to me to be a valid point to have raised.

I said nothing about the point that was raised. My criticism is entirely upon the method he uses to get you to listen and to believe.

 

[arildno]

I hardly consider myself to be leftist, I also doubt that a classification like that makes sense. You did change the topic in my perception since you want to blame 'leftists,' whoever they are.

I pointed out that you oversimplified the riots beyond what is a credible analysis. As far as we know, this was a heterogenous group of mostly young social lower class, but also working people and even the daughter of a millionaire.

What is interesting about these riots is that mostly, in cases of social unrest, people riot against the government, whereas here people turned to looting shops. Criminality, recreational violence, gangculture, materialism, the financial crisis, social tension, lack of moral guidance - take your pick. But to reduce it to 'people who aren't grateful for hand-outs' -a materialist argument- fed by a leftist conspiracy? Horsedung.

actually, leftists are the materialist ones, blathering on and on about "entitlements" to fair shares. That this erodes the sense of civic responsibility in other layers than the underclass ought to be quite understandable.

 

[MarcoD]

actually, leftists are the materialist ones, blathering on and on about "entitlements" to fair shares. That this erodes the sense of civic responsibility in other layers than the underclass ought to be quite understandable.

Man, how many fallacies can one group into two sentences?

There is no homogenous group of 'leftists.' Only people with opinions. The left/right divide is mostly arbitrary, and people tend to have beliefs which fall on both sides.

There is a group of people who believe in social, or welfare, states. They see that as a moral obligation, some on the 'far right' even believe so.

Blathering is not the same as voicing an opinion.

There is no reason to assume that people's civic responsibility is eroded by others voicing an opinion.

You changed the topic again with a new argument: now it's not the lower class which lacks morality, but the upper class, and you still blame that on 'leftists'. A qualification which I find can only serve one purpose: to stop all meaningful debate and a deeper understanding of problems at hand.

Here, I give to you that part of the reason society is disintegrating is that it has become near impossible to have any meaningful discussion on how to fix problems since everyone (politicians) has only become interested in stating the most meaningless platitudes.

 

[mheslep]

I've seen no claims in thread that leftists are homogeneous. Leftists need only espouse leftist policies to earn the name, whatever else they may think or do.

 

[arildno]

Man, how many fallacies can one group into two sentences?

There is no homogenous group of 'leftists.' Only people with opinions. The left/right divide is mostly arbitrary, and people tend to have beliefs which fall on both sides.

There is a group of people who believe in social, or welfare, states. They see that as a moral obligation, some on the 'far right' even believe so.

Blathering is not the same as voicing an opinion.

There is no reason to assume that people's civic responsibility is eroded by others voicing an opinion.

You changed the topic again with a new argument: now it's not the lower class which lacks morality, but the upper class, and you still blame that on 'leftists'. A qualification which I find can only serve one purpose: to stop all meaningful debate and a deeper understanding of problems at hand.

Here, I give to you that part of the reason society is disintegrating is that it has become near impossible to have any meaningful discussion on how to fix problems since everyone (politicians) has only become interested in stating the most meaningless platitudes.

Yes, I fully understand that according to your view, it is the closing of youth clubs that propelled these desperate unhappy youths into an orgy of violence&robbery.

And again, it is YOU who constantly bring up new facets (in this case emphasizing the heterogeneity of the offenders, a fact I never have contested), so then again, I have to address that point.
That is NOT to "change" the topic in any ilegitimate manner, it is to follow YOR train of thought, however disjointed and silly it may seem.Furthermore, constant drivel spouted forth from social workers, pseudo-academics, politicians DO have effect on peoples' outlook on the world.

Just as a barrage of solid arguments can affect peoples' outlook.
So, yes, blathering can perfectly well shape other peoples' outlook, as long as there is a sufficient amount of blather tending in one direction.