London riots

[mac1]

I suppose that the irony of your signature has passed you by.

Would you mind butting out whilst the grown-ups carry on talking?

Well, talking about irony, the irony of yours has certainly passed you by.

As for talk about grown ups, more irony(as usual), as many of the left never grow out of their student union, be-as-radical-as-you-like-because-the-stakes-are-so-low-on-the-campus politics which they take with them decades after they should have ditched them after having entered the real world.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

And I say that they don't want to go to prison - they just want a hot meal. It's hardly relevant to the issue at hand though. As a general point, are you aware of any evidence linking the toughness of prison with lower re-offending rates?

Your exact words were

Oh come on. Nobody wants to go to prison.

. You also asked me what I thought was a real punishment. I answered. Now you want proof to back up my beliefs. They are beliefs. I am not goimg to provide proof other than the current system is clearly not working.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

So are you suggesting they need cuddles and soft words instead? All teenagers feel disenfranchised it is biology. Most don't behave like mindless thugs or fearists. (Terrorist is off limits so...)

Do you seriously think that the only options are either fascism or cuddles?

Honestly?

[edit: I see that User482 has already replied in much the same way]

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Do you seriously think that the options are either fascism or cuddles?

Honestly?

In most cases extremes are never the answer but if your house is no fire you could either stand back and let the fire take your possesions whilst hoping it will be ok or call the fire brigade and use water (force) to deal with it.

 

[User482]

Your exact words were . You also asked me what I thought was a real punishment. I answered. Now you want proof to back up my beliefs. They are beliefs. I am not goimg to provide proof other than the current system is clearly not working.

So you believe that harsher prison is the answer, but have no evidence to support your contention.

You'll forgive me if I don't take your opinion too seriously.

 

[plainlazy]

Oh come on. This is like the Jamie Bolgeq murded being blamed on Childs Play 3. This type of argument removes responsibility from the perpitrators of the crimes.
As for us "all being responsible" I would agree if the general public had a right to fight crime. As we don't how the hell can we (as the public) be responsible for the actions of sheeple?

I'm not removing any responsibility from the perpitrators, Angelfishsolo. What i'm saying is this video game is very popular and has big sales figures.
Have you ever played it ?
Personnally i find the game quite disturbing and i think it is one of the contributors to how things are going within our society. It is certainly not the reason these individuals have taken to the streets but it is part of a much bigger picture.
While i totally condemm what crimes these people have committed. i feel that the blame lies with the powers that be and their mismanagement of our country.

 

[Mad at urage]

If the best you can manage is pedantry and a reference to those unfortunates who have become institutionalized, you don't have much of a point.

If the best you can do when proved wrong is to reply "you don't have much of a point", then you don't have much of an argument.

You were demonstrably wrong, on both counts. Let's see you get it right.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

In most cases extremes are never the answer but if your house is no fire you could either stand back and let the fire take your possesions whilst hoping it will be ok or call the fire brigade and use water (force) to deal with it.

That's a complete non-sequitur. I was responding to a post that was advocating Stalinism - disappearing people into gulags. You know, all the terrible stuff that we spent the Twentieth Century trying to stop.

That's a very different thing that saying you'd defend your house. I would too. But no, you can't analogise upwards and say 'well, that's just like the situation the state is in now' - it isn't.

 

[User482]

If the best you can do when proved wrong is to reply "you don't have much of a point", then you don't have much of an argument.

You were demonstrably wrong, on both counts. Let's see you get it right.

Only in your fertile imagination. Bye!

 

[Angelfishsolo]

If the best you can do when proved wrong is to reply "you don't have much of a point", then you don't have much of an argument.

You were demonstrably wrong, on both counts. Let's see you get it right.

 

[mac1]

I was responding to a post that was advocating Stalinism - disappearing people into gulags. You know, all the terrible stuff that we spent the Twentieth Century trying to stop.

WE???If the left weren't spying for the Russians during the cold war, they were certainly supporting them!

 

[Angelfishsolo]

That's a complete non-sequitur. I was responding to a post that was advocating Stalinism - disappearing people into gulags. You know, all the terrible stuff that we spent the Twentieth Century trying to stop.

That's a very different thing that saying you'd defend your house. I would too. But no, you can't analogise upwards and say 'well, that's just like the situation the state is in now' - it isn't.

History tells us that Stalin did what he did in order to secure power. A little different to punishing fearists. As the saying goes "The only thing necessary for evil to sucseed is for good men to do nothing".

 

[martint235]

I'd definitely ask what size the frame was. 54cm top tube please.

63cm if possible please. Not a great deal of street demand for one that size I wouldn't have thought.

 

[Adasta]

WE???If the left weren't spying for the Russians during the cold war, they were certainly supporting them!

"We" meaning "humans", I suspect.

 

[User482]

History tells us that Stalin did what he did in order to secure power. A little different to punishing fearists. As the saying goes "The only thing necessary for evil to sucseed is for good men to do nothing".

Again a non-sequitur. Unless you're suggesting that the response of "good men" is to send folk to the gulag.