Cameron blames UK riots on 'moral collapse'

[BJJ-Blue]

"Prime Minister David Cameron blames the riots that shook Britain over the past 10 days on a "slow-motion moral collapse ... in parts of our country," he said Monday.

Cameron listed problems including "Irresponsibility. Selfishness. Behaving as if your choices have no consequences. Children without fathers. Schools without discipline. Reward without effort. Crime without punishment. Rights without responsibilities. Communities without control," in a speech in his constituency in Oxfordshire.

And he promised that the government will "review every aspect of our work to mend our broken society" in the coming weeks.

Thousands of people have been arrested and processed through courts working around the clock since violence erupted over the killing of a man in London during a police operation."

Source: (complete article)
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/08/15/uk.riots/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

We here in the US better take heed of this, or we will be facing these riots in our cities in the future.

[stoic]

And he promised that the government will "review every aspect of our work to mend our broken society" in the coming weeks.

This is the real problem--a collectivist belief that governments can solve these problems.

[David Jamieson]

This is the real problem--a collectivist belief that governments can solve these problems.

Correct.

Cameron will use this unrest to apply more oppressive measures to the working class citizens of the UK.

This is not a result, but a symptom of poor management of the country, it's policies and it's resources.

I don't think Cameron is to blame for that. I think it's been culminating for a long time. In my opinion, multiculturalism is in fact a farce and a failure and should be done away with.

Nothing wrong with having a complete and separate identity that is your own. Nothing is wrong with different cultures remaining themselves and not becoming some h0m0genous soup.

The only thing that multiculturalism has brought to our shores is further divide in the views of the electorate and an easy way to divide us against each other politically.

In every single country that has used it, it is seeing failure. UK isn't the first to see the faults with it. Hopefully it is starting ground to setting it correct.

[BJJ-Blue]

The only thing that multiculturalism has brought to our shores is further divide in the views of the electorate and an easy way to divide us against each other politically.

In every single country that has used it, it is seeing failure. UK isn't the first to see the faults with it. Hopefully it is starting ground to setting it correct.

So why do you vote for people who promote that garbage? And why do you call me a racist when I point out differences in demographics?

But you're right in that the problem has been brewing awhile. When you take fathers out of the equation, punish success, and reward laziness, anyone of average intelligence can see these problems coming.

[bawang]

brtiain need to be strong like china.

[Taixuquan99]

Well, there's still time to turn back the clock and return to more traditional British values, like class division, punk rock, and rugby.

[David Jamieson]

They still hang onto the traditional value of class division.
They just like to outwardly pretend they don't actually practice it.
I think India does this too with their Caste system

Oh sure, they say it's not there and it's not practiced, but hey, look at the myriad examples of just that taking place!

[Brule]

The caste system is very much a reality in those cultures according to co-workers of the missus and here. Don't let outward appearances fool you.

[David Jamieson]

The caste system is very much a reality in those cultures according to co-workers of the missus and here. Don't let outward appearances fool you.

I don't! lol

I remember when Obama got elected and all the posts popping up about how America wasn't racists anymore! lol

I was like:
http://troll.me/images/jackie-chan-whut/wtf.jpg

I have friends who think Canada doesn't have racism... yes, they're all white and they all live in upper middle class neighbourhoods. :rolleyes:

Many of us are what we read. c'est la vie!

[Taixuquan99]

Economic downturns and riots are common cousins, no need for more explanation.

Unemployed young men in large numbers are traditionally a good indicator of possible rebellion.

Not everything supports our favorite paradigm. There were no good old days, unless we're talking before scarcity drove humans out of areas that supported them.

[BJJ-Blue]

Economic downturns and riots are common cousins, no need for more explanation.

Japan has been in an economic mess for over 10 years now. You don't see them rioting and burning down parts of their cities.

It's not so much about economics as it is about morals.

[David Jamieson]

Japan has been in an economic mess for over 10 years now. You don't see them rioting and burning down parts of their cities.

It's not so much about economics as it is about morals.

The Japanese culture is so far and apart. Do you think Japanese culture is anything at all like western culture? Do you think that the Japanese people have the same type of social contract as the one you live under or for that matter the brits?

they have an entirely different society so alien to your own that it is obvious to anyone who knows that, that to compare the British social sensibilities to those of the Japanese is on the face of it ridiculous.

It's like kindergarten students vs University students as far as social constructs go.

Morals? What an empty idea. Who's morals? The rich people's morals or the poor people's morals?

Is it moral for the billionaires to send jobs away from their countrymen?
Is it moral that only wealthy people have a say in governance of a country?
Is it moral to have religious commentary during political campaigns?

[Taixuquan99]

Japan has been in an economic mess for over 10 years now. You don't see them rioting and burning down parts of their cities.

It's not so much about economics as it is about morals.

Yes, the Japanese are more moral than the brits, you're absolutley correct, well proven.

This proves the superior moral character of atheists, given than most Japanese do not believe in religion as anything more than a customary practice to follow in a Confucian manner.

[Taixuquan99]

Rioting against the British government is bad, an American said so.

[David Jamieson]

My problem with teh rioters is that they were not rioting against the british government.

they were in essence screwing themselves, hurting small business and having zero impact on the issue of the police, the government, the class separation that has been going on for decades and so on and so forth.

Not one rioter said or did anything that made me think in terms of that being a protest. It was frustration with socio-economic conditions, class separation frustration, racism frustration and so on.

people are fed up with being told they're equal when in action, it is quite clear that they are not considered equal at all.

It has become standard to say: "I'm sorry I can't hear what you are saying because your actions are speaking so loudly!"

the breakdown is moral all right. The kind of morals that Cameron and his crew should have and be spreading is not being done and so that reflection is ugly isn't it?

[BJJ-Blue]

Morals? What an empty idea. Who's morals? The rich people's morals or the poor people's morals?

Is it moral for the billionaires to send jobs away from their countrymen?
Is it moral that only wealthy people have a say in governance of a country?
Is it moral to have religious commentary during political campaigns?

Why is it always rich vs poor with you? Or racism? Or religion? Morals are morals, be they in a rich family or in a poor family. And morals are also morals in both religious and non-religious households. And morals are morals no matter what the race of the family is.

It's simple, in Japan the traditional family unit is present in alot more households than in Britain.

It's amazing, we are seeing this crap in Britain and to a lesser extent in Philadelphia. And the PM of Britain and the Mayor of Philadelphia are both blaming the exact same things! Yet you want this to be another issue you can use to promote class warfare.

[Taixuquan99]

Any society that needs to look to political leaders for their morality is in trouble.

Also, people like to say "such and such riot failed, because of such and such," but you can bet that governments faced with rioting in the streets are almost always forced to change something, though they may choose strong arm approaches as a short-term solution, eventually they are usually forced to make more substantial changes.

I see no evidence that British leaders are less moral than our leaders, same with the citizens.

[Taixuquan99]

It's simple, in Japan the traditional family unit is present in alot more households than in Britain.



You do not have the expertise to make this assumption. First, Japanese culture is, on this front, traditionally far more lockstep than British culture, but it is not an issue of morality, but of custom. Second, the rationale is often based around unity no matter what, right or wrong. To see an example of another culture using the same idea, many Chinese are accepting of the PRC because they feel it is best to back it while it provides a strong economy, irrespective of other considerations.

Your argument conflates moral and non-moral issues.

Which gets to your statement that morals are morals, the same accross the board. This is flat out false by any standard.

[BJJ-Blue]

You do not have the expertise to make this assumption.

But I have the statisitcs to show that I spoke the facts:

"Living together, the all but universal prelude to parenthood in the West, has yet to reach high-rent, socially prudish Japan, as the low-to-vanishing illegitimacy rate, 1.1 per cent of births, indicates (Britain’s is around 24 per cent, Sweden’s nearing 60). Japan has more industrial robots than any country in the world; but robots don’t fall in love, have babies, or buy fridges and school uniforms."

Source: (full article)
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v23/n07/murray-sayle/japan-goes-dutch

Japan: 1.1%
Britain: 24%

[BJJ-Blue]

You're splitting hairs and not getting my (or the PM or Mayor's) point. It's not why the fathers aren't present that's what needs to be discussed, it's the fact that they aren't present that is the problem.

[Taixuquan99]

But I have the statisitcs to show that I spoke the facts:

"Living together, the all but universal prelude to parenthood in the West, has yet to reach high-rent, socially prudish Japan, as the low-to-vanishing illegitimacy rate, 1.1 per cent of births, indicates (Britain’s is around 24 per cent, Sweden’s nearing 60). Japan has more industrial robots than any country in the world; but robots don’t fall in love, have babies, or buy fridges and school uniforms."

Source: (full article)
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v23/n07/murray-sayle/japan-goes-dutch

Japan: 1.1%
Britain: 24%

Amazing that you can pick moral high ground from a paragraph that, just a few lines before, says that women aren't marrying because most sons are eldest sons, and, as wife, they would have to act as their mother-in-laws unpaid in-house domestic. And still fail to understand that, while the tightness of the Japanese family unit may explain the lockstep nature in aspects of the culture(as could the relative dearth of land), this does not equate to a measure of morals, but merely custom.

[Taixuquan99]

You're splitting hairs and not getting my (or the PM or Mayor's) point. It's not why the fathers aren't present that's what needs to be discussed, it's the fact that they aren't present that is the problem.

What percentage of the rioters were fatherless again?

And in what universe does having a British father prevent hooliganism?

[BJJ-Blue]

You're getting ridiculous now.

I'm just repeating what the Prime Minister of Britain and the Mayor of Philadelphia are saying are the cause of the riots in their country/city. And they blame moral decay, and have specifically blamed the lack of fathers as a huge part of that problem.

So do those guys not know what they're talking about? Do they not have the expertise to make those statements?

[Taixuquan99]

Let me get the question right. You're asking if I think political leaders are qualified to determine right and wrong?

No, I don't think so. What it takes to be moral and what it takes to be a political leader simply don't share enough common ground.

Again, what percentage of the rioters were fatherless? Are you saying the PM is hiding these statistics? Or simply doesn't know?

[BJJ-Blue]

Let me get the question right. You're asking if I think political leaders are qualified to determine right and wrong?

No, I'm not asking you for that. Those men pointed out "cause and effect", not morals, right vs wrong, etc.

[BJJ-Blue]

Again, what percentage of the rioters were fatherless?

Actually if you just played the percentages, in Philadelphia you could argue it's over 50%.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I can't believe people are surprised at rioting in GB, LOL !!!
Rioting is like second nature to them, it's the British way of saying, "Blimey mate, since you don't seem to be listening, howsabout I take my cricket paddle across your face, eh guvnor"?

[Taixuquan99]

That's funny, because the stats you stated are ten years old. If it were simply morals, these riots would have happened then. So some other factor is at play.

Oh yeah, economics.

[Taixuquan99]

Actually if you just played the percentages, in Philadelphia you could argue it's over 50%.

Source??????

[Taixuquan99]

The Japanese family unit was also strong during World War II. Less riots.

But those immoral Chinese in Manchuria, rioting every chance they got.

[BJJ-Blue]

Source??????

The last time I posted the illigitamacy rate among blacks, I was threatened with a ban and called racist. Look them up on your own, but they are over 50%.

[BJJ-Blue]

That's funny, because the stats you stated are ten years old. If it were simply morals, these riots would have happened then. So some other factor is at play.

Oh yeah, economics.

Those people in Britain aren't even CLAIMING to be rioting over that!!!!

It started over a police shooting. And now it's just a chance for certain people to loot, riot, burn, assault, etc. If it's over ecomonics, I'm sure you have pics of signs the rioters are carrying calling for different economic policies. Right?

[BJJ-Blue]

So I ask a simple YES or NO question:

Is the Mayor of Philadelphia and the PM of Britain wrong when they blame moral decay for the riots? YES or NO.

[Taixuquan99]

The last time I posted the illigitamacy rate among blacks, I was threatened with a ban and called racist. Look them up on your own, but they are over 50%.

So you're saying only the 50% fatherless rioted? Source????

[Taixuquan99]

Those people in Britain aren't even CLAIMING to be rioting over that!!!!

It started over a police shooting. And now it's just a chance for certain people to loot, riot, burn, assault, etc. If it's over ecomonics, I'm sure you have pics of signs the rioters are carrying calling for different economic policies. Right?

You're being obtuse. It's not about what signs say, people tend to riot more when economics are bad, economics are bad, people who weren't rioting like this five years ago are. Some are because of perceived injustice, a lot are just frustrated and lashing out, and some are just, as SR points out, British.

[Taixuquan99]

So I ask a simple YES or NO question:

Is the Mayor of Philadelphia and the PM of Britain wrong when they blame moral decay for the riots? YES or NO.

I thought the riots started over a police shooting?

Was the officer fatherless?

Were the rioters fatherless?

By percentage please.

[BJJ-Blue]

So you're saying only the 50% fatherless rioted? Source????


I thought the riots started over a police shooting?

Was the officer fatherless?

Were the rioters fatherless?

By percentage please.

I'm done. You've gotten too ridiculous.


I'll just remind everyone that both the Mayor of Philadelphia and the Prime Minister of Britain both blamed moral decay for the riots they are facing, and they both specifically mentioned the lack of fathers as a huge part of the moral decay.

[David Jamieson]

I thought the riots started over a police shooting?

Was the officer fatherless?

Were the rioters fatherless?

By percentage please.

He's switched bait. I guess he thought the other one wasn't working.
This one isn't either.

This is what I see, and it's related:

We have some pretty rich and powerful folk who own a lot of the media and it seems they want to paint unions as bloated and poor people as riotous thieves.

It's not hard to predict the behaviours of people if the correct elements are put into place.

Class struggle made worse by ever widening class gap.
Unions represent the common man doing well for himself, so there is an attempt to destroy those as well.

Governments have been tainted by couching wealthy picks and choices into the running by eliminating competition with economic needs to run a campaign.

you simply can't press people down and expect them to do nothing.

Be less greedy, be more giving and stop moving jobs out of the country and writing laws that benefit the very rich and burden the very poor.

Cause, it'll get worse if this is not done.

[David Jamieson]

I'm done. You've gotten too ridiculous.


I'll just remind everyone that both the Mayor of Philadelphia and the Prime Minister of Britain both blamed moral decay for the riots they are facing, and they both specifically mentioned the lack of fathers as a huge part of the moral decay.

Case in point.

when delivered with a bit of counter truth, he buckles.
Thanks for proving my point BJ.

[Taixuquan99]

I'm not a b@st@rd.

[David Jamieson]

I'm not a b@st@rd.

Nor are you an animal, but that growth still throws me anytime I see it! :eek:

[BJJ-Blue]

Case in point.

when delivered with a bit of counter truth, he buckles.
Thanks for proving my point BJ.

Just STFU.

All I posted was what 2 elected officials said and he got ridiculous and said I needed to show if a cop involved in a shooting was fatherless. How in the world can I be expected to be rational with someone that ridiculous? Geez, and I thought you were ridiculous.

But yeah, he really got me. When I couldn't post up stats about looter's family structures, he showed he really owned the debate. :rolleyes:

It's amazing that as different as Philadelphia and Britain are that the 2 people in charge of those areas found one factor they both agreed was a huge cause of the riots in their parts of the world. And then you guys can't deal with it and get totally ridiculous.

[David Jamieson]

Just STFU.

All I posted was what 2 elected officials said and he got ridiculous and said I needed to show if a cop involved in a shooting was fatherless. How in the world can I be expected to be rational with someone that ridiculous? Geez, and I thought you were ridiculous.

But yeah, he really got me. When I couldn't post up stats about looter's family structures, he showed he really owned the debate. :rolleyes:

It's amazing that as different as Philadelphia and Britain are that the 2 people in charge of those areas found one factor they both agreed was a huge cause of the riots in their parts of the world. And then you guys can't deal with it and get totally ridiculous.

Nay nay, I will not STFU.
But you go ahead and feel free to do so at any point along the line here.

you ask why is it rich or poor?
I ask you, why is it libs or dems who you paint as evil?

The rich don't live in a very different way than the poor? they don't cause problems? they don't take money out of the economic engine and put it away from their countrymen who need it?

Your stats are worthless by the very nature of the being stats. Stats aren't proof, they are data sets that can be moved around to prove whatever point you would like.

If you had taken stats in school, you would understand this about that particular field. It's good to gauge trends when they are looked at honestly, but it is rare that this is done and instead, stats are collected to political ends mostly to be used to produce policy and manipulated to that end whether the policy is actually required or not.

there isn't that much difference between a rich American with millions of dollars and in power of a huge city and the guy who is in charge of another level of government, also western and also who has personal wealth unlike his average countrymen. this is true of both these leaders that you say are dissimilar. Not much difference there at all, except one shops at target and the other at tescos.

You didn't think people would buy into that did you? lol. Because to call these men worlds apart is wrong at the base of it.

[Taixuquan99]

Usually, if the political head of an area has unexpected riots, people don't consider them some sort of expert.

When bsiness interests act without moral consideration, people don't view stealing from them stealing at all.

When immigrants are brought in to undercut the locals, and the immigrants are treated by all sides like dirt, things are gonna happen.

I would agree there are moral considerations, they just run a broader range than blaming "fatherless children."

[BJJ-Blue]

Sometimes we make simple issues so complex we just argue over BS and never fix the issue.

I grew up in the 80s-early 90s. I remember when Boyz in the Hood came out. I didn't so much care about it at first, I figured it was just a movie glorifying gang violence. When it opened up you had gang shootings at some theaters it played at and the director, John Singleton, was on TV discusssing it. He said that it was terrible this was happening because he said the movie was made to try and stop the violence and fix the problems in the 'hood. He said that he knew the biggest problem in the inner city black community was a lack of fathers. So I went to see it. And that was a very good movie, and Mr Singleton was right. It didn't glorify violence and it did send the message that a father was very important. Of all the major characters, the only one to escape the 'hood was the one that had a father, and that father raised him with a strong moral compass. So I've had this theory in my head fo a long time, and now years later more and more people besides Mr Singleton are seeing it, and admitting it.

Even you guys who are arguing with me, ask yourselves this: Is it better for a child to be raised by a good mother alone, or a good mother and a good father together? No matter our differences, we should all agree on the answer to that question.

[Taixuquan99]

So a kid raised with a mother and father is better than Jesus?

All kidding aside, it's terribly politically naive to believe that the reason these riots happened is fatherless children. They're not like a union, you don't get a text from the b@st@rds union letting you know that a riot is going down, and it fails to explain all the people raised by two parents who take part.

[BJJ-Blue]

So a kid raised with a mother and father is better than Jesus?

Jesus was raised by 2 parents.


All kidding aside, it's terribly politically naive to believe that the reason these riots happened is fatherless children. They're not like a union, you don't get a text from the b@st@rds union letting you know that a riot is going down, and it fails to explain all the people raised by two parents who take part.

Sometimes you have to look at and read statisitcs and use common sense.

In the US; Look at the unemployment rates for whites, hispanics, and blacks. Now look at the illigitimacy rates among white, hispanics, and blacks. See a correllation?

[BJJ-Blue]

And it's not just Hollywood directors, it's regular people who say that too.

The guy who used to do our lawn was a guy who did 10 years in prison for drug possession. He's out now, and has a kid. He said he grew up without a dad, and he ended up running the streets and in prison. He said now you couldn't keep him from his kid. He said he never misses a child support payment, or a visit. He said he's is working 3 jobs so he can take care of his kid because he doesn't want his kid to turn out like he did at 15. So this guy lived it, and he agrees with the Mayor, the director, and the PM. And I agree with the lawn guy, the Mayor, the director, and the PM.

Again, everything else aside, we have to agree it's better to raise kids in a home with 2 parents instead of 1. Ask anyone in law enforcement, or corrections, or any judge or prosecutor or defense attorney. I'll bet they all agree kids with 2 parents become part of the legal process at a lower rate than those with just one parent.

[Taixuquan99]

Jesus was raised by 2 parents.

Good point, forgot about Joseph.




Sometimes you have to look at and read statisitcs and use common sense.

Common sense has its uses, but nuclear physics and demographics are not chief among them.


In the US; Look at the unemployment rates for whites, hispanics, and blacks. Now look at the illigitimacy rates among white, hispanics, and blacks. See a correllation?

Yes, being white in a country with a fairly recent history of making all but whites an underclass has long term benefits.

What percentage of labor slaves in the U.S. currently are white or hispanic? The major fruit producers who employ them, are they managed mostly by whites or hispanics? Whose morals are in question?

Given that no one, in their right mind, believes that all the rioters were fatherless, one still has to explain why all the others who have two parents acted in exactly the same way.

I wonder what percentage of pot smokers have no father figure. This is the cause of pot smoking.

[Taixuquan99]

And it's not just Hollywood directors, it's regular people who say that too.

The guy who used to do our lawn was a guy who did 10 years in prison for drug possession. He's out now, and has a kid. He said he grew up without a dad, and he ended up running the streets and in prison. He said now you couldn't keep him from his kid. He said he never misses a child support payment, or a visit. He said he's is working 3 jobs so he can take care of his kid because he doesn't want his kid to turn out like he did at 15. So this guy lived it, and he agrees with the Mayor, the director, and the PM. And I agree with the lawn guy, the Mayor, the director, and the PM.

Again, everything else aside, we have to agree it's better to raise kids in a home with 2 parents instead of 1. Ask anyone in law enforcement, or corrections, or any judge or prosecutor or defense attorney. I'll bet they all agree kids with 2 parents become part of the legal process at a lower rate than those with just one parent.

Where is a single statistic that shows any reason to believe that most of the rioters were fatherless? At best, you Phillie stat shows that, if a typical mix showed up, it was only half from broken families, and there's no proof that even that is the case.

If a typical British group showed up, it's only a quarter fatherless children.

The argument is basically, "If only we had less b@st@rds, our riots would be smaller."

[BJJ-Blue]

Common sense has its uses, but nuclear physics and demographics are not chief among them.

I agree about the nuclear physics, but not about demographics. Some are common sense. You don't have to be a doctor to figure out pretty quickly that you only have to test certain people for sickle-cell anemia.


Yes, being white in a country with a fairly recent history of making all but whites an underclass has long term benefits.

Asians aren't considered "white", and their unemployment rate is even lower than whites.


What percentage of labor slaves in the U.S. currently are white or hispanic? The major fruit producers who employ them, are they managed mostly by whites or hispanics? Whose morals are in question?

"labor slaves"? Please don't tell me you look at life through those glasses, or I'll have to admit I'm wasting my time.


Given that no one, in their right mind, believes that all the rioters were fatherless, one still has to explain why all the others who have two parents acted in exactly the same way.

I wonder what percentage of pot smokers have no father figure. This is the cause of pot smoking.

What's with this fatherless crap in terms of what percentage of rioters fall into that category? It's moot. Once I showed that Japan has a worse economy than Philly and Britain, but no rioters, I thought you might actually grasp the simple "cause and effect" concept.

I had a dad, and he raised me right. I work, I don't have kids I don't support, I've never been to prison, etc. I'm just a normal guy. But I smoke weed. My parents raised me good there. They were pretty up front they knew I'd try alcohol and pot, but said if I ever tried heroin, coke, etc, there would be a huge problem. Of course they also said I could not drink and drive or use at home and that my grades had better stay up. In short, they told me to use common sense. Of course seeing Less Than Zero guaranteed I'd never try cocaine anyway. ;)



The argument is basically, "If only we had less b@st@rds, our riots would be smaller."

No, my point is that if we had more children raised in good, decent, 2 parent homes, there wouldn't be so many kids with no moral compass who turn into adults with no moral compass. It's a terrible cycle that needs to be broken. Any inner city community activist who is honest will admit that's the biggest problem they face, a lack of fathers. And in any city, where do you see the biggest amount of crime? It's not nuclear physics. ;)

[Taixuquan99]

Asians aren't considered "white", and their unemployment rate is even lower than whites.

Speaking about the Chinese part of that demographic, common sense will not give you a good answer. Networking is an important aspect, the fact that, as a demographic, Chinese tend not to acclimate to the host culture, but form tight knit Chinese networks able to navigate the culture while maintaining their own as dominant in many cases. Stressing education is also big, but if you want to discuss Chinese and riots, it gets a bit more messy.

As to Chinese in America, you would be appalled if you read up on the history, even semi-recent in some states.



"labor slaves"? Please don't tell me you look at life through those glasses, or I'll have to admit I'm wasting my time.

I'm refering to people carted in to work farms who are not allowed to leave those farms, mostly from Mexico. It's not an insignificant number, and they make effectively nothing for their efforts.


What's with this fatherless crap in terms of what percentage of rioters fall into that category? It's moot.

You're blaming what leads to riots on fatherless kids, it's not moot.


Once I showed that Japan has a worse economy than Philly and Britain, but no rioters, I thought you might actually grasp the simple "cause and effect" concept.

This is why common sense does not equate to knowing what you're talking about. The very article you quoted as showing the tightness of the Japanese family unit suggested, among other things, rationales for that tightness in some cases that were not moral. Further, you rule out all other factors without even knowing them. Next, you magically avoid the fact that the Japanese family unit was strong in WWII, during the worst of the Japanese atrocities. You have not shown that morals are the reason for the difference.



No, my point is that if we had more children raised in good, decent, 2 parent homes, there wouldn't be so many kids with no moral compass who turn into adults with no moral compass. It's a terrible cycle that needs to be broken. Any inner city community activist who is honest will admit that's the biggest problem they face, a lack of fathers. And in any city, where do you see the biggest amount of crime? It's not nuclear physics. ;)

You still fail, as does the PM, to link the overall riots to what you are discusing. Most riots are not single cause events, so any explanation attempting to make them so is likely to be naive.

[BJJ-Blue]

Let's try it this way:

If someone says one of the leading causes of HIV/AIDS infection is through IV drug users sharing needles, would you say that guy is wrong unless he could show you exactly what percentage of IV drug users were infected with HIV/AIDS?

[Taixuquan99]

Let's try it this way:

If someone says one of the leading causes of HIV/AIDS infection is through IV drug users sharing needles, would you say that guy is wrong unless he could show you exactly what percentage of IV drug users were infected with HIV/AIDS?

If they had evidence that one of the leading causes of HIV/AIDS is sharing needles, they would be doing exactly what the two officials you are quoting are not, proving their case.

There is no evidence that fatherless children were a solid cause of both riots. When there is, then they have something to base judgment on, but barely any time after a riot, this kind of declarartion is moralizing, and politicians are usually selling BS when they start moralizing.

[BJJ-Blue]

So are you saying that it's not any better to raise kids in a 2 parent household than it is to raise kids in a 1 parent household?

And I still cannot believe you are arguing with the very people who run that city/country. You're getting into Jamieson territory, where you say you know more than people with actual experience in the matters we are discussing.

And don't you find it strange that a PM of a country and the Mayor of a city with different demographics, different laws, in different countries, with different economic policies, with different societal factors, etc both agree that one of the main causes of their riots are the same?

[Taixuquan99]

I'm saying that neither riot was made up entirely of fatherless children, and you know I'm right.

Again, single factor explanations for riots are bad science.

[BJJ-Blue]

Again, single factor explanations for riots are bad science.

Neither the Mayor or the PM blamed one factor for the riots. Have you been debating all this time despite not knowing all the facts?

And fyi, you're being ridiculous. Not me, or the PM, or the Mayor ever said it was made up of entirely fatherless children. You are putting words in people's mouths again. I've noticed you liberals have a very bad habit of doing that. Can you not debate/refute what people actually say, and thus have to make up things they said in order to refute it?

[BJJ-Blue]

From the article:

"Cameron listed problems including "Irresponsibility. Selfishness. Behaving as if your choices have no consequences. Children without fathers. Schools without discipline. Reward without effort. Crime without punishment. Rights without responsibilities. Communities without control," in a speech in his constituency in Oxfordshire."

I can count 9 different factors the PM blamed, not just 1.

[MasterKiller]

Jesus was raised by 2 parents.?

Jesus was raised by his step-father. His real dad never even sent birthday cards.

[Taixuquan99]

YOU are debating single factor explanations.

Enjoy your debate.

[Taixuquan99]

Jesus was raised by his step-father. His real dad never even sent birthday cards.

This explains all the wine and the hooker.

[BJJ-Blue]

YOU are debating single factor explanations.

I know I am. I just didn't know that until you pointed it out. :rolleyes:

[BJJ-Blue]

YOU are debating single factor explanations.


But you're right in that the problem has been brewing awhile. When you take fathers out of the equation, punish success, and reward laziness, anyone of average intelligence can see these problems coming.

Yup, I only mentioned 1 factor. My math and reading skills are really off today.

[Taixuquan99]

Funny how the portion of the speach in the other thread you included is entirely about fatherless kids and the importance of being fathers, you're whole argument is about the family unit and your main statistic is illigitimacy rates, and yet you're arguing something else.

Blame the messenger, I know.

Passive aggresive BS.

Riots often have a link to economics and unemployment, both areas face those problems, but it's 100% fatherless children to blame. Without them, no outsourcing, I'm sure.

[Taixuquan99]

Yup, I only mentioned 1 factor. My math and reading skills are really off today.

The main crux of your argument has been illigitimacy. Tangential comments do not change this.

If you do not feel your argument based on illigitimacy suufices as an explanation at this point, we can include other points, but that supports my argument, that it's more complex, and involves numerous factors. This would be admitting you were wrong, I know that's difficult for you.

[Taixuquan99]

London Riots 2011: Youth Unemployment at Heart of Problem

"A recent report from Britain’s Office of National Statistics indicated that joblessness among people between the ages of 16 and 24 has been rising steadily from 14.0 percent in the first quarter of 2008 (at the onset of the global financial crisis) to 20.0 percent in the first quarter of 2011 – an astounding 40 percent spike in just three years.

Thus, there are at least 1 million jobless youths in Britain."

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/195166/20110809/london-riots-youth-unemployment.htm


20%

Japan's overall unemployment is 4.6%

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/japan/unemployment-rate

Phillie ranges between 9% and 11%.

The rioting areas all have much higher unemployment than Japan.

[rett]

Phillie ranges between 9% and 11%.


The kids in Philadelphia who the mayor was talking about couldn't get a job even if they wanted to because of their attitude, their bad behavior and their unwillingness to dress or groom themselves properly.

The whole speech is excellent. It brings up many more points than just absent fathers. Here's the link: http://charioteers.org/2011/08/12/a-speech-by-the-mayor-of-philadelphia/

It's actually refreshing to hear politicians speak the truth candidly instead of hemming and hawing with the usual politically correct cliches as here in Sweden.

[Taixuquan99]

The kids in Philadelphia who the mayor was talking about couldn't get a job even if they wanted to because of their bad behavior and inability to dress or groom themselves properly.


Which is irrelevant in regards overall looting, especially in London, if there are no jobs, anyway. The cross section of rioters in London was broader than this, and probably was so in Phillie to a lesser degree.


The whole speech is excellent. It brings up many more points than just absent fathers. Here's the link: http://charioteers.org/2011/08/12/a-speech-by-the-mayor-of-philadelphia/

It's actually refreshing to hear politicians speak the truth candidly instead of hemming and hawing with the usual politically correct cliches as here in Sweden.

Given that the part of the speech bjj shared was entirely about illigitimacy, one is left to assume that is the topic he is focusing on. Because it is.

Nonetheless, high unemployment and riots historically go hand in hand.

[rett]

The cross section of rioters in London was broader than this, and probably was so in Phillie to a lesser degree.

Actually it wasn't. Really, give the speech a read. It's worth it.

The Phillie incidents have been gangs of 20–30 teenagers from 11 to 19 years old. It is a pretty narrow cross section.

I'm writing about Philadelphia here now because its thread was closed, and these two topics seem pretty closely related.

[Taixuquan99]

Really, give the speech a read. It's worth it.

I read it. It's fine, but not as an explanatory model for riots.


The Phillie incidents have been gangs of 20–30 teenagers from 11 to 19 years old. It is a pretty narrow cross section.

An 11 year old was arrested, yes. Where are your stats from?


I'm writing about Philadelphia here now because its thread was closed, and these two topics seem pretty closely related.

One riot was related to a police shooting and involved a lot more people from a wide cross section of the populace, one was not. Both involved areas with high numbers of unemployed young men, which is probably one of the most important figures for predicting unrest.

High numbers of unemployed young men in any culture is considered bad mojo in political science.

[rett]

An 11 year old was arrested, yes. Where are your stats from?


The mayor's speech. He gets reports directly from the police.


High numbers of unemployed young men in any culture is considered bad mojo in political science.

And it's worse if they have attitude problems and make themselves unemployable.


It's not just the "system's" fault.


I read it. It's fine, but not as an explanatory model for riots.

Politicians aren't presenting "explanatory models". They are addressing an audience. The Phillie Mayor was addressing the community from which the rioters came. He was telling them all, parents and kids, to shape up their a$$es or things would get drastic. He did it in a humorous way, in a Church.

Cameron was basically saying with his speech that we're sick of all the blame-the-victim and excuse-the-criminals mentality inherited from years of soft-brained labour lameness. (which has also infested Sweden very badly). It's time to put more demands on people. Cameron is spot on about with his description of people who believe they deserve some sort of entitlement.

[BJJ-Blue]

Funny how the portion of the speach in the other thread you included is entirely about fatherless kids and the importance of being fathers, ...

And I clearly pointed out that I only posted part of the equation and linked to the entire speech.


Riots often have a link to economics and unemployment, both areas face those problems, but it's 100% fatherless children to blame. Without them, no outsourcing, I'm sure.

Again, neither I, the PM, or the Mayor said this. Only you have said that we did though. :rolleyes:


Cameron listed problems including "Irresponsibility. Selfishness. Behaving as if your choices have no consequences. Children without fathers. Schools without discipline. Reward without effort. Crime without punishment. Rights without responsibilities. Communities without control," in a speech in his constituency in Oxfordshire.


And lastly, to our teenagers, you know, young people always talk about “Well, I gotta get respect.” You get respect when you give respect.

We have some really great young people in this city. They go to school. They try to get good grades, they try to graduate and go on with their lives. They participate in sports, art, music, poetry, cultural services. They’re out tutoring. Some of them have jobs and are working.

Take those doggone hoodies down, especially in the summer. Pull your pants up and buy a belt, because no one wants to see your underwear or the crack of your butt. Nobody. Buy a belt. Buy a belt. Nobody wants to see your underwear. Comb your hair. And get some grooming skills. Comb your hair. Running round here with your hair all over the place. Learn some manners. Keep your butt in school, graduate from high school, go on to college so you can go and make something of yourself and be a good citizen, here in this city. And why don’t you work on extending your English vocabulary. Extend your English vocabulary beyond the few curse words that you know, some other grunts and grumbles and other things that none of us can understand what you’re saying. And if you go to look for a job, don’t go blame it on the white folks, or anybody else. If you walk in somebody’s office with your hair uncombed and a pick in the back and your shoes untied and your pants half down, tattoos up and down your arm, on your face, on your neck, and you wonder why somebody won’t hire you. They don’t hire you because you look like you’re crazy. That’s why they’re not hiring you.

Looks like they both mention SEVERAL factors as the cause, not just 1.

[Taixuquan99]

It's not just the "system's" fault.

We're talking about two entirely different countries, there is no "system" to discuss. In this context, it is almost always considered a volatile situation, in any country, to have high numbers of young unemployed males. There is a strong statistical link between that and unrest, riot, and rebellion. Political leaders better be doing more than arrests and moralistic speeches to change the situation, unless they're part of a far right ruling party with military and police backing, which "works" in the third world. It's also one of the reasons it's the third world.

[rett]

There is a strong statistical link between that and unrest, riot, and rebellion. Political leaders better be doing more than arrests and moralistic speeches to change the situation,

Sure. But parents and residents in these areas should do more themselves too. So what if they are poor and don't seem to have options. That doesn't excuse them from the requirement to be moral.

The very people rioting should get their acts together and stop being such a blight on society. Whatever socio-economic group they come from.

Incidents like that Malysian kid getting his jaw broken and then getting robbed by people pretending to help him are just plain sickening. Moral indignation is the only correct reaction to that. Not sociological explanations.

I'm with Clint Eastwood on this one.

[BJJ-Blue]

The kids in Philadelphia who the mayor was talking about couldn't get a job even if they wanted to because of their attitude, their bad behavior and their unwillingness to dress or groom themselves properly.

No he didn't. He only mentioned 1 factor. You and I can't count, only Taix can. :rolleyes:


Given that the part of the speech bjj shared was entirely about illigitimacy, one is left to assume that is the topic he is focusing on. Because it is.

You're right man. Those other 8 reasons I claimed the PM blamed weren't there.


Actually it wasn't. Really, give the speech a read. It's worth it.

The Phillie incidents have been gangs of 20–30 teenagers from 11 to 19 years old. It is a pretty narrow cross section.

I'm writing about Philadelphia here now because its thread was closed, and these two topics seem pretty closely related.

Why should he read the speech? He already knows what it did and didn't say.

And of course it's a narrow cross section. I, the Mayor, and the PM all said it was made up of 100% of kids with no fathers present. :rolleyes:

They are related in that both the PM and the Mayor only blamed 1 cause. I guess the other 8 or so "dont count". ;)

[BJJ-Blue]

Cameron was basically saying with his speech that we're sick of all the blame-the-victim and excuse-the-criminals mentality inherited from years of soft-brained labour lameness. (which has also infested Sweden very badly). It's time to put more demands on people. Cameron is spot on about with his description of people who believe they deserve some sort of entitlement.

Although this makes so much sense, he never said it. He laid all the blame on one thing and one thing only, a lack of fathers. Haven't you figured this out yet? How many times does Taix have to explain this to you? ;)

[Taixuquan99]

Again, blue, you've not made any of those points the focus of your argument, sorry. Are you saying IBN is wrong that 20% unemployment is the major factor?

[rett]

The best thing of all is the proposal in England to cancel benefits and take away council apartments from convicted rioters.

That is a very very good idea. Time to send a clear message. So many people see themselves as at war with society while they happily lift benefits.

I'd also like to see rioters saddled with a large fine to help pay reconstruction. Something liek 100,000 pounds for people involved in property destruction. If they never ever can pay that debt off... well good for them.

Time to send signals.

[BJJ-Blue]

Again, blue, you've not made any of those points the focus of your argument, sorry.

You're right again. I never typed the quotes below, I just thought I did. :rolleyes:


But you're right in that the problem has been brewing awhile. When you take fathers out of the equation, punish success, and reward laziness, anyone of average intelligence can see these problems coming.


It's not so much about economics as it is about morals.

[BJJ-Blue]

The best thing of all is the proposal in England to cancel benefits and take away council apartments from convicted rioters.

You're correct. But you watch, the liberals will shift the blame from the rioters and blame others for not caring and giving them enough. They will say if those poor, downtrodden, etc kids were just given more from the Gov't (ie the taxpayers) this wouldn't have happened.

[rett]

You're correct. But you watch, the liberals will shift the blame from the rioters and blame others for not caring and giving them enough. They will say if those poor, downtrodden, etc kids were just given more from the Gov't (ie the taxpayers) this wouldn't have happened.

Hey, I'm a liberal.

In Sweden that makes you part of the far right. Go figure:)

[Taixuquan99]

Funny how this same stuff wasn't happening these same places before unemployment got bad.

Funny how statistically, it is common across cultures that unemployed statistics should be good indicators of unrest.

Funny, that Europeans who don't wear baggy pants do it as well. And ones with parents, even good role models.

Funny.

Funny how BJJ blue spends pages arguing about fatherless children, and equates offhand comments that he does not focus on as much as just the same weight in the argument.

Funny how political scientists would almost universally suggest seeking ways to alleviate unemployment as a solution to the problem.

Those politicians speeches are just to get by the moment, half plea, half political theater. They know the problems unemployment brings, if they're competent. There never has been a populace or age where there weren't plenty of unethical people to fill a riot. You don't make your solution "everyone become ethical" and get anywhere. These guys aren't, either.

[BJJ-Blue]

Funny how this same stuff wasn't happening these same places before unemployment got bad.

But if those people were raised with a strong moral compass they wouldn't riot when unemployment is high. That's my point. There are alternatives to rioting; peacefully protesting, voting, getting involved in your community, etc.

I'm not saying that high unemployment is not a reason. It may well be the primary reason. But my point remains, if they were raised right and had morals, they wouldn't riot. Unemployment during our Great Depression was alot higher than it is now and you didn't see Americans rioting, looting, assaulting innocent bystanders, and burning down parts of the cities during that entire time.

[rett]

Unemployment during our Great Depression was alot higher than it is now and you didn't see Americans rioting, looting, assaulting innocent bystanders, and burning down parts of the cities during that entire time.

Point. Set. Match.

You nailed it.

The left defend rioters because they romanticize "the revolution" which will involve lots of righteous rioting.

[MasterKiller]

But if those people were raised with a strong moral compass they wouldn't riot when unemployment is high. That's my point. There are alternatives to rioting; peacefully protesting, voting, getting involved in your community, etc.

I'm not saying that high unemployment is not a reason. It may well be the primary reason. But my point remains, if they were raised right and had morals, they wouldn't riot. Unemployment during our Great Depression was alot higher than it is now and you didn't see Americans rioting, looting, assaulting innocent bystanders, and burning down parts of the cities during that entire time.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3JU7ksEyGmc/TfvJ0GjM0nI/AAAAAAAAAf4/bNw9DiiqPBI/s1600/riot2.jpg

[rett]

That picture wasn't from the great depression so what's your point?

[Taixuquan99]

Where did you read about the great depression? No riots? Are you joking me?

Here, I'll give you a moment to Google.

[Taixuquan99]

Point. Set. Match.



If it had one element of fact to it, sure. Too bad it's incorrect.

[Reality_Check]

Unemployment during our Great Depression was alot higher than it is now and you didn't see Americans rioting, looting, assaulting innocent bystanders, and burning down parts of the cities during that entire time.

There were riots, as even a cursory Google search would show.

http://www.cleveland.com/recession/index.ssf/2009/03/cleveland_eviction_riot_of_193.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/timeline/rails-timeline/

Assault, looting, rioting, no arson though.


February 1931

"Food riots" begin to break out in parts of the U.S. In Minneapolis, several hundred men and women smash the windows of a grocery market and make off with fruit, canned goods, bacon, and ham. One of the store's owners pulls out a gun to stop the looters, but is leapt upon and has his arm broken. The "riot" is brought under control by 100 policemen. Seven people are arrested.

Resentment of "foreign" workers increases along with unemployment rolls. In Los Angeles, California, Mexican Americans are accused of stealing jobs from "real" Americans. During the month, 6,024 Mexican Americans are deported.

http://museumca.org/picturethis/timeline/depression-era-1930s/watsonville-riots/info

http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/unemployed-councils-eviction-riots-and-new-deal

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=12&ved=0CB8QFjABOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdepts.washington.edu%2Fdepress%2F bellingham_families_depression.shtml&ei=UrVKToKVKsHAtgfFoIikCg&usg=AFQjCNHQYdXEYpgBZEQgptly0mmiq8WcDg

Whoops...there is the arson.


While the majority of Whatcom families managed to cope with the Depression hardships, some were not so fortunate. Driven by desperation, a number of people turned to stealing. More often than not, these burglars stole small amounts of cash but paid for it with jail time. One drug store bandit was so desperate that he held the owner at gun point for twenty-seven dollars.[22] Another money-yielding crime was arson. An arson gang set fire to several properties in an attempt to benefit from false insurance claims, though they were caught and imprisoned.[23] Even though many did not turn to crime, the stress of constant economic hardship manifested itself in other ways, as some couples found themselves looking for a divorce. Legal fees and supporting two families proved very expensive however, so a number of frustrated and hopeless men simply walked out on their families without officially getting a divorce. National reports showed that by 1940, 1.5 million married women had been abandoned by their husbands.[24]

[rett]

If it had one element of fact to it, sure. Too bad it's incorrect.

Really? Dang. Never mind:o

Edit to add: food is a reason I can understand crowds taking the law into their own hands over. Erst kommt das fressen, dann die moral

But the London riots weren't due to starvation. Not even close.

[Taixuquan99]

Really? Dang. Never mind:o

Edit to add: food is a reason I can understand crowds taking the law into their own hands over. Erst kommt das fressen, dann die moral

But the London riots weren't due to starvation. Not even close.

Not all of the depression era riots were food riots.

[Taixuquan99]

The point is, "morality" sounds like an easy answer, but 1) Moral lessons don't seem to have prevented many societies from having riots, 2) They become hard to justify if the society has elements either excluded or kept in unfavorable circumstances, so that the morality based around debt to the society becomes hard to figure out, and lastly 3)Where politicians and business interests have mismanaged things to the point the economy is affected and unemployment ensues, politicians and corporate heads would be fools to publicl lecture anyone on morality due to their own glass houses.

[Taixuquan99]

And, for the record, it's not the left who discovered the link between unemployment and unrest.

[rett]

And, for the record, it's not the left who discovered the link between unemployment and unrest.

I believe in the link. What I mean about the left is that they think palliative measures are good, like benefits.

Benefits should be a short transition between jobs, or for the truly sick or disabled. Instead benefits have become a permanent trap for segments of society. This is wrong IMO and harmful to the people it claims to help.

[rett]

Not all of the depression era riots were food riots.

Well then not all the depression era rioters had a moral compass.

[Taixuquan99]

I believe in the link. What I mean about the left is that they think palliative measures are good, like benefits.

Benefits should be a transition between jobs, or for the truly sick or disabled. Instead benefits have become a permanent trap for segments of society. This is wrong IMO and harmful to the people it claims to help.

Of course, you're talking about corporate farm subsidies. That's not a right or left position in the U.S. They all back entitlements.

[Taixuquan99]

Well then not all the depression era rioters had a moral compass.

People with moral compasses who have historically done no wrong:

Jesus(if he actually existed in the form described)

Buddha(if he actually existed in the form described)

And yet Jesus almost started a small riot, if memory serves me correctly.

[rett]

People with moral compasses who have historically done no wrong:

Jesus(if he actually existed in the form described)

Buddha(if he actually existed in the form described)

And yet Jesus almost started a small riot, if memory serves me correctly.

Again, I'm not asking people to be perfect and never do wrong.

I'm asking for the authorities to stop feeling sorry for groups who run riot, torch buildings, beat and rob passers by, drive cars into people protecting their businesses, etc etc. There is NO excuse for that sh1t. However much they feel excluded or disenfranchised.

That's what I like about Cameron's speech. It puts emphasis on personal responsibility.

[Taixuquan99]

I'm pretty sure authorities are the ones arresting people for breaking laws, and sentencing them according to the law.

[Taixuquan99]

The last thinker who I'm aware of politically naive enough to suggest that moral systems would solve such problems was Mencius, and at least he was sensible enough to think it was only a chance if the leaders proved it by practicing it.

The greatest abusers of entitlements are not poor people or rioters.

[rett]

I'm pretty sure authorities are the ones arresting people for breaking laws, and sentencing them according to the law.

Good on them, but it's a bit after the fact.

I fully support a wide battery of measures to prevent this from happening again, including cracking down much harder on small crime. Like no tolerance in New York.

This kind of policing is not politically implementable in Europe because of the left's sympathy for criminals (considering them victims of capitalism or whatever they're on about)

[rett]

double post

[rett]

The greatest abusers of entitlements are not poor people or rioters.

I'm all for active investigations and harsh punishment of corporate criminals, corrupt officials, violent racist cops etc. as well.

But slums with high criminality are important targets. It's for the criminal kids' own good as well. They need to feel the consequences of their actions early on and not think they can keep getting away with sh1t and at the worst have to have a conversation with a social worker once a week for a few months, as in Sweden.

Consider the fact that most of the victims of crime in disadvantaged areas are also poor residents of the same areas. Don't they deserve to be protected as well?

[Taixuquan99]

Slums have crime, and always will. Poverty breeds crime and always will. Politics breeds crime, and always will. Industry breeds crime, and always will.

When you target slums, you also might alienate their residents, especially in the case of ethnically monolithic ones. Alienate segments of the population, and you get more, not less, riots.

Ruling countries is a bit more complex then electioneers like to make it sound. Tradeoffs are the rule, utopian wishes are the worst approach. Exactly the things that work for getting votes don't work for getting results. Citizens that feel included don't riot, but criminals make trouble, yet, if a group is in poverty, hitting them hard for the criminality that comes hand in hand, demographically, with poverty, can put that demographic in sympathy with criminals more than police, especially if there are the sort of historical areas that often give that group reason not to trust the state or the society they are part of, like the not too distant past of blacks in America, or ethnic groups in Europe brought in to work, but whose children will be born citizens of no country.

Common sense answers tend to fall apart once complexity is introduced to any equation.

[rett]

When you target slums, you also might alienate their residents, especially in the case of ethnically monolithic ones. Alienate segments of the population, and you get more, not less, riots.

Yes you _might_ if it's done badly. But your argument is classic leftist rhetoric. Leave the poor slum dwellers to be victims of lots of crime because they don't deser... I mean, because effectivley policing those areas might offend a few criminals.



Common sense answers tend to fall apart once complexity is introduced to any equation.

A good part of a complex answer would be to extend the right to be protected from crime to the poorest members of society. That would do a lot to help them feel included.

[BJJ-Blue]

But the London riots weren't due to starvation. Not even close.

Wrong again. We all know big screen plasma TVs are great eating.

But you are right. You don't see the looters taking food and only food. High price shoes, TVs, clothes, etc are what you see them making off with. The videos of the mobs in Philly show them doing exactly that, they make a beeline for the expensive clothes, etc and begin scooping those things up. You don't see them making a run for the dairy section.

[BJJ-Blue]

Slums have crime, and always will. Poverty breeds crime and always will.

So why do we subsidize poverty? :confused:

[Taixuquan99]

Yes you _might_ if it's done badly. But your argument is classic leftist rhetoric.

Sorry, no. When we were losing in Iraq, we were using your approach, enforcement over all other considerations, and it made our enemies more allies. When we changed policies, and enough people to do it, we had less crime.


Leave the poor slum dwellers to be victims of lots of crime because they don't deser... I mean, because effectivley policing those areas might offend a few criminals.

Total straw man argument.

Hardline police actions can drive moderates to back extreme factions, this is fact, and accepted fact by political scientists on the right and left.


A good part of a complex answer would be to extend the right to be protected from crime to the poorest members of society. That would do a lot to help them feel included.

You say this as if you have the slightest idea how to do this. Fact is, no one has adequately solved this problem yet, of any political stripe.

[Taixuquan99]

Wrong again. We all know big screen plasma TVs are great eating.

But you are right. You don't see the looters taking food and only food. High price shoes, TVs, clothes, etc are what you see them making off with. The videos of the mobs in Philly show them doing exactly that, they make a beeline for the expensive clothes, etc and begin scooping those things up. You don't see them making a run for the dairy section.

Aren't you the guy who claimed the great depression had no riots? Now making a straw man argument that it only saw food riots?

You lost the argument, and you admit it. Cool. Have a nice one.

[BJJ-Blue]

Aren't you the guy who claimed the great depression had no riots? Now making a straw man argument that it only saw food riots?

You lost the argument, and you admit it. Cool. Have a nice one.

They weren't looting like we are seeing now. Looting plasma TVs and designer clothes and stealing food to survive are two different things.

But you didn't see those people during the Depression burning down stores just to 'show the rich we can do what we want'. Nor did you see them attacking innocent bystanders for fun either.

As to creating strawmen, at least I'm not making up things you never said and crediting those statements to you.

[BJJ-Blue]

And how can I lose the argument when I pointed out Japan has it worse economically and they aren't rioting AT ALL?

[Taixuquan99]

They weren't looting like we are seeing now. Looting plasma TVs and designer clothes and stealing food to survive are two different things.

So now there were only food riots in the depression? You can't say I didn't give you time to do a google search.


But you didn't see those people during the Depression burning down stores just to 'show the rich we can do what we want'. Nor did you see them attacking innocent bystanders for fun either.

I'd call breaking a food vendors arm attacking an innocent bystander. Google yet?


As to creating strawmen, at least I'm not making up things you never said and crediting those statements to you.

Actually, you have a number of times, it's your MO.

[Taixuquan99]

And how can I lose the argument when I pointed out Japan has it worse economically and they aren't rioting AT ALL?

Japan's unemployment does not compare to either places, as I already pointed out, sorry.

[Taixuquan99]

Which already debunked portion of your argument are you gonna return to next?

[BJJ-Blue]

Actually, you have a number of times, it's your MO.

Can you please show me an example of me altering you posts and/or saying you said things you did not really say?

[BJJ-Blue]

Google yet?

No, that's your job. My job is not to source your assertions.

[BJJ-Blue]

Japan's unemployment does not compare to either places, as I already pointed out, sorry.

I did not use the term "unemployment" in that statement. :rolleyes:

Or did I and only you saw it? :rolleyes:

[Taixuquan99]

No, that's your job. My job is not to source your assertions.

You asserted there were no riots, looting, etc. You were wrong. YOUR assertion.

Additionally, your job is to inform yourself on the topic at hand, and you don't, and you get all teenage girl whiney about it, and pretty much never recognize when information invalidates your argument. You start with conclusions, and shift on reasoning endlessly.

I think that's how you became a birther.

[Taixuquan99]

I did not use the term "unemployment" in that statement. :rolleyes:

Or did I and only you saw it? :rolleyes:

So, the economy and unemployment are completely unrelated? Nope, sorry again.

Remember when you were a birther? That was funny.

[BJJ-Blue]

I think that's how you became a birther.

I actually never was. I said I was unsure (and maybe I was leaning one way or the other), but never said he wasn't born here. I guess you are once again attributing things to me I never said.

[BJJ-Blue]

You asserted there were no riots, looting, etc. You were wrong. YOUR assertion.

There was no looting as there is today. Show me an example of them looting designer clothes, shoes, electronic/luxury equipment. You know, apples to apples.

[BJJ-Blue]

So, the economy and unemployment are completely unrelated? Nope, sorry again.

I'm just gonna stop if you can't debate what I said.

If you are unsure what I said, meant, posted, etc, just ask. But don't say I said things I did not. It's not how rational adults discuss things.

[Taixuquan99]

So you are saying that the economy and unemployment are unrelated.

You're wrong.

Do you mind if I call you Birther Blue?

[rett]

Sorry, no. When we were losing in Iraq, we were using your approach, enforcement over all other considerations, and it made our enemies more allies. When we changed policies, and enough people to do it, we had less crime.


This is a shallow and inapplicable comparison. Iraq wasn't about policing and crime. It was about fighting an insurgency. What happened in some of the toughest cities to deal with, like Ramadi, was that the US troops finally learned who the important players in the city were, and that the insurgents consisted of different groups. The hard-core AQ were never going to switch sides, but the local militias, who were much more numerous, were potentially on the fence because AQ committed atrocities against them and against civilians. Once the US understood the players, the mood of the people, and established functioning relations with the militias (who then provided the cadres for the local Iraqi police) they were able to get the same militia guys who had been planting IEDs to flip and chase out the hard-core AQ. It also always helped to be able to say, look, if things don't improve we can go Fallujah on your ass.

If you were going to try to apply this model to US cities it would basically add up to arming and using citizen militias to fight the drug gangs (with SWAT team back-up on call) while holding out urban development aid and fat contracts for local businesses as an incentive for them to cooperate.

It would still involve being very tough on the hard-core violent criminals.

[rett]

You say this as if you have the slightest idea how to do this. Fact is, no one has adequately solved this problem yet, of any political stripe.

Adequately? You talk as if the world is perfectible. It isn't. The best you can do is... your best. But as a general principle a good approach has to be two pronged, stick and carrot. The left are phobic about the stick. That's why the do-gooders have only made things worse over the course of decades.

Giuliano worked wonders in New York. The violent crime in the 1980s and early 90s was at shameful levels for a city that rightly can be called the capital of the world. No tolerance was a complex multi-pronged strategy not without it's faults. But it did create dramatic improvements and a platform from which further improvements could be made.

I'm not familiar with post 9-11 developments but it wouldn't surprise me if the focus on terrorism sapped funds from constructive projets to improve the poor areas.

[BJJ-Blue]

Giuliano worked wonders in New York. The violent crime in the 1980s and early 90s was at shameful levels for a city that rightly can be called the capital of the world.

You are correct. He really cleaned that city up.

Of course if you look at big cities run by liberals for decades, crime is usually always present in large numbers. New York (pre-Guiliani), Washington DC, Detroit, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and New Orleans are prime examples. No one can name a city ran by Republicans for decades with crime statisitcs anywhere near the crime those Democrat ran cities have.

[rett]

No one can name a city ran by Republicans for decades with crime statisitcs anywhere near the crime those Democrat ran cities have.

I hope you've googled that :p;)

[BJJ-Blue]

I hope you've googled that :p;)

;)

If he can't refute it, he'll just change my post. Add something here, take something out there, switch these words around, and viola!

[Taixuquan99]

Adequately? You talk as if the world is perfectible. It isn't. The best you can do is... your best. But as a general principle a good approach has to be two pronged, stick and carrot. The left are phobic about the stick. That's why the do-gooders have only made things worse over the course of decades.

Giuliano worked wonders in New York. The violent crime in the 1980s and early 90s was at shameful levels for a city that rightly can be called the capital of the world. No tolerance was a complex multi-pronged strategy not without it's faults. But it did create dramatic improvements and a platform from which further improvements could be made.

I'm not familiar with post 9-11 developments but it wouldn't surprise me if the focus on terrorism sapped funds from constructive projets to improve the poor areas.

I can agree that, generally, the stick and carrot approach is best.

As for New York, it's unemployment in the relevant age group was nowhere near 20%. Depression era cities facing this sort of problem implemented relief programs, New York included. Political scientists on the right agree that high unemployment of this age group is dangerous by its very nature, and don't propose law enforcement as a major solution, but merely a necessary aspect of it.

[rett]

Political scientists on the right agree that high unemployment of this age group is dangerous by its very nature, and don't propose law enforcement as a major solution, but merely a necessary aspect of it.

If the British situation is anything like Swedish one (and the two countries coincide in more ways than you might think at first glance) then the problem is that there has been a long-standing deficit of law enforcement. Just restoring a proper balance would require political rhetoric that sounds tough. In skewed Sweden, proposing anything close to the European averages of anything makes you sound like an extremist.

You repeatedly seem not to understand the difference between political science and political rhetoric. Politicians don't stand up and present research papers.

[Taixuquan99]

Of course if you look at big cities run by liberals for decades, crime is usually always present in large numbers. New York (pre-Guiliani), Washington DC, Detroit, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and New Orleans are prime examples. No one can name a city ran by Republicans for decades with crime statisitcs anywhere near the crime those Democrat ran cities have.

The top ten high crime cities in the U.S. have a more relevant common thread than who their elected leaders were, but you and I would read the meaning of that entirely differently.

Regardless, we're talking riots and their causes, and politicaql scientists on the right and left all seem to consider "morality" an insufficient answer to the complexity of the problem.

[Taixuquan99]

If the British situation is anything like Swedish one (and the two countries coincide in more ways than you might think at first glance) then the problem is that there has been a long-standing deficit of law enforcement. Just restoring a proper balance would require political rhetoric that sounds tough. In skewed Sweden, proposing anything close to the European averages of anything makes you sound like an extremist.

You repeatedly seem not to understand the difference between political science and political rhetoric. Politicians don't stand up and present research papers.

I fully understand it. Rhetoric is not a basis for conclusions, which I've been getting at from the start. World governments are staffed and informed by poli sci, business, and other experts for a reason.

Again, your explanation in the first paragraph does not get around the statistical link between high unemployment of young males and unrest, which is well documented, and a very aprt example is London, with 20% unemployment in EXACTLY that age group. Enforcement cannot solve that.

[rett]

If a bakery has been baking its stuff without salt the boss might come in and yell salt! You need salt!

Doesn't mean salt is all you need to bake a cake, just that salt is what's been missing.

[Taixuquan99]

If a bakery has been baking its stuff without salt the boss might come in and yell salt! You need salt!

Doesn't mean salt is all you need to bake a cake, just that salt is what's been missing.

Jobs are the main missing ingredient. Because of unemployment. More upset people free to riot=more riots.

Moral lessons do not make urban areas more peaceful.

[BJJ-Blue]

The top ten high crime cities in the U.S. have a more relevant common thread than who their elected leaders were, but you and I would read the meaning of that entirely differently.

Well the meaning I'd draw from that common thread is what you'd saw I'd draw from it. :rolleyes:

Just post what it is and see what I say about it. Of course you change what I say, but just go ahead and post it and get the ball rolling.


Regardless, we're talking riots and their causes, and politicaql scientists on the right and left all seem to consider "morality" an insufficient answer to the complexity of the problem.

But the Mayor and the PM who have to deal with the issue say it is.

[BJJ-Blue]

World governments are staffed and informed by poli sci, business, and other experts for a reason.

That's the problem!

You start putting people who've started businesses, made payrolls, created wealth, and employed people in charge, things would improve.

You don't put a baker in charge of a performance car shop and expect him to run it successfully.

[rett]

Jobs are the main missing ingredient. Because of unemployment. More upset people free to riot=more riots.

Moral lessons do not make urban areas more peaceful.

The thing is, in Europe if you try to lighten up on all the restrictions and union bullcr4p surrounding hiring people, the yahoos will riot too. Even if the best way to make more jobs is to make it easier and cheaper for employers to hire (and easier for people to start new businesses).

[BJJ-Blue]

Even if the best way to make more jobs is to make it easier and cheaper for employers to hire (and easier for people to start new businesses).

Actually we were told the best way to make more jobs was with a Gov't 'stimulus'.

[rett]

Actually we were told the best way to make more jobs was with a Gov't 'stimulus'.

Speaking of which.... you have to see this video.

Nobel Prize winning economist seriously proposes that it would be good for the world to arm and prepare itself for an alien invasion. All in the name of economic stimulus... You have to see it to believe it.

http://kebnekaisegruppen.se/2011/08/16/intergalaktisk-stimulans/

[Taixuquan99]

That's the problem!

You start putting people who've started businesses, made payrolls, created wealth, and employed people in charge, things would improve.

You don't put a baker in charge of a performance car shop and expect him to run it successfully.

Yes, of course, governments are not already using experts from private industry. Tons of them.

You don't put an accountant in a position to decide how to organize your troops.

You don't legislate like it's a bake sale.

Republicans used to know this.

[BJJ-Blue]

Speaking of which.... you have to see this video.

I heard this yesterday. ;)

Actually what else Krugman did was he admitted WWII ended the Great Depression. Which means the New Deal failed to end the Depression, despite what we've been told by leftist economists for decades that the New Deal ended the Great Depression.

[BJJ-Blue]

You don't put a community organizer in a position to decide how to fix your economy.

Fixed that for ya. ;)

[rett]

The New Deal made the depression worse. Deeper and lasted longer than it needed to.

[BJJ-Blue]

The New Deal made the depression worse. Deeper and lasted longer than it needed to.

"We are spending more money than we have ever spent before and it does not work. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. We have never made good on our promises. I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started and an enormous debt to boot." -Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Treasury Secretary

I posted this BEFORE the 'stimulus' when I predicted it's failure. ;)