I'm agreeing with Curtis, though I have no doubt we'd disagree on the cure for the sense of entitlement
Most definitely
, although I’m not sure how much the “sense of entitlement” is a problem. What I will say is that by many indicators places like Sweden and Norway have about as well-functioning of a society as you can have, and they don’t seem to have problems with “hoodrats,” crime, and rioting. Maybe we should look somewhere in that direction.
I also think that this type of thing happens in places where there is a lack of community (one reason it happens in large cities). People are much more likely to engage in this type of behavior when they feel isolated and unconnected to their fellow citizens. When there are institutions and places that unite people together, there won’t be a desire to go around destroying what other people own. People that are part of a community won’t want to destroy what is shared by that community. When people feel they are out on their own and that their fellow citizens have what is inaccessible, when they feel they are not a part of anything, a reaction like this becomes possible. People are willing to go out and loot stores because they don’t see how it affects them or their immediate friends and family, none of whom may enjoy the benefits of these businesses (either ownership or the means to purchase those products). But they’re much less likely to go and wreck the community swimming pool they all use.
no it doesnt becuase plenty of people in the same situation didnt loot, not only that they infact fought them. Hence why i said there is no social factor, that is why no one is dicussing it. Not sure why you care/worry whether people are being constructive. that will come once peoples anger subsides
But it does come down to social factors; we are all products of our environment Even you said it came down to parenting, which is a social factor. The “sense of entitlement” everyone is talking about, that is a product of social factors as well. And why wouldn’t I care about people being constructive? Isn’t it a good thing to be constructive? If people are constructive than maybe people might be encouraged to start making changes and some positives can come out of this. If not than you’re just missing out on an opportunity to make things better.
I know whats wrong with those people, i've lived with them in two different major cites. Some people when it comes down to it are just *****. Such is human nature
I think that’s a bit too simplistic; it’s an issue of why they are that specific type of **** and why they take it to such an extent. There are a million ways to be a **** without looting and rioting. It’s a question of why they chose that form of cuntery as opposed to another.
It was just a few thousand from 65 million people rioting. I agree, they feel there's a sense of entitlement to what they want - I think everyone accepted that? It doesn't mean there's an underlying fault with the system, nor does it mean we should just pander to every whim. As I said, everyone in this country is given free education till they're 18, and there's extensive funding for university education. Failing that, everybody can still always start their own business and work for themselves. That's more than enough opportunity to work hard and achieve the things you're 'entitled' to. It's not my problem if you choose not to take advantage of that, nor is it society's problem. We should introduce national service back for those who are long term unemployed, and if we're going to say people fail in school because they don't see a point in it at such an age - Bring corporal punishment back for the underachieving schools. If they're STILL failing in society after that, God help them.
---------- Post added at 02:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:15 PM ----------
And Curtis, if it's the UK where all the "hoodrats" are acting up and no other countries are, and we're going to point out social flaws on a minority group - How many school shootings has America had? I'd say that people deciding to take a gun to school is just a tad more serious of a problem than opportunistic rioting?
I don’t mean to quibble but the problem with this (and particularly your post #995) and many of the posts here is that it’s not really a realistic way of looking at the economy. The economy is NOT simply a bunch of individuals and the result of their individual efforts. Jake said it well: “These people seriously think that everyone deserves to be a banker, or a lawyer or a manager etc etc. I agree that everyone deserves a
chance at a decent career and a quality of life, but seriously, the way these uber liberals bang on and try to defend the rioters it's like they think everyone should be in a top job. If everyone was a bank manager, who the **** is gonna pull pints down the pub, clean out toilets, sweep up chips at mcdonalds etc?”
Things like employment and what industries an economy is comprised of are determined by conditions of that nation’s (and the world’s) economy. It’s not like everyone can just work hard and then become bankers, and it’s not like wealthy countries are wealthy because the people work harder than those of poorer countries. Conditions in the economy determine how many and what kinds of jobs are available. There is a limited amount of jobs to go around. Sure, each individual can work hard and achieve success, but only a small few can do this because there are only so many well-paying jobs out there (far fewer than the amount of people in the country). Poverty will exist no matter how hard people work, and usually it’s the people that go to the ****** schools and have ****** parents and don’t have connections and grow up in an environment of crime and despair that continue to fill the ranks of the poor. Well, if you wanted to reduce poverty than you could enact economic policies that do so, but it would most likely come at the expense of the wealthy and I know that wouldn’t be a popular idea here.
Now you can justify this by saying that the hard-workers will get those few jobs and the lazy people won’t and that it’s all fine (I'm definitely not here to get in a moral debate about capitalism), but what I will say is that “hard-work” and “lazy” are very relative terms that people are throwing around too liberally (not to mention networking is much more important than merit, and I don‘t think you (I'm using second person in the general sense, not referring to you specifically) can blame someone for not having connections and call them lazy for not getting a job in this economy). I live in the country with the highest amount of hours worked per week (Korea) and that’s not including how much time they spend learning English and other pursuits. Most of you, even the hard-working ones who went/go to good schools, are “lazy” by their standards and would not get good jobs if you grew up here (and also because connections are particularly important here). Many might be unemployed and living with their parents. So I’d be a little more hesitant in calling the poor and unemployed ‘lazy’ and citing that as the reason for their poverty.
Now, as to your post on the US, first I will say the difference is that in the US we have the idiotic notion that everyone must exercise the Second Amendment and carry a gun. School shootings would happen in other places too if there were that many guns. The second point I will make is that of course the US has innumerous social problems that cause this type of thing. If you think I think that the US is a utopian society than you’ve got me all wrong. I could go on all day about the problems of my country and what can be done to change them but this is not the right thread for that.
It doesnt have anything to do with economical reasons. FML!
After re-reading your notes about OBL, althought I now agree that we should have looked at the resons behind, if that action was taken it MAY have made things worse terrorist wise, but we can't judge on that though because it hasn't happened. The US and UK stormed the middle east, because of OBL's actions. Im sure that prietty sure OBL had a lot to do with that.
It's impossible to reduce the numbers of these hoodrats. There is no way we can reduce the numbers.. legally speaking. The only way we could reduce them is to kill them. We could deport them, but I highly doubt the UK would do that, because the government is so spineless. The were oppturnistic copy cat theives. Its constantly said on the news. They rioted in London because of a shooting. There was no shooting in any other parts of the country, there was no racial riots in any parts of the country. They rioted because they thought they could get away with it. Now the Police have been told they can be much tougher on the lil *******, its conveniently gone quiet. Im sick to death of people saying its because of the economy, its because of the police blah blah. ITS BULLSHIT! Its because they know no boundaries beyond stupid. The rioters may claim its because of no jobs etc, so I know i'll go burn a store so someone's life is ruined. If I can't have a job no-one can. That's how they have seen it. May they long rot in jail.
First off, if it doesn't have anything to do with economic reasons, how many rich people were among the looters? Obviously it's not just economic reasons, but I don't think you can say economic reasons have nothing to do with it.
I didn’t quite follow the first part of your post on the ME. My only point is that it is very important to understand why things happen (to counter your statement that we shouldn’t). I cited 9/11 as an example. Most Americans were not at all concerned with why Al-Qaeda did what they did, and if you did take such an interest you were considered to be some sort of traitor who was trying to justify their actions. This is ludicrous even from the most conservative point of view since you need to understand your enemy before you fight him. The result was Americans did not question our invasion of Iraq even though it had NOTHING to do with 9/11 or Al-Qaeda. But since Americans didn’t care about the specifics of terrorism, they didn’t notice, and we got involved in a massively expensive Neo-con experiment to remake the Middle East. It was a pretty ****** time in American history. So yeah, I think it’s important to try to understand why people do bad things. That way you can respond the right way.
And I do disagree with the next part. I think you can reduce the amount hood rats, control their behavior, take away their incentives to riot, etc. What I find fault with is that so many of you have already given up on this by responding as you have: by assuming that you know for a fact that there is no way to do these things and that it simply comes down to the unchangeable problem of people being *****. How certain are you of this? What made you come to this conclusion? Even if you think this is probably true, if I were you guys I’d at least by
trying to think of solutions rather than just assuming that there are none and that the animals should be shot. Even if there are no solutions, I think trying to come up with some is more productive than just getting angry about it and then forgetting about it in a month.