Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mizhara]

Environment, parents, out-of-family support structures, they all matter. Religion, however, is far from a prerequisite to morality. I've never had religion, nor have most of those I know. Unless we're suddenly immoral creatures, I don't see how there can be an argument for religion somehow being a pre-requisite for morality.

[Lyn Farel]

Regarding the poor immigrant families in my country, mostly of arab or maghreb origin, are often found in these kind of situations, firstly because they are immigrants and most of them have difficulties (the father left, etc), but also secondly due to their islamic culture, or sometimes of some african culture. Not that to say the culture is bad, at the contrary, but there is a cultural fact which consists to take for granted that a son is the rightful heir of the father, thus the next in line for the family, and can only be grounded/punished by the father himself. The father is often absent, or just does not have the time to care because he is struggling to give his family a decent living. The mother has absolutely no right to even criticize the son in a lot of cases (cultural problem), and just has to educate him in his daily life, at the contrary of daughters, who follow a very strict moral code. This is blatant in real life, especially with teens, where girls are terribly shy and submissive, and where guys are provocative, insulting, lacking of elementary respect, and basically think they can do what they want.

These are cases where foreigner cultures does not blend well with the western culture. I do not know how exactly it is in England, but I would not be surprised to see it is not that different.

Regarding religion, well, yes, this is another complex debate. I would say that religion gave us with time our own moral basis (we can't deny all that our ethics are at least a little based on christian, islamic or orthodox religions). By these ethics right or wrong. Though now, as much as I admit to follow unconsciously these basics, I have never believed in anything, much less in God(s), and am a fervent agnostic. As said above, this does not prevent me to follow my own strict moral code, because I had an education.

The thing is, we have courts for justice. We have police for protection. If cars are being taken and burned and businesses are being robbed and torched, I'd like to know that the police I'm funding with my taxes are going to do their job. Why should I have to suffer (property destroyed, etc) just so that the police can keep the kid gloves on while dealing with the mob?

Of course, if the police does not do its job properly... By the way, this is also one of the issues in Europe these days. Can't speak for all countries, but our youth is somewhat delusionned in a police they consider sometimes corrupt of abusive with its authority.

I understand what you're saying Lyn, but I would counter-argue that if things like this can happen and justice ISN'T done, then it's clear proof that our "justice system" needs review. You're not making an exception for them, you're learning from your mistakes and making improvements to the system based on experiences.

Justice is not doing its job ? I am asking genuinly here, I have no clue at all.

[Kazzzi]

Hearts and minds, people. Hearts and minds.

[Kazzzi]

So yes, I can not help but find Kazzzi last words quite obnoxious, and frightening. It is the usual extremist populist propaganda that works well just because it plays on the safety of the people without any consideration for the long-run.

If some punk was approaching your home holding a petrol bomb and was lining up to throw it, would you rather:

A. Sombody kill the punk before he can throw it?

B. Let your home and potentially your family and neighbors all burn to ashes?

For some odd reason, idealist college kids often pick B. I personally would pick A specifically out of consideration for the long-run.


I have lived and worked in some nasty ghettos. These people often choose to live as they do. They are proud of their trashy nature, of their drug use, and of the crimes they commit.  In my state, any of these people can go to college for free, yet they choose not to. Many places here are still hiring but they refuse to work honest jobs because they see real work as a stigma. They would rather steal, sell drugs, beg on street corners and if female, whore themselves out. Then they purposefully supplement their income by having more children and collecting welfare for it.

You can rack your brain trying to figure out why these people are the way they are, but shit doesnt need a reason to stink.

[Desiderya]

Also, looks like it swept over to scotland.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EW0356brnrE

[orange]

Blaming Social Media

It is amazing how when Social Media outlets are used to organize anti-government events outside the West, they are praised, but when it occurs at home they make moves to do the same things the little tyrants do.

The every present tug between Security & Liberty is rearing its head and the masses are likely to choose Security over Liberty.

[Kaleigh Doyle]

Also, looks like it swept over to scotland.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EW0356brnrE

hilarious.

Also, boo to anti-facebook douchebaggery. What are they gonna do next, blame the riots on violent video games?

[Kazzzi]

Yep. Since they did too little too late they will now compensate by taking away more of your personal freedoms.

[scagga]

Environment, parents, out-of-family support structures, they all matter. Religion, however, is far from a prerequisite to morality. I've never had religion, nor have most of those I know. Unless we're suddenly immoral creatures, I don't see how there can be an argument for religion somehow being a pre-requisite for morality.

There has been no suggestion that religion is a prerequisite for morality.

However, the appropriate presence of religion can provide a value system that can enhance moral behaviour in a society.

Edit:

I never thought I'd link an article from the dailymail (the bias is too smelly for my taste), but it is one that I have found relevant and relatively thought provoking:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2025393/UK-riots-Haroon-Jahan-death-Legacy-society-believes-nothing.html

[Lyn Farel]

So yes, I can not help but find Kazzzi last words quite obnoxious, and frightening. It is the usual extremist populist propaganda that works well just because it plays on the safety of the people without any consideration for the long-run.

If some punk was approaching your home holding a petrol bomb and was lining up to throw it, would you rather:

A. Sombody kill the punk before he can throw it?

B. Let your home and potentially your family and neighbors all burn to ashes?

For some odd reason, idealist college kids often pick B. I personally would pick A specifically out of consideration for the long-run.


I have lived and worked in some nasty ghettos. These people often choose to live as they do. They are proud of their trashy nature, of their drug use, and of the crimes they commit.  In my state, any of these people can go to college for free, yet they choose not to. Many places here are still hiring but they refuse to work honest jobs because they see real work as a stigma. They would rather steal, sell drugs, beg on street corners and if female, whore themselves out. Then they purposefully supplement their income by having more children and collecting welfare for it.

You can rack your brain trying to figure out why these people are the way they are, but shit doesnt need a reason to stink.

Your example is simplistic, at best. You forgot C: Somody hold up the punk before it can throw it ?

Don't even try to make me believe this is a matter of "its them or us !".

If these people choose to live as they do (and thats not a damn black and white situation anyway so this assumption is highly doubtful for a lot of them), thats because of something. This is what I have tried to say in every other post I did in this topic.

Yep. Since they did too little too late they will now compensate by taking away more of your personal freedoms.

That is definitly true.

[Kazzzi]

Your example is simplistic, at best. You forgot C: Somody hold up the punk before it can throw it ?

Not an option. In this hypothetical situation your only potential savior has spawned 50 meters away with a rifle, loaded with live lead ammunition, and only has seconds to react.

[Lyn Farel]

It is a little too easy to restrict all the possibilities by hypothesises like that.

[Kazzzi]

It's very similar to an ethics question my college professor asked. She didn't consider either answer wrong as with most ethics questions.

Regardless, you took too long to decide and stuffs are a burnin nao.

[Ember Vykos]

So yes, I can not help but find Kazzzi last words quite obnoxious, and frightening. It is the usual extremist populist propaganda that works well just because it plays on the safety of the people without any consideration for the long-run.

If some punk was approaching your home holding a petrol bomb and was lining up to throw it, would you rather:

A. Sombody kill the punk before he can throw it?

B. Let your home and potentially your family and neighbors all burn to ashes?

For some odd reason, idealist college kids often pick B. I personally would pick A specifically out of consideration for the long-run.

I would pick option C: Shoot the punk myself.

I am an idealist, but only till my realism takes over.

[Seriphyn]

Seems the moral panicsters on "high-brow" chat shows and chin-wagging broadsheet columnists are all, to their credit, pointing to the "breakdown of the family unit", so there is some hope. The root cause has been acknowledged, it remains to be seen if the government will acknowledge it.