The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Thinking about it, I wouldn't mind if all the people I didn't like in the world were thrown into a large vat of acid.
Such as All neds/townies/whatever they're called near you.
Also, I'm also quite racist. I find some cultures completely useless and annoying such as all those d*****s rappers and their fans who wear American football tops, chains et al.
And you mum.
Such as All neds/townies/whatever they're called near you.
Also, I'm also quite racist. I find some cultures completely useless and annoying such as all those d*****s rappers and their fans who wear American football tops, chains et al.
And you mum.
Page:
How do you know?
A stable, incredibly wealthy nation has more problems with its youth than Sudan, India or Iraq?
It might do, I don't know. I was just wondering if you do?
A stable, incredibly wealthy nation has more problems with its youth than Sudan, India or Iraq?
It might do, I don't know. I was just wondering if you do?
Sure those places have problems,, but not related to kid's behaviour.
Stranger In Paradise wrote:
>places like Sudan, Iraq, Afghanistan, even India...... Yet they do
> not have the problems we have.
>
>
I realise the point is about children turning into thugs or whatever, but......hahahahaha. No.
>places like Sudan, Iraq, Afghanistan, even India...... Yet they do
> not have the problems we have.
>
>
I realise the point is about children turning into thugs or whatever, but......hahahahaha. No.
Stranger In Paradise wrote:
> Whitestripes DX wrote:
> "Sorry you've had a crap childhood, but it's made you unfit to
> live in normal society - we're going to have to put you down."
>
> Except there are tons of people who have a crap childhood, and go on
> to live perfectly good law abiding lives.
Well obviously. This would only be used for people who commit a string of crimes and try to fall back on the psychological defence of a troubled childhood.
Maybe they do have a problem and really can't stop themselves, but they're still going to have to be taken away from normal society as you can't give them the chance to keep doing it.
> Whitestripes DX wrote:
> "Sorry you've had a crap childhood, but it's made you unfit to
> live in normal society - we're going to have to put you down."
>
> Except there are tons of people who have a crap childhood, and go on
> to live perfectly good law abiding lives.
Well obviously. This would only be used for people who commit a string of crimes and try to fall back on the psychological defence of a troubled childhood.
Maybe they do have a problem and really can't stop themselves, but they're still going to have to be taken away from normal society as you can't give them the chance to keep doing it.
Yup.
Light wrote:
> Jealousy rearing it's ugly head eh Bell? Don't worry; one day a woman
> will show you her boobies. Then you can show her yours...
Is Stranger in Paradise actually Belldandy?
> Jealousy rearing it's ugly head eh Bell? Don't worry; one day a woman
> will show you her boobies. Then you can show her yours...
Is Stranger in Paradise actually Belldandy?
Stranger In Paradise wrote:
> To me it's this thinking that all beliefs are equal (and we're
> talking moral beliefs not religious ones here) that has landed the
> country in the mess it is in.
>
> To me, it is undeniable that for a person to pick a fight with
> another, to beat them senseless and leave them in the street, whilst
> drunk, is not acceptable behaviour. But get it to court and the first
> defence will be "my client was worse the wear for alcohol"
> etc. Because that's OK.
Hmmm.
I've been wondering how this fits together for a few days, a couple of things have set me off thinking about it.
Looking at your argument, well, it's hard to disagree, but I'm going to try :^)
At least in part.
You say that all beliefs are not 'equal'. But how do you distinguish? Only on the grounds of your own beliefs.
Surely anyone who judges someone else's beliefs through the viewpoint of their own beliefs, will always find the other person's don't measure up. Why? Because the beliefs are inevitably different, at least partially. And we use our own beliefs as the ideal - any difference then is an 'imperfection'.
So to truely judge the validity of someone's beliefs, we have to get away from our own set to objectively view theirs.
I agree about the overly pc thing though, there has to be some point where we actually try to shape society by our beliefs, rather than let everyone run rampant. Hell, even if we were to do the latter, it'd be an imposition of our beliefs..
However, I think it is possible to look at other peoples' beliefs objectively, at least in part.
Descatre's 'I think therefore I am' puts us on a defeatest road of accepting we know nothing more. But we can work around that.
We can make some basic assumptions to build from. Assumptions, but fairly safe ones that everyone would accept.
Everyone is, on some level, equal.
You can do what you like, so long as it doesn't affect other people (or animals, if you like that kind of thing). Or if it does affect people, they consent to it (and are sane adults etc).
I figure you can draw a reasonable, safe, set of beliefs from that basis.
Although thinking about it, not everyone seems so willing to respect those limits, which suggests they're not the universally acceptable standards they were supposed to be.
Still, from that you can draw that if someone's going around in some way harming people, since everyone is equal they consent to people harming them back, and can thus be jailed without a moral problem.
Another approach could be to examine people under their own morals. Socrates had a knack for making people's beliefs fall apart simply by questioning them until the 'victim' fell into contradiction and had to admit defeat. (An example of their beliefs aren't so equal, I guess).
I suppose in a way taking those 'universal' beliefs is an attempt to do this - set 'everyones' basic beliefs as a standard, and catch people when they contradict 'themselves'.
> It's time the country did a collective "get a clue". Or
> emigrate. I'd emigrate if I could.
Yeah, its a nice dream :^(
> To me it's this thinking that all beliefs are equal (and we're
> talking moral beliefs not religious ones here) that has landed the
> country in the mess it is in.
>
> To me, it is undeniable that for a person to pick a fight with
> another, to beat them senseless and leave them in the street, whilst
> drunk, is not acceptable behaviour. But get it to court and the first
> defence will be "my client was worse the wear for alcohol"
> etc. Because that's OK.
Hmmm.
I've been wondering how this fits together for a few days, a couple of things have set me off thinking about it.
Looking at your argument, well, it's hard to disagree, but I'm going to try :^)
At least in part.
You say that all beliefs are not 'equal'. But how do you distinguish? Only on the grounds of your own beliefs.
Surely anyone who judges someone else's beliefs through the viewpoint of their own beliefs, will always find the other person's don't measure up. Why? Because the beliefs are inevitably different, at least partially. And we use our own beliefs as the ideal - any difference then is an 'imperfection'.
So to truely judge the validity of someone's beliefs, we have to get away from our own set to objectively view theirs.
I agree about the overly pc thing though, there has to be some point where we actually try to shape society by our beliefs, rather than let everyone run rampant. Hell, even if we were to do the latter, it'd be an imposition of our beliefs..
However, I think it is possible to look at other peoples' beliefs objectively, at least in part.
Descatre's 'I think therefore I am' puts us on a defeatest road of accepting we know nothing more. But we can work around that.
We can make some basic assumptions to build from. Assumptions, but fairly safe ones that everyone would accept.
Everyone is, on some level, equal.
You can do what you like, so long as it doesn't affect other people (or animals, if you like that kind of thing). Or if it does affect people, they consent to it (and are sane adults etc).
I figure you can draw a reasonable, safe, set of beliefs from that basis.
Although thinking about it, not everyone seems so willing to respect those limits, which suggests they're not the universally acceptable standards they were supposed to be.
Still, from that you can draw that if someone's going around in some way harming people, since everyone is equal they consent to people harming them back, and can thus be jailed without a moral problem.
Another approach could be to examine people under their own morals. Socrates had a knack for making people's beliefs fall apart simply by questioning them until the 'victim' fell into contradiction and had to admit defeat. (An example of their beliefs aren't so equal, I guess).
I suppose in a way taking those 'universal' beliefs is an attempt to do this - set 'everyones' basic beliefs as a standard, and catch people when they contradict 'themselves'.
> It's time the country did a collective "get a clue". Or
> emigrate. I'd emigrate if I could.
Yeah, its a nice dream :^(
Stranger In Paradise wrote:
> Well you could always address the issue of a surplus of
> alcohol/sex/social interaction
Jealousy rearing it's ugly head eh Bell? Don't worry; one day a woman will show you her boobies. Then you can show her yours...
Anyhoo, don't you think you're being naive in assuming that anyone who disagree's with the more authoritarian view must automatically be a tree hugging hippy who wants to send offenders on holiday? Cos y'know, looking at the reoffending rates in the US (despite their rather more draconian laws generally speaking; obviously it varies from state to state) it would seem that simply locking 'em up doesn't work either. Maybe...maybe some people (left and right wing) are simply interested in reducing the re-offending rate and making the world a safer place? And they look at the current solutions, see they don't work, and want to try something different? Just a thought.
Oh, and if someone is drunk and violent, it's not considered 'ok'. Technically it's meant to be a mitigating factor which reduces a sentence, but that is up to the discretion of the judge. Speaking from my limited experience, being drunk was never considered a mitigating factor to the value of any more than about 1 month off their sentence.
And you've been promising to emigrate for about a year now. Don't keep teasing us with such delightful prospects when you don't follow through on them.
> Well you could always address the issue of a surplus of
> alcohol/sex/social interaction
Jealousy rearing it's ugly head eh Bell? Don't worry; one day a woman will show you her boobies. Then you can show her yours...
Anyhoo, don't you think you're being naive in assuming that anyone who disagree's with the more authoritarian view must automatically be a tree hugging hippy who wants to send offenders on holiday? Cos y'know, looking at the reoffending rates in the US (despite their rather more draconian laws generally speaking; obviously it varies from state to state) it would seem that simply locking 'em up doesn't work either. Maybe...maybe some people (left and right wing) are simply interested in reducing the re-offending rate and making the world a safer place? And they look at the current solutions, see they don't work, and want to try something different? Just a thought.
Oh, and if someone is drunk and violent, it's not considered 'ok'. Technically it's meant to be a mitigating factor which reduces a sentence, but that is up to the discretion of the judge. Speaking from my limited experience, being drunk was never considered a mitigating factor to the value of any more than about 1 month off their sentence.
And you've been promising to emigrate for about a year now. Don't keep teasing us with such delightful prospects when you don't follow through on them.
Whitestripes DX wrote:
> "Sorry you've had a crap childhood, but it's made you unfit to
> live in normal society - we're going to have to put you down."
Except there are tons of people who have a crap childhood, and go on to live perfectly good law abiding lives. If it were true that crap childhood = terrorist in training, then we'd be in utter chaos. Expand this idea to places like Sudan, Iraq, Afghanistan, even India, childhood's in those places must be, in terms of education, entertainment and so forth, much much lower than here. Yet they do not have the problems we have.
What if the real reason for little Jonny's urges are simply that he's been brought up to know he can do what he likes and the law cannot touch him?
> "Sorry you've had a crap childhood, but it's made you unfit to
> live in normal society - we're going to have to put you down."
Except there are tons of people who have a crap childhood, and go on to live perfectly good law abiding lives. If it were true that crap childhood = terrorist in training, then we'd be in utter chaos. Expand this idea to places like Sudan, Iraq, Afghanistan, even India, childhood's in those places must be, in terms of education, entertainment and so forth, much much lower than here. Yet they do not have the problems we have.
What if the real reason for little Jonny's urges are simply that he's been brought up to know he can do what he likes and the law cannot touch him?
Stranger In Paradise wrote:
> Similarly, who cares if little Jonny fired an airgun into someone's
> head, he comes from a, classic phrase, 'troubled upbringing/family'.
> And so on, and so on.
This is a big problem, really it should come down to someone saying:
"Sorry you've had a crap childhood, but it's made you unfit to live in normal society - we're going to have to put you down."
Well, maybe not that extreme, but along those lines..
> Similarly, who cares if little Jonny fired an airgun into someone's
> head, he comes from a, classic phrase, 'troubled upbringing/family'.
> And so on, and so on.
This is a big problem, really it should come down to someone saying:
"Sorry you've had a crap childhood, but it's made you unfit to live in normal society - we're going to have to put you down."
Well, maybe not that extreme, but along those lines..
Page: