Should I be worried?

[mediaboy]

Stewart: You mean that you mind having the pricks?

I'd rather have 10 pricks like him, then have had Hitler survive and win and turn us all into Blonde, Blue-Eyed, 6ft 1in tall clones...


EDIT: As always, whenever you post, someone else posts above you...



smurf;

Drastic Situations? You mean we have moral change? Maybe you also want indentity cards, 365 1/4 days a year in jail without trial, evidence or anything but the sayso of a policemen and everything else. Maybe that would cure the problem? Like in EVERYTHING.... you give a drastic measure and IT CAN BE USED AGAINST YOU! Sure, it'll cure the problem... but how do you know, for instance, what types of people will be left.

Are you sure that these "chavs", are we are calling them on this topic, would simply let us do this? There's 60 million people in this country. How many of those would not want to be sterilized?

The Government does not rule the people. The People rule the government. And the government should be afraid of the people, for the people have power.



You compare "chavs" to animals. Are they really animals? Or are you comparing them to this, and making them - in your own words - "this sort" or, as it could be percieved from your tone of post "their sort", and different to us, so that we all think that they are bad?

I know "chavs." I have "chavs" living across the road from me. Yes, they may be that they are complete and utter jerks whose only purpose in life is to cause problems, hurt the rest of the human speicies and so on... but are chavs "unloved and unwanted spawn of the affore mentioned scum?" Yes, they MIGHT be scum, but that doesn't mean that they are unloved. I'm sure that they have parents, and that those parents love them. Those parents may not even WANT their children to be "chavs." In fact, many people I know whose kids are "scum" simply don't know about their child's absence at school, or their constant antisocial behavoiur.

Maybe it's bad parenting... or maybe it's because kids, or "chavs", have a tendency - or an innate moral sense - that tells them that their parents would disapprove. So they try to keep it away from them, hide it behind layers of "going out to a friends" or "going down the park with some friends" or anything. Then they go and get stoned, drunk or mess around. Peer pressure accounts for a lot of it.

And those parents that know? They could, for all you know, actually encourage this behaviour, seeing it as a the playfullness of adolesence, or likewise something else. Or they could see it as a crime and try to prevent it... but due to the simple misbehaviour of the children and their tendency to ignore authority they get ignored.


And if it helps - it's worth doing?

So say that I go and kill the murderer who killed three people. The families of those three people are then helped... but does that mean it was worth doing? Yes, to an extent, if it helps it's worth doing. However, that doesn't mean that ALL the time it's worth doing.


Finally, you say "if it was done properly - it would quite probably work." At what cost? How many lives would be poured down the sink? How would you enforce it, as someone put earlier... these ARE the military sometimes... and if you try to finish them off then they have the training and the inclination to stop.

Yes, it may work, but it is so extreme that it most likely would also finish off the country for the next 7 or 8 generations.

[TAKTAK]

You mean that you mind having the pricks?

I'd rather have 10 pricks like him, then have had Hitler survive and win and turn us all into Blonde, Blue-Eyed, 6ft 1in tall clones...

i'm blonde.... have blue eyes.... and about 6ft 1in (but i'm not a clone )

[Stewart]

i'm blonde.... have blue eyes.... and about 6ft 1in

Antisemite!

I have more respect for our Jewish friends, so I'm 6ft, dark hair, blue eyes.

This allows me to remain attractive, whilst not offending any religious minorites.

[mediaboy]

Meh.. my point was in that post that Hitler would be breeding us out, like unfavourable chararestics are bred out of animals...

It's due to our justified slaughtering off the lower classes of society that we have the freedom to sit here spouting our mouths off, making jokes and so on.

I don't mind blond, blue-eyed people that are above 6ft tall... It's just that Hitler, in his somewhat questionable judgement, would be killing off everyone that WASN'T...

[format]

How to sort it:

Sterilise anyone under the age of 60 for the next 20-30 years, and only release an antidote for people with a mental and financial stability to ensure they will actually support their kids.

Scrap soft prisons - ensure they punish people, not act as a hotel.

Ensure any treasonable activities (which include terroism by people who have taken British citizenship) is met with a death penalty.

Sieg heil, eh?

[father smurf]

Not really.

Problems with society can be broken down into several issues:

population, high crime, lack of education, terrorism.

Over population is mainly caused by lack of education. So it needs dealing with.

High crime levels are not going to decrease until punishment is actually punishment - not an excuse for a state funded holiday at the local butlins (aka hm prison)

Terrorism is always going to be a problem as long as we don't acknowledge that these acts are done by people who want to kill themselves. Fine - help them along, and don't feed and cloth them.

[mediaboy]

Not really.

Problems with society can be broken down into several issues:

population, high crime, lack of education, terrorism.

Only 4 things? That's quite a good list really... maybe should include a few other things, such as "internet related issues" and so on... I mean, this is the age of the computer... it's not exactly fair to ignore it. I mean afterall, there has to be some ways for the government to lose our data reliably...

Over population is mainly caused by lack of education. So it needs dealing with.

I fail to see the logic in this... Firstly, Over Population is not "mainly caused by lack of education." Or at least, not in any list of statistics I've seen yet. In fact, Over Population is caused by the average UK couple producing 2.3 children...

Meaning that 2 people create 2.3 people who then create 2.645 people who then create 3.04175 people. Or thereabouts anyway.... That means, with the population currently at approximately 60 million, with lets say... 10 million under the age of 25 without kids (maybe more, maybe less.. I'm guessing) then those people, in the next 20 years, will create (on average) 11.5 million people... then they'll snuff it and they'll be another one and a half million people on the planet.

Lack of Education has nothing to do with over population.

Over population, however, MAY be due to lack of education. Because schools are so crowded from population explosion (or the mild bang we have at the minute) then no one is educated properly, and it's left to the bright ones to sort out their own problems and to develop their own viewpoints and generally educate themselves. Or spend their time arguing on online fourms because they're on holiday with nothing better to do.

I presume, when you made your point, you were talking about the lack of SE (or Sex Education for those that haven't been in a school recently.) Now, I'm not exactly a hotshot at this, but a quick glance on google shows that 93000 teenagers were pregnant in 1999... 39286 were recorded as pregnant in 2004... the figures show that things are falling... so how many must be pregnant now, in 2008?

A VERY small percentage of population explosion may be due to teenage pregnancies, or a lack of education and what the side-effects of sex are, but the vast majority is, lets face it, due to adults in adult relationships having children.

So that's one thing that seems to lack total convictment, at least till you present evidence to support your view.

High crime levels are not going to decrease until punishment is actually punishment - not an excuse for a state funded holiday at the local butlins (aka hm prison)

State funded holidays? Oh my... you have been looking at the newspapers recently. I saw this one. And I also saw the one about the number of murders in prisons rising, the number of other various offences commited whilst inside a prison increasing and that although it may be state funded it isn't always a holiday.

I don't care if they're having a holiday, they are off the streets and away from me. I don't agree with the masses of taxes though... bring back the days of workhouses and make the prisons pay for themselves sounds like a better idea, and would also help prisoners to establish some life skills.

What I do object to, however, is something you didn't bring up. That they get let out early. A life sentence can mean as little as 2 years at the moment... thanks to overcrowding. That's an example, once more, of an inefficient government trying to cope with a real life problem, in real terms. Not that I'm complaining.. afterall 32.5% of the country wants them in power... which is more than who many would want, for instance, me in power.

Terrorism is always going to be a problem as long as we don't acknowledge that these acts are done by people who want to kill themselves. Fine - help them along, and don't feed and cloth them.

I'm sorry? Was this serious? It's probably the worst thing I've ever seen concerning terrorism...

We KNOW that SOME terrorists are suiciders... but not all of them are. Suicide bombers are just that... people that go on suicide missions to blow themselves up and take people with them. THAT is the problem. They kill OTHER people... unless of course you think those people don't count as they are, basically, animals. Or because you have "surival of the strongest" and those people that died were apparently not the strongest because they died. Not all terrorists commit suicide. Not all terrorists WANT to commit suicide. In fact, I'd say that many terrorists don't want to... at least, not unless they take half a dozen of us "infidels" with them.

As for it always being a problem until something happens... I'm afraid that's probably going to be when we eradicate everyone in the country using your somewhat awful techniques and then they'll have no one left to kill. Even then, terrorism will probably continue. Terrorism is, from their view, freedom fighting, or the fight to convert us all. If you were an Iraqi (for example) and the Americans started shooting everything that moved (like they did) could the Americans not become "terrorists" instead of the "freedom fighters" that they became when they deposed the Iraqi government.

As for helping them... I'm not going to help someone kill me. It'd be like stabbing yourself in the back. You forget several things.

One of them is viewpoints. Other people, including terrorists, do not view "terrorists" as "terrorists." They instead view them as something else.

Another is that what goes round, comes round. Terrorists that are allowed to kill themselves as suicide bombers, as matyrs to their causes, would then only support the views of those terrorists groups, as you are - basically - saying their actions are valid and should be allowed. Also, if they are allowed to kill themselves, one day you - or a member of your family - will be hit by them.... and it won't be a crime. Afterall, you've just said that they should be helped along.

Finally, you presume too much. You think that all terrorists are suicide bombers and that all suicide bombers are terrorists. It's not true. The two are not mutually inclusive. They can be, but not always, and it's never a certainty.




Maybe try responding to my points this time as well... it means that your arguments actually begin to make sense, and may actually stop me from digging holes into them.