Originally posted by finnegan"Yes as long as you identify each crime as the actions of an individual you are impervious to reason because it is common sense that individuals do the crime."
Yes as long as you identify each crime as the actions of an individual you are impervious to reason because it is common sense that individuals do the crime. If putting criminals in prison solved the problem, - well - it would be solved already maybe? Excellent investment for Californians to spend more on prisons than education.
However, if you look at ...[text shortened]... poorer, both directly and indirectly.
You even pay more tax because they pay little if any.
Yes, don't confuse me with the facts. Individuals do everything.
"If putting criminals in prison solved the problem, - well - it would be solved already maybe?"
We have prisons full of people who did non criminal acts, possessing or using drugs. The simple truth is that the only known method of preventing recidivism is keeping criminals locked up.
You do also know that correlation doesn't equal causation. It is however reasonable to assume that ethical and moral traits are either created or destroyed by a culture. When a culture determines it is alright to envy what others have earned does that lead to the conclusion it is alright also to take by force or fraud what you want?
Originally posted by normbenignWhen a culture determines it is alright to envy what others have earned does that lead to the conclusion it is alright also to take by force or fraud what you want?
"Yes as long as you identify each crime as the actions of an individual you are impervious to reason because it is common sense that individuals do the crime."
Yes, don't confuse me with the facts. Individuals do everything.
"If putting criminals in prison solved the problem, - well - it would be solved already maybe?"
We have prisons full of ...[text shortened]... es that lead to the conclusion it is alright also to take by force or fraud what you want?
Judging by the statistics on inequality the answer appears to be yes.
Your trouble is you think simplistic morality is a useful guide to social policy. The evidence is you are wrong. Eventually, it would be better to deal with things as they are, not listen to that nagging parent in your head telling you what is right and wrong all the time.
1 edit
Originally posted by finneganWow! Yes?
[b] When a culture determines it is alright to envy what others have earned does that lead to the conclusion it is alright also to take by force or fraud what you want?
Judging by the statistics on inequality the answer appears to be yes. [/b]
I suppose you can reach any conclusion based on how you perceive reality.
Originally posted by EladarNot so. I am referring to the way people behave. In highly unequal societies like the States and Britain, where greed is the dominant cultural value, crime is more prevalent than in more equal societies, like the Scandinavians.
Wow! Yes?
I suppose you can reach any conclusion based on how you perceive reality.
America's infatuation with morality does not extend to the way Americans typically behave.
1 edit
Originally posted by finneganA bit simplistic point of view. Do you really believe there are no other differences between the societies of Scandinavia and the US and Britain?
Not so. I am referring to the way people behave. In highly unequal societies like the States and Britain, where greed is the dominant cultural value, crime is more prevalent than in more equal societies, like the Scandinavians.
America's infatuation with morality does not extend to the way Americans typically behave.
I do have a different take on your statement. I used to teach in a pretty poor area back in the early 90's and I heard something strange. A student had taken my stapler. I asked him why he took it and another student said that it reflected well on me that I had something stolen, it meant that I had something worth stealing.
It caught me off guard because I never thought about it that way before. Perhaps that statement fits very well with what you are saying.
Originally posted by EladarIt's funny that every time the superior living standard in Northern Europe is mentioned, the "refutation" contains more bigotry than a Klan meeting.
A bit simplistic point of view. Do you really believe there are no other differences between the societies of Scandinavia and the US and Britain?
I do have a different take on your statement. I used to teach in a pretty poor area back in the early 90's and I heard something strange. A student had taken my stapler. I asked him why he took it and another ...[text shortened]... ught about it that way before. Perhaps that statement fits very well with what you are saying.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraFunny, I don't see it. Perhaps it is the fact that your liberal point of view reads things into my posts.
It's funny that every time the superior living standard in Northern Europe is mentioned, the "refutation" contains more bigotry than a Klan meeting.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieGo into teaching then. Let's see how easy that bloody life is.
i am self employed, i work outside in all conditions except when it reaches below zero,
i need to provide all my equipment, pay for insurances, licenses, make provision for
contingencies, pay for any pension schemes, pay for vehicles. On top of that i must do
many hours of unpaid work, chasing up monies, filing and accountancy, detailing
inv ...[text shortened]... ts petulant to do
so. Your devotion towards the children is admirable and i thank you for it.
I can't wait for your report.
Originally posted by finneganWhat would you suggest as a reliable replacement for simplistic morality? How does it work?
[b] When a culture determines it is alright to envy what others have earned does that lead to the conclusion it is alright also to take by force or fraud what you want?
Judging by the statistics on inequality the answer appears to be yes.
Your trouble is you think simplistic morality is a useful guide to social policy. The evidence is y ...[text shortened]... not listen to that nagging parent in your head telling you what is right and wrong all the time.[/b]
Originally posted by finnegan"In highly unequal societies like the States and Britain, where greed is the dominant cultural value, crime is more prevalent than in more equal societies, like the Scandinavians. "
Not so. I am referring to the way people behave. In highly unequal societies like the States and Britain, where greed is the dominant cultural value, crime is more prevalent than in more equal societies, like the Scandinavians.
America's infatuation with morality does not extend to the way Americans typically behave.
How would you explain the low levels of crime in Singapore, which is arguably the most greedy, market driven place on earth?
What about the ways that cultures change over time? Scandinavia was the home of some of the most ruthless conquerors and pillagers in the past. Now they are pacifists.
"America's infatuation with morality does not extend to the way Americans typically behave."
Would that not indicate that they aren't really that infatuated with morals?
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignCurious timescales here. The major changes since the Vikings included their conversion to christianity, the migration of the Normans who conquered interesting parts of Europe very violently, the Thirty Years War, the industrial revolution, World War II, decades of social democratic government (deep breath). Your point is thus a bit obscure. However, it is quite true that cultures change over time. Scandinavian countries have changed in a progressive manner, Britain is changing in a regressive manner while the States is just working hard to implode through a lack of rationaltiy in its political discourse.
"In highly unequal societies like the States and Britain, where greed is the dominant cultural value, crime is more prevalent than in more equal societies, like the Scandinavians. "
How would you explain the low levels of crime in Singapore, which is arguably the most greedy, market driven place on earth?
What about the ways that cultures change ove y behave."
Would that not indicate that they aren't really that infatuated with morals?
Singapore is interesting: for example: "Most of its people live in public-housing tower blocks. They enjoy one of the world's highest standards of living, but also a system of punishments for acts deemed to be anti-social." "Although Singapore is a multi-party nation, the People's Action Party (PAP) has been the dominant force since independence, regularly winning well over 60% of the vote. But some critics say the PAP cements its hold on power by an electoral system that makes it difficult for opposition parties to gain seats, as well warnings that it will target investment at constituencies that vote PAP. " So I am not convinced you would find excessive inequality here and confident you will find a very authoritarian system of social control which perhaps would not be accepted in Europe or America. Japan also does not have the levels of inequality we experience, has knocked spots off British and American manufacturers for decades and has a very attractive public realm.
Americans are infatuated with morality. It is of course the language of a bull as experienced from the rear end.