Tottenham - what gives?

From: Peter (BOUGHTONP)10 Aug 2011 01:39
To: Ken (SHIELDSIT) 192 of 298
quote:
If you know someone has a weapon, be it a gun or bomb you would be less likely to do something to that person compared to the person you were sure didn't have one.

Nope, I'd go for the one with the weapon, because:

1) if I didn't he might pull the weapon on me when I went for the other guy

2) once I beat him, I'd then have a weapon to use on the other guy
EDITED: 10 Aug 2011 01:39 by BOUGHTONP
From: Drew (X3N0PH0N)10 Aug 2011 01:39
To: Ken (SHIELDSIT) 193 of 298
It's not really a far stretch for us. I mean gun to us is like nuclear device (I mean just a little one, like the battlefield nukes we all deny using in every modern conflict despite the suspicious radiation levels near the sites of explosions which look very much like small nukes) to you.

A gun's (handguns and assault weapons) only purpose is killing people. We don't like that, we just have an cultural block against things like that. I'd rather not go out each day with a tool solely designed for killing people because of what that would say about me. The selfishness/self-centredness that would represent. Historically we're less individualistic and a bit more communally minded over here and I think that matters too.

It's different over there - I also think the sneering attitude some anti-gun people have towards those who like guns is disgusting. We have to accept that it's a cultural thing and culture is a powerful thing.

But yeah, it's exactly like the arms race. I mean, if I'm in a fight and I'm in a situation where I value my safety over that of the person attacking me then if they have fists I want a knife/stick. If they have a knife I want a gun. But when everyone has a gun we're all just hoping no one shoots.

quote:
If you know someone has a weapon, be it a gun or bomb you would be less likely to do something to that person compared to the person you were sure didn't have one.


I'd rather they be less likely to do something because their culture dictates that hurting people is a bad thing to do. If we've lost that then I don't really think it matters what they come at me with. I still believe that hurting people is bad so I'd rather not be tooled up to hurt people.
From: Ken (SHIELDSIT)10 Aug 2011 01:43
To: Drew (X3N0PH0N) 194 of 298
Yeah all good points. And of course you hope to never have to use it. We've been through that before, you and I.

I'm very curious to see the final outcome of all of this.

Hmm, and I don't know that owning a gun makes me self centered. I certainly makes me feel like a provider or protector if need be.
From: Ken (SHIELDSIT)10 Aug 2011 01:43
To: Peter (BOUGHTONP) 195 of 298
Peter they'd just laugh at you and tell you to get a hair cut.
From: Drew (X3N0PH0N)10 Aug 2011 01:48
To: Ken (SHIELDSIT) 196 of 298
I don't mean self-centred in the every day way. I mean culturally. Your whole culture is about individual rights, individual freedoms, individual protections and private property. Your constitution defines a man as a legal entity with individual rights rather than a social entity with social rights and responsibilities. European culture is more on the social side, rights are defined more (up until very recently) from a social rather than individual perspective.

In America the hope is that if everyone takes care of themselves (and families) then everyone will be taken care of. Whereas in Europe it's more if everyone takes care of society then everyone will be taken care of. I'm not saying this is universally so but that was the general tone of continental vs. american liberal thinking in the 1700s when we were all becoming modern nations and I think it has informed our cultures and trickled down to colour how we think about these things.
From: Ken (SHIELDSIT)10 Aug 2011 01:50
To: Drew (X3N0PH0N) 197 of 298
Gotcha and agree 100%. If there weren't differences between us because of this it would be scary.
From: Serg (NUKKLEAR)10 Aug 2011 08:23
To: milko 198 of 298
I think I am - I am (and have been) a lot more concerned about the things that might've led to this situation rather than the situation itself, but since it's now got to this point then shouldn't the response be firmer and stop it in its tracks, and then (ideally) really try to deal with the causes? As you said, what caused this is a slightly separate matter but the participants' actions are not excusable.
From: Serg (NUKKLEAR)10 Aug 2011 08:32
To: Drew (X3N0PH0N) 199 of 298

Sod you Drew, until you have youth looting and people setting fire to stuff near where you live I won't consider your opinion entirely valid.

 

(also, I like playing devil's advocate a bit and getting on the opposite side of an argument to some people (hugright) )

From: patch10 Aug 2011 08:40
To: ALL200 of 298
He's from the hood, man. He's gangsta.
From: Serg (NUKKLEAR)10 Aug 2011 08:41
To: patch 201 of 298
What? :(
From: patch10 Aug 2011 08:44
To: Serg (NUKKLEAR) 202 of 298

That was meant to be a reply to you about Drew, but it's too early for me to hit the right link.

 

I was trying to say that he knows about the disaffected youth, despite coming from a small rural village. Not even very funny. I'll stop now.

From: Serg (NUKKLEAR)10 Aug 2011 08:46
To: patch 203 of 298
Ah right, in light of Drew's occasional tendencies to display "gangsta"-inspired behaviour. No, I get it, just wasn't awake enough to get it without help. Bruv.
From: 99% of gargoyles look like (MR_BASTARD)10 Aug 2011 09:11
To: Serg (NUKKLEAR) 204 of 298

You're not the only one who considers Drew's opinions to be of limited merit given that it's not his house/livelihood being destroyed or family terrified by thugs.

 

Having said that, I'm sitting here in Switzerland, so 'yay' me.

From: koswix10 Aug 2011 09:46
To: JonCooper 205 of 298
We were talking about that last night, and remembered the "civil unrest" exception clause in most policies :-/
From: 99% of gargoyles look like (MR_BASTARD)10 Aug 2011 09:51
To: koswix 206 of 298

That's alright, any enterprise other than the little mom'n'pop shops that go under will pass on any uninsured costs in higher prices. So no one wins, no one loses. Some people may lose their jobs.

 

And these loons 'making a point against big enterprise' are making what point in the end?

From: Drew (X3N0PH0N)10 Aug 2011 10:30
To: Serg (NUKKLEAR) 207 of 298
Don't be a fuckwit. I can't have a valid opinion until it's happened to me?

You can't have an opinion on what the rioters are doing until you've lived their lives, then.
From: Serg (NUKKLEAR)10 Aug 2011 10:49
To: Drew (X3N0PH0N) 208 of 298

Ooh, escalation!

 

I would say that I live closer to the participants and have more exposure to their environment than you do.

 

(yay! fight!)

From: Drew (X3N0PH0N)10 Aug 2011 11:12
To: Serg (NUKKLEAR) 209 of 298
Then you would indeed be a fuckwit.
From: 99% of gargoyles look like (MR_BASTARD)10 Aug 2011 11:49
To: Drew (X3N0PH0N) 210 of 298

Neither can you though. While some of the rioters may have just cause for dissatisfaction (but not anarchy), I suspect that some (unknown percentage) of them are just in it for the 'laughs'.

 

But in good news I heard (not confirmed) that Jamie Oliver's restaurant got done over, so there's a silver lining after all.

From: Drew (X3N0PH0N)10 Aug 2011 11:55
To: 99% of gargoyles look like (MR_BASTARD) 211 of 298

You seem to have missed the point somewhere in my clever web of sarcasm.

 

I believe that we humans, being imaginative and communicative creatures, are perfectly capable of understanding, as far as one can do so, the experiences of others with just a little effort, empathy and compassion.

 

I've also said several times that I'm sure the majority of rioters are in it 'for the laughs' as you put it, but this is beside the point. If people feel so disconnected from and disaffected with their society/community that they can behave like this then there's a problem... is all I'm saying.

EDITED: 10 Aug 2011 11:55 by X3N0PH0N