BamaD -> RE: Rioting is the answer (8/14/2014 7:11:29 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD quote:
ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote:
Lack of agreement does not equal lack of understanding. Right, well show me what I've said that indicates moral equivalence and walk me through how you got to that conclusion then. This should be fun. Your insistence that there is no point in condemning the riots. Sure it won't stop them but that doesn't mean they are not wrong. You can say they are wrong. I was talking more about cloud and tweak anyway. There is no practical point in condemning them because, as you say, it will not stop them to do so. It makes no sense to bang on about it when people should be working out how to stop them. There's an iconic picture of one of the 1970s riots in London of a police inspector holding up a Pc who's just been hit in the face by a brick. Blood is pouring down the Pc's face. Do I think that it was wrong that the Pc should have taken a brick in the face? Yes. People turn into savages. I don't approve of people acting savagely. I'm not going to link to the picture here because the police inspector involved is my father. Everyone here got tired of the finger-wagging politicans who'd fall over themselves to 'condemn' the rioters. We ended up thinking, 'So fucking what? What are you going to do stop them happening?' And so a number of major enquiries were launched. All sorts of strategies were changed as a result. We still have riots, but nowhere near so frequently as we did back then and nowhere near so savage. In my humble opinion (because it's your country, and all) you need to get past the moral argument (which isn't one, anyway, because everyone's already arrived at their moral opinions) and get to the root of why riots happen, and start to deal with them. I mean, jeez, for one thing, I can't imagine the horrors if our rioters in the 1970s had had access to firearms. Ours did and it wasn't what you seem to think it would have been. Your refusal to take a "moral position" is what I was referring to. You may not see that a moral equivalence, but no one practicing it does.
|
|
|
|