I've heard of bootcamps for difficult kids but don't know if they are successful. It could just harden a heart forever. I think the military has standards, don't they?
On Aug 17, 5:45 am, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: > Ohh Rigys, i don't doubt for a second that thoese effecthave every > right to be angry, I question wether or not morality is best served > with any emotional attachment. I have used anger as an example, but > really I mean all emotions. > > A freind of mine posted on facebook something along the lines of bring > back national servic, as a punishment for the looters. This was said > in anger and when it comes down to it, is it a good idea to teach > thugs how to kill? > > On Aug 16, 11:45 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > There must be laws on the books to cover riots, looting, damage to > > property. This isn't the first era of a poor economy for Britain. Has > > networking changed the formulas? > > > Another factor is immigration and clash of cultures and religions. > > What if once cheap labor is no longer needed? It seems to me- though I > > may be wrong- that immigrants rarely return to their original homeland > > and bring their new skills and education forward in third world > > countries. And social programs may quash desires to roll up their > > sleeves once again in their homeland. > > > I learned this weekend from a discussion that one cannot fire upon a > > thief- it's only permitted when one's life is in jeopardy. That seems > > a thin line- wait till the bloke attempts to kill you! Our laws have > > probably changed a great deal- I doubt cattle rustlers were treated so > > mercifully. > > > As to anger, I think shop owners and home dwellers and townsmen had/ > > have every right to be blistering mad at the looters and rioters. > > > I made a long list of non-lethal protective measures. Baseball bats > > were not on the list as they can crack a skull and kill someone. > > > On Aug 16, 6:09 am, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Paradox, yes agreat frind of mine tells me the same sorta thing, that > > > morality without emotion is somehow lacking. It is partly due to his > > > words and my respect for him that I have started this thread. > > > > However as Rigsy points out to evict a looter from his council home > > > for his looting does not adress any problems, nor does it serve as > > > adiquate punishment, and would I think only make things worse. > > > > This course of actions is a fine example of thinking/talking about > > > morality whilst angry, and is to my mind no good at all. > > > > I maintian that morality is best sreved without emotions attached, can > > > you show my why I am wrong? > > > > On Aug 14, 5:31 pm, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Deep question, Lee; not an easy one. One who suffers injury must have > > > > the right of redress, be that restitution or retribution, or else we > > > > live in Hobbes's state of nature. The question of balance and > > > > proportionality is the proper remit of the law courts and great minds. > > > > Where the injury in question falls outside the purview of the > > > > collective good or the legal framework to that end, morality and > > > > values must act to constrain the individual in respect of balance and > > > > proportionality; that is why it's so very vital that we understand > > > > what we do when we tinker with the foundations and structures of a > > > > society's moral compass. > > > > > Personally, i've always felt that emotions are the fuel for the > > > > directed mind. > > > > > On Aug 12, 1:28 pm, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > So as we should all know we have had quite a week of it here in the > > > > > UK. Facebook and many other web places have been inundated with all > > > > > sorts of sillyness. > > > > > > Calls to bring back national service, calls to evict those found > > > > > guilty of the rioting and looting, calls to stop their benifits. I > > > > > have witnessed some of my good good friends spew out all mannor of > > > > > sillyness in their anger. > > > > > > I have procliamed in the past that all questions of morality are > > > > > better served sans emotions and I see much this week that has only > > > > > firmed this view. > > > > > > In order to discover though the validity of this thought tell me do > > > > > you agree, or not and why? People of ME sway my opinion with your > > > > > wise words. > > > > > > What good can come of deciding upon a course of action whilst holding > > > > > onto your anger? > > > > > > I ask of course as a self confessed recovered angry man.- Hide quoted > > > > > text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
