I know a fair few social workers Archy, and on the whole they are decent people in the trade for the correct reasons. Personaly I can't help but feel sorry for them. Helping children in danger is a hard road to walk, highly emotional and subjective. Weight up the benifits of keeping kids with their parents or removing them, either way some form of damage is sure to occour. Speaking as former beaten child who has a rather strange and strained relationship with his dad, I know for sure that I would still rather have stayed at home with my family then been taken into care. The biond between parents and children, yes even mistreated children is soooo strong, it's impossible for a child to think objectivly (hehe shit it's even hard for some adults to do so) and to reason as an adult does. Social workers bare all of this in mind when they make their desicions, but of course from the outside, from people not involved but looking in at the situation the case seems clear cut. they really do live under a danmed if they do and damned if they don't pressure. A little example. One day when I was about 12, mum and dad, me and my other 4 direct younger siblings where all out to the pub. Mum and dad got pissed up, we kids gorged on crips and cola (in the car of course) and eventualy mum and dad left the pub and we all drove home. Imagine 7 of us squezzed into a car made for 4! So we are going round a roundabout in the Elephant and Castle, and my dad drunk as he was cut up an unmarked police car and then started to hurl abuse out the window. Not suppriseingly we got pulled over. The police cam up to the car and my sister Natasha started to cry, she looked at this copper and said 'Don't take my dad to prision, he's only drunk' None of us children realised what wrong my dad was doing driving his whole family home from the pub pissed as a fart, and you know he was never the greatest father, but still we would rather have had him at home and not in the nick.
On Wednesday, 28 November 2012 21:43:39 UTC, archytas wrote: > I associate UKIP support with lunacy Lee - but one can say much the > same for desires to look after kids! Given councils' failure to spot > kids in trouble like Baby P I'm inclined to think we have the wrong > people doing the work. > > On 28 Nov, 09:51, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hahah well that is undoubetly tue, but also money comes into. TV people > > make their choices on what garners more viewers hence what programs > > advertisers are willing to pay more show their wares in. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 28 November 2012 09:38:32 UTC, Allan Heretic wrote: > > > > > Playing to the lowest common denominator is probably the greatest > > > reason of you can give..It shows the mental ability of the those who > > > plan what the public views > > > Allan > > > > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Lee Douglas > > > <[email protected]<javascript:>> > > > > wrote: > > > > Perhap it is just TV playing to the lowest common demominator? > > > > > > On Tuesday, 27 November 2012 02:45:36 UTC, archytas wrote: > > > > > >> Not seen Chris or Charles Don. Hicks, a few derivative references > > > >> apart, could have been a Brit. Our cultures are probably less far > > > >> apart than such matters as the absence of footpaths in the States. > > > >> Our serious comedy is mostly political satire from Yes Minister to > The > > > >> Thick of It. What I was wondering was whether any one else feels > more > > > >> general film and literature has gone Tragic and plots and > characters > > > >> less and less comedic in the old Greek sense. Our old sitcoms like > > > >> Dads' Army, Steptoe and Son and plenty of others had a great > element > > > >> of 'daft people like me and you caught in a plight and muddling > > > >> through'. Bilko and Top Cat had this too. A fairly recent French > > > >> fil,m Mario et Jeanette had this. > > > > > >> On 27 Nov, 00:40, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 6:15 PM, archytas <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> > > At other levels I think we should be ridiculing such matters as > the > > > >> > > absence of disabled people in politically correct newsrooms and > > > such. > > > > > >> > What about Chris Mathews? budda bump bump > > > > > >> > Charles Krauthammer, in contrast, is a paraplegic but ok from the > > > neck > > > >> > up. > > > >> > Most people don't even know about his disability because it's not > > > >> > relavent. > > > >> > We like his commentary. > > > > > >> > dj > > > > > >> > On Saturday, November 24, 2012 6:15:40 PM UTC-6, archytas wrote: > > > > > >> > > The Brits do more nob gags and used to pack theatres to see a > guy > > > play > > > >> > > the trombone with ass-gas- needless to say a Frenchman. > Audience > > > >> > > milking is central to some humour - this tends to put me off, > but > > > some > > > >> > > are so good at it I don't notice until afterwards. US comedy > films > > > >> > > are usually dross, but your stand-ups usually great. My recent > > > >> > > favourite is 'The Pope's Toilet' from Uruguay. The hero rides > a > > > bike > > > >> > > everywhere and his wife describes him as lacking pump for a > bicycle > > > >> > > man. Why do the French smell? So even the blind can hate > them. > > > Why > > > >> > > would you find an Irishman in the Alps? Where else would you > find > > > a > > > >> > > downhill lake. Irish jokes are Belgian, Polish and Swedish > etc. > > > > > >> > > At other levels I think we should be ridiculing such matters as > the > > > >> > > absence of disabled people in politically correct newsrooms and > > > such. > > > > > >> > > On 24 Nov, 21:46, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > > Over here, social workers have taken kids off foster parents > > > because > > > >> > > > of their membership of UKIP - a party that shares the desire > of > > > 65% > > > >> > > > of > > > >> > > > the population to leave the EU and restrict immigration. You > > > have > > > >> > > > to > > > >> > > > laugh - or cry! > > > > > >> > > > On 24 Nov, 21:38, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > Morecambe and Wise with Mum and Dad at Xmas perhaps. > Laurel > > > and > > > >> > > > > Hardy. Many other popular comedians are more likely to > make me > > > >> > > > > weep. > > > >> > > > > I never liked Chaplin (actually thinking Hitler more of a > > > comedian > > > >> > > > > than 'The Dictator') and we had Cannon and Ball here who > hit a > > > >> > > > > nerve I > > > >> > > > > don't like. I can laugh with some of the ostensibly more > > > >> > > > > vicious > > > >> > > > > types like Bill Hicks and Frankie Boyle. Police and army > > > culture > > > >> > > > > reveres tough, sadistic humour with self-depreciation > thrown > > > in. > > > > > >> > > > > I'm against speech crime but it's also clear not everything > > > goes. > > > >> > > > > I > > > >> > > > > don't agree with the Greek split - it's from Stanford EP - > > > >> > > > > suspecting > > > >> > > > > humour is closely linked with breakthrough thinking (though > not > > > >> > > > > the > > > >> > > > > same) and unseating the biological trance of hierarchy (The > > > Name > > > >> > > > > of > > > >> > > > > the Rose). > > > > > >> > > > > The SEP article concludes: > > > > > >> > > > > Along with the idealism of tragedy goes elitism. The people > who > > > >> > > > > matter > > > >> > > > > in tragedy are kings, queens, and generals. In comedy there > are > > > >> > > > > more > > > >> > > > > characters and more kinds of characters, women are more > > > prominent, > > > >> > > > > and > > > >> > > > > many protagonists come from lower classes. Everybody counts > for > > > >> > > > > one. > > > >> > > > > That shows in the language of comedy, which, unlike the > > > elevated > > > >> > > > > language of tragedy, is common speech. The basic unit in > > > tragedy > > > >> > > > > is > > > >> > > > > the individual, in comedy it is the family, group of > friends, > > > or > > > >> > > > > bunch > > > >> > > > > of co-workers. > > > > > >> > > > > While tragic heroes are emotionally engaged with their > > > problems, > > > >> > > > > comic > > > >> > > > > protagonists show emotional disengagement. They think, > rather > > > than > > > >> > > > > feel, their way through difficulties. By presenting such > > > >> > > > > characters as > > > >> > > > > role models, comedy has implicitly valorized the benefits > of > > > humor > > > >> > > > > that are now being empirically verified, such as that it is > > > >> > > > > psychologically and physically healthy, it fosters mental > > > >> > > > > flexibility, > > > >> > > > > and it serves as a social lubricant. With a few exceptions > like > > > >> > > > > Aquinas, philosophers have ignored these benefits. > > > > > >> > > > > If philosophers wanted to undo the traditional prejudices > > > against > > > >> > > > > humor, they might consider the affinities between one > > > contemporary > > > >> > > > > genre of comedy—standup comedy—and philosophy itself. There > are > > > at > > > >> > > > > least seven. First, standup comedy and philosophy are > > > >> > > > > conversational: > > > >> > > > > like the dialogue format that started with Plato, standup > > > routines > > > >> > > > > are > > > >> > > > > interactive. Second, both reflect on familiar experiences, > > > >> > > > > especially > > > >> > > > > puzzling ones. We wake from a vivid dream, for example, not > > > sure > > > >> > > > > what > > > >> > > > > has happened and what is happening. Third, like > philosophers, > > > >> > > > > standup > > > >> > > > > comics often approach puzzling experiences with questions. > “If > > > I > > > >> > > > > thought that dream was real, how do I know that I'm not > > > dreaming > > > >> > > > > right > > > >> > > > > now?” The most basic starting point in both philosophy and > > > standup > > > >> > > > > comedy is “X—what's up with that?” Fourth, as they think > about > > > >> > > > > familiar experiences, both philosophers and comics step > back > > > >> > > > > emotionally from them. Henri Bergson (1911 [1900]) spoke of > the > > > >> > > > > “momentary anaesthesia of the heart” in laughter. Emotional > > > >> > > > > disengagement long ago became a meaning of > > > >> > > > > “philosophical”—“rational, > > > >> > > > > sensibly composed, calm, as in a difficult situation.” > Fifth, > > > >> > > > > philosophers and standup comics think critically. They ask > > > whether > > > >> > > > > familiar ideas make sense, and they refuse to defer to > > > authority > > > >> > > > > and > > > >> > > > > tradition. It was for his critical thinking that Socrates > was > > > >> > > > > executed. So were cabaret comics in Germany who mocked the > > > Third > > > >> > > > > Reich. Sixth, in thinking critically, philosophers and > standup > > > >> > > > > comics > > > >> > > > > pay careful attention to language. Attacking sloppy and > > > illogical > > > >> > > > > uses > > > >> > > > > of words is standard in both, and so is finding exactly the > > > right > > > >> > > > > words to express an idea. Seventh, the pleasure of standup > > > comedy > > > >> > > > > is > > > >> > > > > often like the pleasure of doing philosophy. In both we > relish > > > new > > > >> > > > > ways of looking at things and delight in surprising > thoughts. > > > >> > > > > William > > > >> > > > > James (1979 [1911], 11) said that philosophy “sees the > familiar > > > as > > > >> > > > > if > > > >> > > > > it were strange, and the strange as if it were familiar.” > The > > > same > > > >> > > > > is > > > >> > > > > true of standup comedy. Simon Critchley has written that > both > > > ask > > > >> > > > > us > > > >> > > > > to “look at things as if you had just landed from another > > > >> > > > > planet” (2002, 1). > > > > > >> > > > > One recent philosopher attuned to the affinity between > comedy > > > and > > > >> > > > > philosophy was Bertrand Russell. “The point of philosophy,” > he > > > >> > > > > said, > > > >> > > > > “is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth > > > >> > > > > stating, > > > >> > > > > and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will > > > believe > > > >> > > > > it” (1918, 53). In the middle of an argument, he once > observed, > > > >> > > > > “This > > > >> > > > > seems plainly absurd: but whoever wishes to become a > > > philosopher > > > >> > > > > must > > > >> > > > > learn not to be frightened by absurdities” (2008 [1912], > 17). > > > > > >> > > > > I laughed a lot more reading Lyotard's 'Libidinal Economy' > - > > > >> > > > > rather as > > > > ... > > > > read more » > --
