26 replies to this topic

[Lazurus]

jazzgothfusion, on 09 July 2012 - 03:19 PM, said:

When governments deny their populations access to land & resources unless they cough up capital, some people end up with nothing.

People who have nothing, have nothing to lose.

So by your logic, if Rosary takes all my stuff, me beating the crap out of you with a lead pipe and setting your house on fire is completly understandable?

As I said, these rioters should have been sent to do aid work in a third world nation to see some real poverty. That includes all the upper class brats that joined in. Social change can happen in the UK. However, I will only support it if it is peaceful and sane.

I think that Westminster is (to steal a line) a hive of scum and villiany, but only because people have allowed it. The laws of the system will allow anyone to voted in. I want to smash my head against a wall because of who the people vote for, but also because more people won't vote.

Change can happen via the ballot. Riots mean greater unrest, and tighter laws.

There was no excuse or any real reason for those riots.

[RazorToTheRosary]

The rioters weren't even people with 'nothing'. Almost all had roofs over their heads- homes and provisions, if anything they would only suffer from relative poverty, not even absolute. And some where middle-classes- what's their excuse? They're cushy and safe in their lives, they didn't need to riot.

It was meant to be for a boy was shot by police and it ended up morons who just destroyed their own.
Destroy your own, but don't call yourself righteous because of it.

[Johnny_C]

The people who are being "oppressed" let it happen. No sympathy from me.

[Sugar_Skull]

But what could people do to avoid being oppressed? Citizens subjected to poverty or violence are frequently over the barrel - otherwise they wouldn't tolerate it.

That said, the riots were incredibly stupid and counterproductive.

[Johnny_C]

There ate ways to non-violently take your country back. In France, the government works for the people, when it doesn't, they protest, non-violently I add.

I also believe people who don't vote, don't get to bitch about the country and what's being done to it.

Also, a well publicized terrorist attack is a fascist's wet dream.

[Sugar_Skull]

We had Occupy Melbourne, but the non-violent protesters were brutally dragged out of the square they were protesting in. (In other Occupys, seated passive protesters were pepper sprayed in ther faces.) Then police and council workers continued to harass the protesters on the orders of Robert Doyle until the protest was silenced and dissipated.

If I could fight back against this shitty Government I would, and I'm fully aware we have it easier than other countries.

[oddnob]

jazzgothfusion, on 09 July 2012 - 03:19 PM, said:

When governments deny their populations access to land & resources unless they cough up capital, some people end up with nothing.

People who have nothing, have nothing to lose.

Interesting. I'm not really hi-lighting Jazz's quote for any particular reason. The same idea is repeated elsewhere. What seems to be happening, to me, is less the govenment denying its population than it's giving the population more than is sustainable. The governments either pull back or go into financial crisis. The people see their benefits being threatened and they riot. The demand is for strong countries like Germany to give yet more money to Greece, Portugal, Ireland, and Italy. Germany is strong becuase it has a strong work ethic. Greece and the others are pulling down Europe becuase the governments have done exactly what's being demanded here. England is tottering somewhere in between and the US is trying to catch up with Greece as quickly as it can.

So that's one way of seeing it.

I'm not really interested in trying to argue which POV is correct. I am interested in the debate, however. I am intrigued by both sides, all sides, of the argument.