Ireland: No human is SCUM!

[Connolly]

This is a very good and factual piece written during a discussion about the Dublin Riots.

Its so good that I think everyone should read it. Its part of a discussion on discrimination of those people call "scum", so I think this is the most appropriate place for it.


No Human Being is Scum! - By Chekov

"All of those people who are going on about scum should be bloody ashamed of themselves. No human being is scum and there are reasons why people behave in certain ways.

75% of inmates in mountjoy come from 6 identifiable areas, pockets of deprivation in the city (John Lonergan, Mountjoy Governor). Ireland has the most unequal distribution of income in the EU (UN report 2002). Crime and anti-social behaviour are strongly correlated with poverty and inequality - to put it simply, if you have a society like ours where enormous wealth sits side by side with deprivation, you will have anti-social behaviour and it's nothing to do with people being 'scum' - it's social reality not choice. "lifestyle choices are limited by economic circumstances" (Health inequalities and Irish General Practice in areas of deprivation). 22% of the population live on weekly incomes of less than 164 euro per adult and 54 euro per child per week (combat poverty agency, 2004).

Young men living in over-crowded, deprived council estates suffer some of the worst consequences of this inequality. They see wealth and consumer goods all around them, they are sold a message that there are opportunities for all and that they have all the choices in the world, but the reality is that they are excluded from this wealth and have seriously limited choices. This produces destructive behaviour - they come to blame themselves for their inability to attain the wealth that is around them - hence hospitalisation rates for mental illness are more than six times higher for people in lower socio economic groups than for those in the higher groups and suicide rates are more than 5 times higher (public health alliance of Ireland 2003). Mortality rate in the lowest occupational class is 100%-200% higher than the rate in the highest occupational class (Balanda, Wilde 2001). This self destructive behaviour also manifests itself in terms of alcohol and drug abuse (heroin addiction is almost exclusively a problem for deprived young people). It also manifests itself in anti-social behaviour and crime.

Calling for harsher measures against such people is not only morally reprehensible, it is counter productive. A national representative study published in the BMJ showed 40% of irish prisoners inject drugs - 21% inject for the first time while in prison. That means that prison actually creates more problems than it solves in the long run. Troubled kids go into prison and many of them emerge with heroin habits which require a criminal lifestyle to feed. In any case, this group are already massively over-represented in prisons, 50% of prisoners are under 24 and 80% are under 35 (health in prisons project).

Those people who think that calling the most disadvantaged and unfortunate members of our society 'scum' is a solution to anything deserve a thrashing. In fact, they deserve to be brought up in a broken home, with an abusive, alcholic father and a mother who is addicted to heroin and regularly beaten and bullied. They then deserve to have a whole bunch of more fortunate people looking down upon them as 'scum'. In particular anybody who thinks that they are a socialist or progressive in any way and uses such terminology is a fucking hypocrite and a disgrace."

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/74528

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 02:37 pm
No Human Being is Scum!
I'd definiely sy that the bourgeosie is scum.

[Connolly]

I think you might have missed the point of the article.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by Connolly+December 04, 2007 02:47 pm--> (Connolly @ December 04, 2007 02:47 pm) I think you might have missed the point of the article. [/b]
Nah, I just disagree, albeit respectfully. I do believe in harsh measures for punishing retrograde elemtns of society, such as reactionaries, fascists, bourgeosie and lumpenproletariat.


Article
Calling for harsher measures against such people is not only morally reprehensible, it is counter productive.
In a bourgeosie society yes. Not in a socialist one.

[Connolly]

I do believe in harsh measures for punishing retrograde elemtns of society, such as reactionaries, fascists, bourgeosie and lumpenproletariat.

What, like homeless people, drug addicts, people on welfare, burglars, petty thiefs. Stick them in an oven that thats that is it?

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 03:10 pm

I do believe in harsh measures for punishing retrograde elemtns of society, such as reactionaries, fascists, bourgeosie and lumpenproletariat.

What, like homeless people, drug addicts, people on welfare, burglars, petty thiefs. Stick them in an oven that thats that is it?
NO. After the revolution I support special facilities to rehabilitate them, and verse them in proper thought and Communist discipline. If they fall back into self-destructive/socially-destructive behavior I would either send them to a long-term public works assignment to help society.

I don't support 'ovens'. :lol:

[Connolly]

I don't support 'ovens'

Well thats ok then :D

[Jaden]

A very interesting article that is applicable to several other societies - though might have the change the statistic and sources to appropriate it. Thanks for posting that.

Though I must admit, I call a lot of people scum when I'm driving. I have terrible road rage...

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by COMRADE CRUM+December 05, 2007 07:15 am--> (COMRADE CRUM @ December 05, 2007 07:15 am)
[email protected] 04, 2007 03:10 pm

I do believe in harsh measures for punishing retrograde elemtns of society, such as reactionaries, fascists, bourgeosie and lumpenproletariat.

What, like homeless people, drug addicts, people on welfare, burglars, petty thiefs. Stick them in an oven that thats that is it?
NO. After the revolution I support special facilities to rehabilitate them, and verse them in proper thought and Communist discipline. If they fall back into self-destructive/socially-destructive behavior I would either send them to a long-term public works assignment to help society.

I don't support 'ovens'. :lol: [/b]
So in other words you share the misguided authoritarian and anti-materialist view of crime as the bourgeoisie <_<

[Jaden]

Is Comrade Crum not referring to the fascists, reactionaries, lumpenproletariat and bourgeoisie in that post?

Comrade Crum, do you consider the people of focus of the article to be lumpenproletariat? Or just the people who are remaining "pacifist" in a revolution?

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 04:15 pm
Is Comrade Crum not referring to the fascists, reactionaries, lumpenproletariat and bourgeoisie in that post?

First - lumpens are not equivalent to fascists or bourgeois &#39;reactionaries&#39; - second, his response which i quoted referred to another persons remark: "What, like homeless people, drug addicts, people on welfare, burglars, petty thiefs" - his authoritarian bourgeois &#39;law and order&#39; response was in reference to such people.

[Zurdito]

I&#39;m not sure if I agree that no human is scum.

As marxists, just because we have a material view of the world, doesn&#39;t mean that we can excuse simply anything through retrospective materialism. Simply being exploited or opressed does not give you the right to do anything to anyone.

I believe "scum" to be a fair word for those who opress others. Firstly: the bourgeoisie.

Then we have criminals who will beat up a defenceless old woman, shit which does happen, which happened to an aunt of mine. This was in argentina, undoubtedly the people who did it were very poor. However, they were known drug addicts. Undoubtedly they had severe personal prolems which led them to that situation. However: they then went down a road intheir lives which led them to engage in sadistic, systematic violence against defenceless people. Lumpens and scum.

Next: rapists, especially those who prey on children. Che Guevarra for example demanded the death penalty for them. What greater example of opression is there than rape?

Or men who beat their wives. Like John Wayne Bobbit getting castrated by his wife: who wouldn&#39;t celebrate that? Yet, we still wouldn&#39;t call him "scum"? Why? That&#39;s completely arbitrary.

Next: soldiers like the American and British ones in Iraq who humiliate and torture the opressed populations. Would anyone really balk at me calling these people scum? If we are here to fight opression and exploitation, how can we seperate this from the human beings who inflict it?

As far as I am concerned these people ARE scum. And Marxism is not amoral. We want human beings to adopt a programme for changing the world, as they put it into action. We don&#39;t believe the world will just change itself. Therefore we propose war, against an enemy, outside of our class and also within it, and we want to eradicate that enemy because it is a block to the progress of humanity. What graver insult, what bigger indictment as scum, can you give someone than to call them an obstacle to their entire species?

Marxism is not liberalism. I will happilly call many people scum.

[LOTFW]

There are plenty of people who are scum and should be removed from the planet today. End of story.

Why&#39;s that such an issue. Sorry, but to me, Klansman are scum. Kill &#39;em all. Same with Nazis. Same with a whole bunch of others. You think anyone with a bedsheet with eyeholes found in their closet will survive the Revolution. Why bother?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I&#39;m surprised at how many people completely missed the point of the essay. I think it&#39;s a very good article, and much needed in Ireland--our middle class generally holds one of the most backwards views of the proletariat in the world.

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 01:15 am
I&#39;m surprised at how many people completely missed the point of the essay. I think it&#39;s a very good article, and much needed in Ireland--our middle class generally holds one of the most backwards views of the proletariat in the world.
just out of interest: why do you think that is?

[Hiero]

Originally posted by COMRADE CRUM+December 05, 2007 08:15 am--> (COMRADE CRUM &#064; December 05, 2007 08:15 am)
[email protected] 04, 2007 03:10 pm

I do believe in harsh measures for punishing retrograde elemtns of society, such as reactionaries, fascists, bourgeosie and lumpenproletariat.

What, like homeless people, drug addicts, people on welfare, burglars, petty thiefs. Stick them in an oven that thats that is it?
NO. After the revolution I support special facilities to rehabilitate them, and verse them in proper thought and Communist discipline. If they fall back into self-destructive/socially-destructive behavior I would either send them to a long-term public works assignment to help society.

I don&#39;t support &#39;ovens&#39;. :lol: [/b]
I think we will have to rehabilitate you from your idealist and paternalist attitude. Maybe we can send you to work in the ghettos, the colonies and sqautter towns, that would be sufficient punishment.


Marxism is not liberalism. I will happilly call many people scum.

Well really Marxism isn&#39;t emotional and fanatical either.


I&#39;m surprised at how many people completely missed the point of the essay.

You shouldn&#39;t be. Most people are idiots and just like to rant.

[Zurdito]

Well really Marxism isn&#39;t emotional and fanatical either.

Marxism is not "emotionalist", however, it can be emotional. All people have emotions, if you wish to pretend we on&#39;t that&#39;s just idealism,a nd Marxism was never meant to be that: in fact the belief that humans need to overcome their own nature is the opposite of Marxism. If we said that we&#39;d be as bad as libertarians.

Also Marx never ruled out moral judgements, his work was full of moral outrage at the plight of the proletariat, and an emotionally fuelled hatred of those to blame, or those who collaborated.

Come to think of it, Marx called the lumpenproletariat "scum" himself.

http://books.google.com/books?id=kUKPySYGV...XQZJRUU9sU_F5PI (http://books.google.com/books?id=kUKPySYGVtEC&pg=PA349&lpg=PA349&dq=lumpenproletariat+scum&source=web&ots=3dGii1GqUU&sig=hcrhidlpbzMuXQZJRUU9sU_F5PI)

[Hiero]

Marxism is not "emotionalist", however, it can be emotional. All people have emotions, if you wish to pretend we on&#39;t that&#39;s just idealism,a nd Marxism was never meant to be that: in fact the belief that humans need to overcome their own nature is the opposite of Marxism. If we did that we&#39;d be as bad as libertarians. Also Marx never ruled out moral judgements, his work was full of moral outrage at the plight of the bourgeoisie, and an emotionally fuelled hatred of those to blame, or those who collaborated

You know it is interesting and not trying to imply something here, but Pol Pot made the same errors. Pol Pot&#39;s regime survived on promoting hatred and revenge against the oppressors of the peasants. It feel down to the individuals hatred of ones former master. This is in the personal sense, when I say former master I mean villager A and policeman B. In the turmoil of that period the khmer rouge put such people in power, and rather then have to watch over ever aspect of their administration, they could guaranty loyalty to the regime through hatred of ones former oppressor. Village A would hunt down the former policeman who may have beat him when he was young, or stole his produce. He would then have the power to work the policeman to death or just kill him.

Now someone people would say, so what? It is just a policemen. But this promotion of individual class revenge gets out of hand. Violence breeds violence. It isn&#39;t hard to see how such a regime can lead to the killing fields. These liberated people would hunt down every oppressor and ever person who did bad against them, and punish them. And they are not doing for their class position, but some personal event which in some cases could be over 20 years ago.

The revolution needs to be non-emotional as possible, it needs to be broad, one class against another. It is not an individual vendetta against ones personal oppressors.


Come to think of it, Marx called the lumpenproletariat "scum" himself.

We have come a long way from Marx&#39;s time.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 02:14 am
Come to think of it, Marx called the lumpenproletariat "scum" himself.

http://books.google.com/books?id=kUKPySYGV...XQZJRUU9sU_F5PI (http://books.google.com/books?id=kUKPySYGVtEC&pg=PA349&lpg=PA349&dq=lumpenproletariat+scum&source=web&ots=3dGii1GqUU&sig=hcrhidlpbzMuXQZJRUU9sU_F5PI)
For the sake of accuracy; that was Engels, not Marx.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Originally posted by bleeding gums malatesta+December 05, 2007 11:44 am--> (bleeding gums malatesta @ December 05, 2007 11:44 am)
[email protected] 05, 2007 04:15 pm
Is Comrade Crum not referring to the fascists, reactionaries, lumpenproletariat and bourgeoisie in that post?

First - lumpens are not equivalent to fascists or bourgeois &#39;reactionaries&#39; - second, his response which i quoted referred to another persons remark: "What, like homeless people, drug addicts, people on welfare, burglars, petty thiefs" - his authoritarian bourgeois &#39;law and order&#39; response was in reference to such people. [/b]
Bourgeois? COMRADE CRUM? This prooves that you know nothing about his background. The area of Milwaukee in which he lives is a run down area. There are crackheads all over. If you are in that area (especialy during the summer) you&#39;ll notice the vast majority of people on their porches being loud and disruptive. Most of them under the influence of something. Not to mention hearing gun shots VERY OFTEN&#33;&#33;&#33; How dare you call my friend bourgeois when you have no idea what his lifestyle is. You base your opinion of him off knowing nothing of him. You probably never met him. Me on the other hand, I&#39;m like best friends with him and his sister&#39;s boyfriend. I know him well enough to tell you he is not bourgeois.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 02:02 am
I think we will have to rehabilitate you from your idealist and paternalist attitude. Maybe we can send you to work in the ghettos, the colonies and sqautter towns, that would be sufficient punishment.
Too bad for you. Fate beat you to the punch. He already lives in the innercity.

[Felicia]

haha... yeah, a few people did, indeed, miss the point of the article. Its not saying that on a whole, there is no scum in the world. It&#39;s saying that the homeless person on the street, the kid begging for change, the person starving and stealing food, is not scum&#33; That they are a product of their environment and do what they can to survive. If that means going against what the government deems &#39;lawful&#39; than so be it, it doesn&#39;t make them scum, it could almost make them survivors.

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 03:54 pm
haha... yeah, a few people did, indeed, miss the point of the article. Its not saying that on a whole, there is no scum in the world. It&#39;s saying that the homeless person on the street, the kid begging for change, the person starving and stealing food, is not scum&#33; That they are a product of their environment and do what they can to survive. If that means going against what the government deems &#39;lawful&#39; than so be it, it doesn&#39;t make them scum, it could almost make them survivors.
I didn&#39;t miss the point of the article, but the thread progressed.

[Felicia]

Originally posted by Zurdito+December 16, 2007 01:07 pm--> (Zurdito @ December 16, 2007 01:07 pm)
[email protected] 16, 2007 03:54 pm
haha... yeah, a few people did, indeed, miss the point of the article. Its not saying that on a whole, there is no scum in the world. It&#39;s saying that the homeless person on the street, the kid begging for change, the person starving and stealing food, is not scum&#33; That they are a product of their environment and do what they can to survive. If that means going against what the government deems &#39;lawful&#39; than so be it, it doesn&#39;t make them scum, it could almost make them survivors.
I didn&#39;t miss the point of the article, but the thread progressed. [/b]
Did I say it was you ;)

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Originally posted by Zurdito+December 15, 2007 01:37 am--> (Zurdito @ December 15, 2007 01:37 am)
[email protected] 15, 2007 01:15 am
I&#39;m surprised at how many people completely missed the point of the essay. I think it&#39;s a very good article, and much needed in Ireland--our middle class generally holds one of the most backwards views of the proletariat in the world.
just out of interest: why do you think that is? [/b]
To be honest I&#39;m not sure, but go over to websites like politics.ie and you&#39;ll see it, it&#39;s pathetic. I think it&#39;s because most of our more politically vocal population come from rural communities (they tend to be staunchly Fine Gael and, since Fianna Fáil have been in power for the last 20 years, they have more to complain about) and as such are shocked and appalled to hear that Ireland actually has a working class, and that they are not completely submissive to the bourgeoisie. (There was a massive increase in the size of the working class during the Celtic Tiger, Ireland&#39;s economic boom.)

[Raúl Duke]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 10:54 am
haha... yeah, a few people did, indeed, miss the point of the article. Its not saying that on a whole, there is no scum in the world. It&#39;s saying that the homeless person on the street, the kid begging for change, the person starving and stealing food, is not scum&#33; That they are a product of their environment and do what they can to survive. If that means going against what the government deems &#39;lawful&#39; than so be it, it doesn&#39;t make them scum, it could almost make them survivors.
QFT

The only scum are the bourgeoisie and their lackeys&#33;

[Felicia]

what does &#39;QFT&#39; mean. :blush:

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 07:30 pm
what does &#39;QFT&#39; mean. :blush:
Quoted For Truth. :P

[Felicia]

ahh, nice.

I always feel so old, I don&#39;t know the acronyms you guys use.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by petey+December 15, 2007 01:13 pm--> (petey &#064; December 15, 2007 01:13 pm)
Originally posted by bleeding gums [email protected] 05, 2007 11:44 am

[email protected] 05, 2007 04:15 pm
Is Comrade Crum not referring to the fascists, reactionaries, lumpenproletariat and bourgeoisie in that post?

First - lumpens are not equivalent to fascists or bourgeois &#39;reactionaries&#39; - second, his response which i quoted referred to another persons remark: "What, like homeless people, drug addicts, people on welfare, burglars, petty thiefs" - his authoritarian bourgeois &#39;law and order&#39; response was in reference to such people.
Bourgeois? COMRADE CRUM? This prooves that you know nothing about his background. The area of Milwaukee in which he lives is a run down area. There are crackheads all over. If you are in that area (especialy during the summer) you&#39;ll notice the vast majority of people on their porches being loud and disruptive. Most of them under the influence of something. Not to mention hearing gun shots VERY OFTEN&#33;&#33;&#33; How dare you call my friend bourgeois when you have no idea what his lifestyle is. You base your opinion of him off knowing nothing of him. You probably never met him. Me on the other hand, I&#39;m like best friends with him and his sister&#39;s boyfriend. I know him well enough to tell you he is not bourgeois. [/b]

I never said that COMRADE CRUM himself was bourgeois (how could i possibly know that?) - but rather that his ideas concerning the criminal &#39;justice&#39; system etc. were.

[Herman]

ahh, nice.

I always feel so old, I don&#39;t know the acronyms you guys use.

You&#39;re an old woman&#33; You don&#39;t understand young people&#33;

[Marsella]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 07:57 pm

ahh, nice.

I always feel so old, I don&#39;t know the acronyms you guys use.

You&#39;re an old woman&#33; You don&#39;t understand young people&#33;
I didn&#39;t have a clue what it meant either. :(

[Felicia]

haha, well. I&#39;m 23 and a half :-P

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Originally posted by bleeding gums [email protected] 20, 2007 09:17 am
I never said that COMRADE CRUM himself was bourgeois (how could i possibly know that?) - but rather that his ideas concerning the criminal &#39;justice&#39; system etc. were.
That&#39;s after his words were twisted and misquoted and taken out of context by the likes of you. :P

He was not talking of mandatory rehabilitation. He was talking about government aid for people who want help. As well as providing shelters and such.

You OBVIOUSLY are NOT paying attention to what he was saying. Instead you search for details you can twist and take out of context so you can discredit him as a person based off YOUR PERSONAL OPINION&#33;

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by bleeding gums malatesta+December 20, 2007 03:17 am--> (bleeding gums malatesta &#064; December 20, 2007 03:17 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 01:13 pm

Originally posted by bleeding gums [email protected] 05, 2007 11:44 am

[email protected] 05, 2007 04:15 pm
Is Comrade Crum not referring to the fascists, reactionaries, lumpenproletariat and bourgeoisie in that post?

First - lumpens are not equivalent to fascists or bourgeois &#39;reactionaries&#39; - second, his response which i quoted referred to another persons remark: "What, like homeless people, drug addicts, people on welfare, burglars, petty thiefs" - his authoritarian bourgeois &#39;law and order&#39; response was in reference to such people.
Bourgeois? COMRADE CRUM? This prooves that you know nothing about his background. The area of Milwaukee in which he lives is a run down area. There are crackheads all over. If you are in that area (especialy during the summer) you&#39;ll notice the vast majority of people on their porches being loud and disruptive. Most of them under the influence of something. Not to mention hearing gun shots VERY OFTEN&#33;&#33;&#33; How dare you call my friend bourgeois when you have no idea what his lifestyle is. You base your opinion of him off knowing nothing of him. You probably never met him. Me on the other hand, I&#39;m like best friends with him and his sister&#39;s boyfriend. I know him well enough to tell you he is not bourgeois.

I never said that COMRADE CRUM himself was bourgeois (how could i possibly know that?) - but rather that his ideas concerning the criminal &#39;justice&#39; system etc. were.[/b]
bleeding gums malatesta:
While I don&#39;t really want to get in a personal argument with you on this basis, the issue you take with Comrade Crum, if you had any first hand experience living in certain areas of cities, you would realize what Comrade Crum meant, and that your understanding of the issue at hand is lacking much coherence.

I am aware of what happens, because I grew up in cities and parts of cities where this was a huge issue. I have witnessed, first hand, throughout most of my life, and I am well aware of this. I have witnessed crime, drug use, been right in the middle of it many times. I have had countless experiences which I base my opinion on. There were neighborhoods that I walked through when I was very young. Streets many people were afraid to walk down. Loud people, guns, drugs, little boys and girls hitting each other with belts, teenagers pulling knives at each other, drug dealings on the corner, shootings, endless violence; hearing it out of my fucking bedroom window. A guy who was obviously on drugs stalked me down a few blocks, which scared the shit out of me, at a very young age. There wasn&#39;t much I didn&#39;t do, didn&#39;t experience, at even the young age of 12. I was well aware of it because I lived in it and saw it every day of my life. I went to school where children would get beat up across from the school and shootings occurred at the convenience store on the same block.

Now, this is something, that if you were at all familiar with, you would realize Comrade Crum&#39;s response to it isn&#39;t really "uncalled for" or "authoritarian" it&#39;s a response that someone has when living with it for a long time, which I know very well. If you respond to Comrade Crum&#39;s argument in such a way, obviously you have not experienced any of this.

[Marsella]

Calling for harsher measures against such people is not only morally reprehensible, it is counter productive. A national representative study published in the BMJ showed 40% of irish prisoners inject drugs - 21% inject for the first time while in prison. That means that prison actually creates more problems than it solves in the long run. Troubled kids go into prison and many of them emerge with heroin habits which require a criminal lifestyle to feed.

I agree with that.


NO. After the revolution I support special facilities to rehabilitate them, and verse them in proper thought and Communist discipline.

What a thoroughly idealistic view.

Versing criminals in &#39;proper thought&#39; and &#39;Communist discipline&#39; (whatever the fuck that means) exposes your view that crime is a result of mentality, rather than social conditions.

If we are to destroy crime we should attack the conditions which create it.

Rehabilitation, therefore, will always be a farce since a &#39;rehabilitated criminal&#39; may very well fall into old ways when they go back into their old environment.

And that old environment will take time to change, even in a communist society.


haha, well. I&#39;m 23 and a half :-P

&#39;and a half&#39;? :lol:

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 06:34 am
Versing criminals in &#39;proper thought&#39; and &#39;Communist discipline&#39; (whatever the fuck that means) exposes your view that crime is a result of mentality, rather than social conditions.
To say that it&#39;s simply one or the other is equaly ridiculous. It&#39;s a combination of various factors. To simplify it down to ONLY being a result of mentality is just as ridiculous as simplifying it down to ONLY being societal.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by petey+December 23, 2007 01:01 am--> (petey @ December 23, 2007 01:01 am)
[email protected] 23, 2007 06:34 am
Versing criminals in &#39;proper thought&#39; and &#39;Communist discipline&#39; (whatever the fuck that means) exposes your view that crime is a result of mentality, rather than social conditions.
To say that it&#39;s simply one or the other is equaly ridiculous. It&#39;s a combination of various factors. To simplify it down to ONLY being a result of mentality is just as ridiculous as simplifying it down to ONLY being societal. [/b]
Martov obviously lacking coherence on this issue; he probably has never had the experience to justify his opinion of it.

[Marsella]

To say that it&#39;s simply one or the other is equaly ridiculous.


To simplify it down to ONLY being a result of mentality is just as ridiculous as simplifying it down to ONLY being societal.

We are looking at the causes of crime.

A criminal does not wake up with a criminal mentality and then decides to rob.

Hence, attempting to rehabilitate someone&#39;s mind is attacking the wrong aspect.


It&#39;s a combination of various factors.

Such as?


Martov obviously lacking coherence on this issue; he (?) probably has never had the experience to justify his (?) opinion of it.

Do you have anything relevant to say?

If not, keep your petty personal feuds elsewhere.

Unlike you, I do not feel the desire to write three paragraphs on how I am the poor victim of crime.

If that suits you, I suggest you write for Law and Order or CSI. :)

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 01:20 am
Do you have anything relevant to say?

If not, keep your petty personal feuds elsewhere.

Unlike you, I do not feel the desire to write three paragraphs on how I am the poor victim of crime.

If that suits you, I suggest you write for Law and Order or CSI. :)
What the fuck? :huh:

I don&#39;t merely attempt to appear a "victim" i try to shed some light on things which are relevant to debate.

[Marsella]

Originally posted by Comrade Nadezhda+December 23, 2007 05:10 pm--> (Comrade Nadezhda @ December 23, 2007 05:10 pm)
[email protected] 23, 2007 01:20 am
Do you have anything relevant to say?

If not, keep your petty personal feuds elsewhere.

Unlike you, I do not feel the desire to write three paragraphs on how I am the poor victim of crime.

If that suits you, I suggest you write for Law and Order or CSI. :)
What the fuck? :huh:

I don&#39;t merely attempt to appear a "victim" i try to shed some light on things which are relevant to debate. [/b]
Sure you do:


Martov obviously lacking coherence on this issue; he probably has never had the experience to justify his opinion of it.

Oh so relevant to the debate. <_<

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by Martov+December 23, 2007 01:47 am--> (Martov @ December 23, 2007 01:47 am)
Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 23, 2007 05:10 pm

[email protected] 23, 2007 01:20 am
Do you have anything relevant to say?

If not, keep your petty personal feuds elsewhere.

Unlike you, I do not feel the desire to write three paragraphs on how I am the poor victim of crime.

If that suits you, I suggest you write for Law and Order or CSI. :)
What the fuck? :huh:

I don&#39;t merely attempt to appear a "victim" i try to shed some light on things which are relevant to debate.
Sure you do:


Martov obviously lacking coherence on this issue; he probably has never had the experience to justify his opinion of it.

Oh so relevant to the debate. <_< [/b]
because you talk about it like you don&#39;t have an understanding for crime or what contributes to it.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 07:20 am

To say that it&#39;s simply one or the other is equaly ridiculous.


To simplify it down to ONLY being a result of mentality is just as ridiculous as simplifying it down to ONLY being societal.

We are looking at the causes of crime.

A criminal does not wake up with a criminal mentality and then decides to rob.

Hence, attempting to rehabilitate someone&#39;s mind is attacking the wrong aspect.


It&#39;s a combination of various factors.

Such as?


Martov obviously lacking coherence on this issue; he (?) probably has never had the experience to justify his (?) opinion of it.

Do you have anything relevant to say?

If not, keep your petty personal feuds elsewhere.

Unlike you, I do not feel the desire to write three paragraphs on how I am the poor victim of crime.

If that suits you, I suggest you write for Law and Order or CSI. :)
While there are societal factors (which I won&#39;t deny) like poverty. Not everyone living in poverty will go out and commit a crime. Therefore other factors may exist. Factors of things such as lack of ability to understand right and wrong. This could be affected by the societal condition of poverty but that would not explain things like drunk homophobic frat boys going out and beating up a homosexual. Crime is caused by various factors which can be summed into two primary parts: Mentality and Society.

There are rich fuckers who will go out and commit crimes. There are poor people who will go out and commit crimes. From what I noticed hard drugs do play a part in a large ammount of crime in the innercity. Lack of ability to know right from wrong (or in some cases to even care about what&#39;s right and wrong) is a factor. Niether should be ruled out in combating the problem. Addiction can at times lead to the deteriation of knowing or caring about right and wrong. That is how many drug addicts will find themselves picking people who they think won&#39;t be able to defend themselves in an attempt to get a few bucks for their next fix.