Discussion in 'UK politics, current affairs and news' started by Stoat Boy, May 26, 2011.
Like nurses keep people ill, it's terrible I know.
That's confusing two very different issues.
'Professionals' often do have an interest in, or tendency towards, perpetuating problems, in some circumstances. And politicians can create all the straw people they want to use in the propaganda debate.
None of that means that a child brought up in a household where the only predictable form of communication was violence won't most likely grow into an adult who struggles to contain violent impulses in some circumstances; that a child who often goes to bed hungry and to school starving and has to share a room with three siblings with no table in the house isn't going to find it harder to thrive at school.
It's not black or white, heroes or villains. It's more nuanced than that,
It's me who's been doing that, not you.
I haven't denied that. I grew up next door to somebody who's serving time for murder. Looking at the way the family were, something like that was a nailed on certainty. But not all violent criminals come from violent households. Or violent non-criminals for that matter. Some of the nastiest bastards I've known come from stable, reasonably well prvided-for backgrounds.
OK yes, really good points there
Social workers seem to need to find a "concern" to justify their existence.
I don't see anyone doing that on this thread. What you say has been aknowledged and recognised on this thread multiple times by those you are arguing with. What you and others seem to be ignoring however is that different outcomes do arise from similar social contexts where the same choices are available - and like it or not, there is an element of individual determinism at play. Aknowledging this doesn't make you a liberal, nor does it mean your politics are marred by an 'individualist liberal approach' - all it means is you aknowledge the reality of the situation, and are hopefully somewhat further down the line of understanding it more fully - something that surely is fundamental to be able to attempt to actually do anything about it
If the working class truly is the agent of change and the active subject in the capital/labour relation as the better interpretations of marx would have us believe then they can not (either at the individual or collectivel level) be completely and totally determined by other truly external factors like some kind of secular predestination. To posit this view brings you down to the kind of crude determinism that is often attributed to marx which denies the role of the working class as the active subject and instead confines them to passive object
Where have I suggested social context is economic? I've referred to socio-economic, social conditions, social circumstances, social environment etc.. throughout the last few posts - all of which encompass social relations (in fact in the post that you replied to I said socio-economic circumstances & social environment, there's no indication of a reduction to 'economic' in anything I've written)
Thought he was 'a drugs worker.' Has he jumped ship?
In any case, the point stands in that those who think they can change the world and get paid for it at the same time, whether they're professional ecologists or 'drugs workers' or whatever, do have a material interest in perpetuating the very problems they purport to solve.
Yes, of course I am. That's why my first comment in this thread today went something like 'the main causes of crime are social.'
surely that's already happening - restorative justice and all that
1% of the population are psychopaths. There's no consistent 'nurture' story and AFAIK it is still possible that they are simply wired differently.
It's not a single factor issue:
risk(becoming a criminal) = some function of(genes, poverty, life experiences, violence, peer group, area of residence, .... ) + error
The error bit is measurement error (from not knowing all the background details, nor who did all the crimes committed) and the error from simply not being able to measure some things (especially those things we don't know are important).
At least two post on here.
Assuming all this to be true, what effect does it have in alleviating or containing the problem (I don't believe it's a problem that can ever be solved?) How does it help the victims of crime, particularly violent crime?
More than likely, although there would be limited interest in forums for a psychopath, unless they were practising their skills. Like a sandpit for real life.
Restorative justice is still very marginal to the whole criminal justice system and when it does take place its still very much individual victim/offender based.
Community restorative justive would be broader. There is a wider pilot in a place called Chard which looks intersting but otherwise everything else revolves around the 'criminal justice system' . Having said that if its cheaper and doesn't lose votes you can bet your bottom dollar Kenneth Clarke will be waxing lyrically about it soon.
and also not accountable to the communities they supposedly work in
It doesn't help the immediate victims, barring any real victories they can pin on their case, like quicker responses to domestic violence or better street lighting.
But if we don't understand a problem, we can't minimise the impact on future victims. If we don't know that squeezing benefits and wages causes poverty causes additional stresses cause more people to break than otherwise would have ... if that narrative is correct, which I believe it is from the evidence available ... then we can't make the political argument for redistribution leave the moral ghetto of 'because we're nicer'.
People aren't interested in being preached at by holier than thou 'lefties', they're interested in how their lives get better. It's analyses like this that are why I am a 'leftie'. Better social policy enriches my life without putting money in my pocket (ie very efficiently). I think a lot of 'aspirational' types believe they'd be worse off, when purchasing power is higher for the middle (as well as the bottom and most of the top) in more equal societies.
You're fucking mental tbh.
which you then went on to contradict. As I said you're mental.
Diagnosis by messageboard. Very professional.
No I didn't, you complete fool. I pointed out that while crime may have social causes, it is the individual's choice whether to particpate or not. Nothing contradictory there.
You're mostly trying to refute statements that haven't even been made.
I've already acknowledged that I may be misreading the arguments being presented.
Love detective - you're misunderstanding my posts. I'm not denying individual choice. What I'm trying to do is to place it in a dynamic relationship with the social. A dialectic, where the individual and the social are both inseparable opposites of a whole.
As is LLETSA
Oh if anyone needs to be criticised for empty posturing, its LLETSA with his abortion comment.
If he is, he's making a very hamfisted job of it.
it all appears pretty clear & straightforward to me
Ain't you the clever one.
I wouldn't say it's a particularly difficult thing to grasp
Separate names with a comma.