The Death of Respect [Archive]

King Henry V

07-26-2009, 00:44

Linky if you live in GB (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00ls7h7/Death_of_Respect_Episode_1/)

Don't know if any Orghas in Blighty saw this programme, as it was on the graveyard slot at eleven-thirty at night.

The presenter dealt with what he called the "Death of Respect", a general decline in public behaviour in Britain since the 1960s, which has led to the highest levels of public disorder, drunken behaviour and juvenile crime in Western Europe. Instead of launching into the old simple tirade against a feckless youth who only need a good bout of national service do teach them some discipline, the presenter offers a well-balanced and specific view of why there has been a surge of lawlessness, abusive drinking, intimidatory behaviour and the like in the past decades. He basically pinpoints unbridled individualism as the cause for the ills, whether it is the social individualism born of the 1960s, which has lead to an underlying attitude of "I can do whatever I want to do and :daisy: everybody else", or the economic individualism of 1980s and Thatcherism, which has thrown anything deemed "inefficient" on the dustheap, and to hell with the social costs, meaning at least two generations of persistent unemployment in many regions.

All in all a very interesting programme, I highly recommend watching it if you can.

Beskar

07-26-2009, 01:55

Going to watch it now. However, I think one of the reasons is more transparency and focus on the bad. Many things which are classed as "bad" did not used to be bad and how do you calculate "bad" as a relative term? (generations ago, the grandparents/parents era, racism was acceptable, now, their comments are seen as bad. Does this cultural change make things worse?)

I know many people who say "Britain is bad" are the very bad people themselves and they attempt to justify it by saying some one else is worse than them. It is a lack of responsibility and consequences of actions with many other factors.

A Terribly Harmful Name

07-26-2009, 02:30

The decline of morality is not due to a lack of national service, it is merely the fact that the intellectual catchwords and principia which held together successive generations since the XIX century became old and obsolete. As a result, modern man is turning more and more either to ressurrected religiousness or merely being content with the "feel good" philosophy which seems to be the currency of the younger generations today. A side-effect of that is extreme narcissism and what would be considered by previous generations as downright immoral and indecent behaviour, but that's how it goes nevertheless. People object to moral standards because they no longer feel themselves, not even intellectually, bound to the ideal and the principle which convenes the tight moral standards in the first place. Morals are never an end for themselves, but rather a mean to improvement, e.g. religious improvement.

Louis VI the Fat

07-26-2009, 02:39

Bummer. Perfidious auntie Beeb won't let me watch the program.

If it is any consolation, pretty much the exact same phenomenon rages elsewhere. Including the stated causes. With the difference that 'Thatcher' is repaced by 'neo-liberalism'. And that the right blames '1968'.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-26-2009, 02:41

A Terribly Harmful Name

07-26-2009, 03:25

We lack a justification for our morality because it is either the old faith based morality mingled with that of culture, or because the modern narcissistic "mores", at least as far as I can define it, is simply a sort of "return to primitivism". People simply do and think what it pleases them or their closer relatives, or their jobs - That's also why it is not justified at all, since it is not the sort of heavily intellectualized mystique of Nationalism or the older forms of political and economic Socialism, although not less heavily mechanical and practical. That's quite a broad definition of course, since there are people who fall in all parts of the spectrum, like holding "Christian virtues" together with economic utilitarianism, and the likes.

Attempts, of course, have been and are currently being made. In the tons of self-help literature of today, for example, but they are essentially simple-minded because there's not much to describe - Rip apart some Mill for utilitarian justification, some Sartre for all those riddles against upright moral conduct, some John Lehnnon catchwords for the mood and that's it. Not counting some old and tired Socialist precepts, like "Imperialism is the death of Capitalism", while in reality their own morale postulates nothing but a refurbished version of the old justification by deeds, and which propels celebrities to donate to Africa and people to do charity there en masse so that anyone and everyone might have a share of the wealth and equal opportunities, something that is peculiar to our times and means again.

Beskar

07-26-2009, 03:43

It is the lack of responsibility. As it was mentioned in the show "The kids think themselves as immortal" and in many aspects they are. Many of the "kids" won't make it past filling biscuit tins for a career, and that is if they take a career. Many of them don't even bother, they just had like 5 kids then they are set for life.

I know some-one on a council estate which have 3 kids (5, 10. 12) the mother doesn't work, the father only works 20 hours a week, as if he works more, they get less money! They have rent, bills and everything paid for them by the welfare money, they have 5 computers, 2 laptops and 2 40inch tv screens and a projector and all these random hi-price gadgets and eat out at dominio's get like 7 pizzas work a night (appox £70) on top of other meals.

The above example is bad in the present age, however, if you look in the past, th similar thing happened, in the sense that there were no support for the mother and the kids and "Father" went to the pub to spend all his money on booze and getting drunk.

a completely inoffensive name

07-26-2009, 05:17

I want to contribute to this program but since the BBC doesn't want a Yank to watch their own programing I can't really formulate an opinion about it. I will say though that a lot of people I go to school with are idiots and/or have no concept of humility.

Proletariat

07-26-2009, 05:27

Seriously, explain how respectful people were before the 60s and Thatcherism. Can you? I'd like to know what a different world it was before 'respect' was ignored.

a completely inoffensive name

07-26-2009, 05:48

Seriously, explain how respectful people were before the 60s and Thatcherism. Can you? I'd like to know what a different world it was before 'respect' was ignored.

Before respect was ignored, we lived much better lives with civilized countries waging a civilized Cold War. Men and women took the time to look and comment towards their neighbors on how beautiful their house's fresh new coat of lead paint looked. People didn't complain about frivolous things about nuclear Armageddon coming at any second because it is rude to waste another's person's time and men certainly showed women the utmost respect by pulling their chairs and opening doors for them as well as protecting their special lady from the burden of financial independence that lurked outside the kitchen!

/sarcasm

Husar

07-26-2009, 06:22

Seriously, explain how respectful people were before the 60s and Thatcherism. Can you? I'd like to know what a different world it was before 'respect' was ignored.

Well, I think there was no happy-slapping and they certainly didn't record it on their cellphones to show it around.

Banquo's Ghost

07-26-2009, 09:44

I want to contribute to this program but since the BBC doesn't want a Yank to watch their own programing I can't really formulate an opinion about it.

That's because you didn't pay for the BBC's programming through your licence fee. :book:

As to the topic, a great deal of the problem is that no-one knows their place. The working class don't work, they have "aspirations". Inevitably, the promises are not fulfilled and they become Bolshy.

I blame the French. But 1789 rather than 1968.

FactionHeir

07-26-2009, 12:09

One of the greatest vanities, especially in the young, is the belief that the Age we live in is fundamentally different to other Ages, or that man has progressed in a new way or new direction.

We have some extreme social problems at the moment, but we also no longer execute people, or sanction violence in our society. The problem is that we lack a justification of our morality, not that we don't have one.

I think you pinpointed it well. Wherever I go, I can hear the youth and some people my age as well saying that "times have changed" and words to that effect, often in a derogatory way towards the status of things ten years ago.
Its a problem of loosening morals, much of which is due to both a neglected people within society and the attitude displayed on advertisements and media programming these days. Sex and crime sell, and in a thoroughly capitalist environment, what sells is good for business. And as we know business is about wealth and not about society as a whole.

It is also here that we need to differentiate between the meaning of respect today (gang wars among juveniles anyone?) and that in the earlier times (respecting the law and your elders, while being able to disagree).

The other point of course is that society is moving from being a factor that holds people together to one of individualism and frivolous litigations - everyone for themselves, nothing for others. Of course there are those like many of us here who still follow the more respectful and moral path, but over the years, the shift towards this new evil has been rather swift. Wherever you go, you have people blaring their music (if you could even call it that), swearing at each other or things, a complete disregard for strangers in need, abusing each other, trying to be gansters and the like. Coupled with a societal attitude that this is OK (which it absolutely is not) and wanting more freedom and less law, you also see less enforcement of these "small fish" until its too late.

Now, while re-education camps probably won't find much appeal and the generally more softer and humane approach to things have not managed to stem this epidemic of sorts, we also start to see that those who live and promote this "lifestyle" are now starting to reach reproduction age (not only among asults but increasingly among teens as well...) and instilling the same values among their children. As human nature seems to tend towards liberalism and individualism, their children then also go on to poison the minds of those who are more conservative.

I actually woke up this morning before reading this thread thinking about what if I ever had children and how to bring them up, realizing that few schools in Britain foster a healthy and moral environment anymore, and that the loose morals spread by media may very well be inevitable.

As for the solution, there is not really one that will appeal with everyone and in a time where everyone cares more about their individual human rights, its difficult to do much about this as you cannot force anything on anyone without some public outcry or major lawsuit.

HoreTore

07-26-2009, 12:30

We have some extreme social problems at the moment, but we also no longer execute people, or sanction violence in our society. The problem is that we lack a justification of our morality, not that we don't have one.

Indeedy. Beating your wife in the 50's? Like anyone would care...

Husar

07-26-2009, 14:01

That's because you didn't pay for the BBC's programming through your licence fee. :book:

I listen to the BBC Global News podcast and I didn't pay any fees for that either, it's pretty good though and I like it. :2thumbsup:

Beskar

07-26-2009, 14:07

Indeedy. Beating your wife in the 50's? Like anyone would care...

Indeed, many things have changed for the better.

As for Happy Slapping, it never used to happen because cell phones were never around and being honest, there are far worse things than Happy Slapping in society.

rory_20_uk

07-26-2009, 14:46

Events are the same, they're now just more "in your face". I imagine that slum dwellers were just as crime ridden hell holes a hundred years ago as the modern estates. The rich still sleep with whores and do drugs, children still get abused etc etc.

The thing is these days is we appear to spend vast sums of money and time wringing out hands about it and wasting money on it rather than trying to remove it from society's view.

~:smoking:

ICantSpellDawg

07-26-2009, 15:29

Times have changed every second since the beggining of time. It is an empty statement. Self interested hedonism is the cause of the decay, not individualism. I know plenty of good, well mannered Christians who believe that people should have many rights that arn't jumping up and down drunk with their wangs hanging out of their pants.

You can believe in personal responsibility and that you are individual as it pleases God, which would tend to mean that you should respect the individuality of the rest of his people.

We are empty because we choose to be empty and that will change as soon as heads are removed from asses. This happens from time to time historically and then there is a backlash, as in most things and people because too well mannered.

rotorgun

07-27-2009, 02:47

I think it's in proverbs that it says, there is no new thing under the sun... or something like that. Each generation feels that they are the grander than the ones that have come before them. Really, despite all the changes in technology and so called moral standards, nothing has really changed. The human heart is desperately wicked, who can know it?

As I get older I find myself complaining of the ways in which the "new generation" behaves, sounding ever more like my father before me. When I think about it though, I come to the conclusion that it's all part of the human way in which we grow and learn. The French have a saying- the more things change; the more things remain the same, the more they remain the same, the more things change.

It kind of sums it up for me pretty well.

Reverend Joe

07-27-2009, 05:36

WON'T SOMEBODY, PLEASE, THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!

It's all in your heads, people, relax. If there is indeed a "loosening of morals," then it will have no more impact than the 1920's in America; in other words, none at all, apart from nostalgia. And I think I can safely say that there is no nostalgia worthy of this moment in time. In fact, most of the sensible people I know are just that; sensible, respectful, and not idiotic. Idiots will be idiots, but as long as there are intelligent people the idiots will not destroy society.

As a matter of fact, I am actually far more concerned about conservatism and the limitation of my own freedoms at the moment than I am of a mass collapse of society.

a completely inoffensive name

07-27-2009, 07:24

WON'T SOMEBODY, PLEASE, THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!

I believe you are looking for this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo

Ja'chyra

07-27-2009, 07:50

This subject is one of my, many, bugbears.

On the one hand I see a total lack of responsibility for a lot of youngsters these days but on the other hand does anyone seriously expect me to believe that things really were better in the good old days? So there wasn't underage drinking or knife crime pre 60's? No gangs or violence? Right, I'm from Glasgow and looking at the older generations I know better, but it's easier to forget about these things as time goes on.

As for lack of responsibility, my girlfriend has an 18 year old daughter who has just moved out to stay with her friends, good for her and 18 is quite young for this, but, and here's the rub, her mum still pays for her mobile phone, paid for her holiday and passport, bought her a car for her 18th and still sends her pocketmoney once a month. I've tried to explain that she's not doing her any favours in the long run but to no avail.

My nephew is even worse, he's 8 years old and gets over £10 a week pocket money as well as more money whenever he asks, he won't wear any trainers except Nike and got, among other things, a laptop for his christmas. This is where I think things go wrong, kids have no idea on the value of things as they are all too easy to come by.

Don't even get me started on welfare, national service is not the answer but there's absolutely no reason why the unemployed can't be doing something constructive for their cheque even if it's picking up litter, tidying parks or clearing streams, things are just too easy for people these days and there's no incentive to make any effort for a lot of people.

Husar

07-27-2009, 11:42

Well, concerning the nothing has changed crowd, I did not know that 20 years ago there were schools were teachers were afraid of their students, in fact, teachers 50 years ago could still cane students on their hands and the students behaved. Nowadays we get the newest horror stories where students hang a teacher out of a window and force her/him to do what they want. It's of course not just the children who changed, they just realized that nowadays with all the social appeasement, they can get what they want through violence and all the adult wusses will be scared and shocked, some years ago all the adults would have caned them for that sort of behaviour.

One more reason to slap your kids reasonably when they deserve it. :whip:

HoreTore

07-27-2009, 11:44

Uhm......

Just how is it worse that it's the students doing the violence thingy now, while it was the teachers who did it in the past?

LittleGrizzly

07-27-2009, 11:49

Adults beating children on thier whim is proper discipline... Children beating adults is the downfall of society...

Things get better and things get worse at the same time imo.

50 years ago having gay sex was still an illegal act. Now we allow gays to marry and officially recognise thier marriages... we may have more anti social behaviour (though it could just be more people, more crowded and more coverage) but for the most part things get better imo.

rory_20_uk

07-27-2009, 12:05

Adults beating children on thier whim is proper discipline... Children beating adults is the downfall of society...

I suppose one argument would be that adults justify their actions based on the rules of society and so is constructing society (although many might not like the model); children beating adults rarely if ever have the justification of their actions, and hence is undermining society.

~:smoking:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

07-27-2009, 16:25

Just how is it worse that it's the students doing the violence thingy now, while it was the teachers who did it in the past?

A slap with a cane as legitimate punishment for doing something wrong versus hanging a teacher out a window or grabbing him by the throat because you don't like a decision.

I can't see a difference either. :juggle2:

KukriKhan

07-27-2009, 16:46

I suppose one argument would be that adults justify their actions based on the rules of society and so is constructing society (although many might not like the model); children beating adults rarely if ever have the justification of their actions, and hence is undermining society.

~:smoking:

Just to throw another iron into this little campfire: we should remember that the definitions of "adult" and "child" have changed a bit over the years. 2,000 years ago a 12-year old was a "man", and a 15-year old Alexander the Great set off to conquer the known world.

It wasn't until the late 1800's that we started regarding teens as 'extended children', second-class citizens, who needed extra consideration and sheltering from the outside world. Child-Labour laws were enacted, and mandatory education to age 16 or so (depending on the country), and virtual immunity from prosecution for crimes committed, or significantly lighter punishments.

If we're going to hell in a handbasket, and it's because of the misbehavior and disrespect of the "children", is it time to revisit how long we keep 10-18 year olds 'children'?

Vladimir

07-27-2009, 16:52

If we're going to hell in a handbasket, and it's because of the misbehavior and disrespect of the "children", is it time to revisit how long we keep 10-18 year olds 'children'?

Frequently I hear the term applied to those in their early 20's. It's odd to hear people often call for leniency for these "young people."

HoreTore

07-27-2009, 16:54

A slap with a cane as legitimate punishment for doing something wrong versus hanging a teacher out a window or grabbing him by the throat because you don't like a decision.

I can't see a difference either. :juggle2:

So that means it's ok for my boss to hit me if I'm out of line, right?

And it's perfectly alright to slap my gf if she's out of line too?

rory_20_uk

07-27-2009, 16:56

Very good point.

It should be based on Fraiser Competance - once one has the ability to understand cause and effect and is cogniscent about one's actions, one should be treated as an adult (not sure what happens to those who never appear to grasp this though...)

Some would be treated as an adult far earlier than others. The concept of "teenagers" and child employment laws was to reduce the supply of employment to the labour market rather than based on the length of time in education that would benefit the individual.

It's hardly surprising that some teenagers or even children forced to avt as as an adult due to parental invapacity often can do so with little difficulty, as we've now got to the point where people don't have to be independent until they're well over the age of 20.

10 year olds in the mines isn't great, but neither is 25 year olds who are barely on solids.

~:smoking:

Vladimir

07-27-2009, 16:56

So that means it's ok for my boss to hit me if I'm out of line, right?

And it's perfectly alright to slap my gf if she's out of line too?

I'd slap you AND your girlfriend when you two get out of line. ~;)

Vladimir

07-27-2009, 16:58

HoreTore

07-27-2009, 17:00

I'd slap you AND your girlfriend when you two get out of line. ~;)

Well the girlfriend thing was kinda hypothetical, I'm single now...

But I think I'll be getting out of line very soon, Vladimir..... ~:flirt:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

07-27-2009, 17:02

So that means it's ok for my boss to hit me if I'm out of line, right?

And it's perfectly alright to slap my gf if she's out of line too?

I would say there is a difference between disciplining a child and another adult. For example, if your boss is out of line, he can fire you. If your girlfriend is out of line, you can break up with her. If a child is somewhere he doesn't want to be, you can't send him home - so what are you going to do? Children, and indeed people in general, don't care about receiving punishment if it isn't effective. If there are effective ways of disciplining a student without violence, those are obviously to be preferred, but there are some cases where a cane may well be necessary.

That being said, this raises the important question of whether the teacher should have the right to cane the student, which I have mixed feelings on since discipline should be primarily the responsibility of the family and not the state.

HoreTore

07-27-2009, 17:03

I would say there is a difference between disciplining a child and another adult. For example, if your boss is out of line, he can fire you. If your girlfriend is out of line, you can break up with her. If a child is somewhere he doesn't want to be, you can't send him home - so what are you going to do? Children, and indeed people in general, don't care about receiving punishment if it isn't effective. If there are effective ways of disciplining a student without violence, those are obviously to be preferred, but there are some cases where a cane may well be necessary.

That being said, this raises the important question of whether the teacher should have the right to cane the student, which I have mixed feelings on since discipline should be primarily the responsibility of the family and not the state.

Violence is violence.

I'll never compromise on that.

Rhyfelwyr

07-27-2009, 17:14

I've never understood why physical violence is seen any differently from other ways of harming people.

Vladimir

07-27-2009, 17:16

Well the girlfriend thing was kinda hypothetical, I'm single now...

But I think I'll be getting out of line very soon, Vladimir..... ~:flirt:

*mumbles something about needing a ball-gag smiley*

Meneldil

07-27-2009, 17:25

Violence is violence.

I'll never compromise on that.

Are you one of those 'children shall not be spanked/slaped' hippies?

As for the topic, I doubt there's such a thing as a death of respect. There probably was more violence, street crimes, rapes so on going on in the early 20th than nowadays (at least in your average place in Europe). Thing is, petty crime gets much more media coverage than it used to back then. When gangs used to fight with guns in the poors neighbourhoods of Paris in 1905, nobody cared basically. Now, when two gangs fight in a suburb near Paris, it makes the headline in any decent newspaper. People claim this is the downfall of civilization, the end of our nation and what not.

Sure, happy slapping is disgusting, and I think people who commit such acts should be shot immediatly when caught. Sure, hearing about a 15 year old kid stabbing his teacher is revolting. But meh, is it something new? I seriously doubt it, though I may be wrong.
What I might agree with is that violence is much more tolerated nowadays, maybe because we all turned into cowards/hippies/people who don't give a damn.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

07-27-2009, 17:39

Violence is violence.

I'll never compromise on that.

So you never think it is justifiable in any scenario?

HoreTore

07-28-2009, 03:35

So you never think it is justifiable in any scenario?

Nope.

FactionHeir

07-28-2009, 09:09

So you'd be all nice to a terrorist and not even touch him if he threatens to blow up the building your family is in?

rory_20_uk

07-28-2009, 09:17

It's been proven that the part of the brain responsible for this reaches maturity at around age 25. The same age car insurance rates go down.

That is finishes developing. That is not the same as increasing over a threshold that is viewed as acting at an adult level.

~:smoking:

HoreTore

07-28-2009, 09:25

So you'd be all nice to a terrorist and not even touch him if he threatens to blow up the building your family is in?

Who cares about terrorists? Since when did they become a threat to me?

Husar

07-28-2009, 11:10

Who cares about terrorists? Since when did they become a threat to me?

Typical HoreTore "argument", if I run out of arguments, I'll just say the argument from the other side is irrelevant. ~;)
How about antibiotics? Did you know taking antibiotics is violence towards bacteria?
And not taking them means your body will kill even more itself, most likely.
Are you a vegetarian? Or is that violence not violence? Or do you make a compromise there? :clown:

HoreTore

07-28-2009, 12:22

Typical HoreTore "argument", if I run out of arguments, I'll just say the argument from the other side is irrelevant. ~;)
How about antibiotics? Did you know taking antibiotics is violence towards bacteria?
And not taking them means your body will kill even more itself, most likely.
Are you a vegetarian? Or is that violence not violence? Or do you make a compromise there? :clown:

Since when did I care about other species? I'm a farmers son, remember ~;)

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-28-2009, 16:19

Who cares about terrorists? Since when did they become a threat to me?

Ok, man breaks into your house, goes for a knife to kill your mother.

Rhyfelwyr

07-28-2009, 17:10

Ok, man breaks into your house, goes for a knife to kill your mother.

You could set yourself on fire as a means of peaceful protest... then if you managed to run at him it might even scare him away...

HoreTore

07-28-2009, 17:17

Ok, man breaks into your house, goes for a knife to kill your mother.

That won't ever happen either.

You see, the best solution to any such situation, is to make sure they never happen. As my officers told me in the army, if we come under attack, then there's no point trying to defend ourselves, we might as well lie down and die, it's our own bloody fault for being dumb enough to come under fire.

Reverend Joe

07-28-2009, 17:32

Rhyfelwyr

07-28-2009, 17:39

That won't ever happen either.

You see, the best solution to any such situation, is to make sure they never happen. As my officers told me in the army, if we come under attack, then there's no point trying to defend ourselves, we might as well lie down and die, it's our own bloody fault for being dumb enough to come under fire.

How on earth can you know for sure that you're house won't get burgled? It happens all the time to people, no matter how careful they are, unless you live in a fortress a burglar could always find a way in.

Don't dodge the question... if someone is about to stab your mother, and you could stop them through violence, then what would you do? Tell your mother she should have been more careful and that it's her fault she's getting stabbed?

Crazed Rabbit

07-28-2009, 17:43

That won't ever happen either.

You see, the best solution to any such situation, is to make sure they never happen.

And, apparently, vehemently deny reality when they do.

And really, your army officers said that?

CR

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-28-2009, 17:52

That won't ever happen either.

You see, the best solution to any such situation, is to make sure they never happen. As my officers told me in the army, if we come under attack, then there's no point trying to defend ourselves, we might as well lie down and die, it's our own bloody fault for being dumb enough to come under fire.

You can't make sure it will never happen. So buck up and answer the question, or just admit you have chosen an indefensible position.

As to your officers, either they were incompetant, you are misrepresenting what they said or you failed to learn the lesson. If any officer were to say such a thing in the British army his meaning would be, "you are [blank] useless", at which point he would still expect his men to slaughter the enemy.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-28-2009, 17:53

You could set yourself on fire as a means of peaceful protest... then if you managed to run at him it might even scare him away...

Nah, I'd just put my hands together and he would be struck by lightening.

Banquo's Ghost

07-28-2009, 17:59

As my officers told me in the army, if we come under attack, then there's no point trying to defend ourselves, we might as well lie down and die, it's our own bloody fault for being dumb enough to come under fire.

:laugh4:

I wish I had tried that one on my battery!

What did they issue you with guns for, do you think? Decoration?

HoreTore

07-28-2009, 18:34

How on earth can you know for sure that you're house won't get burgled? It happens all the time to people, no matter how careful they are, unless you live in a fortress a burglar could always find a way in.

Don't dodge the question... if someone is about to stab your mother, and you could stop them through violence, then what would you do? Tell your mother she should have been more careful and that it's her fault she's getting stabbed?

As there are some 30 murders a year in this country, on a population of 4,8 million, the odds of something like that happening are far, far less than me winning the lottery. And I ain't a millionaire yet.

But the question is flawed; the original statement wasn't about what someone would do, but whether or not such an action is just. And I still do not think it's a just action, I consider any use of violence as a failure.

:laugh4:

I wish I had tried that one on my battery!

What did they issue you with guns for, do you think? Decoration?

Mostly yeah. Thing is, in my unit, we were three guys alone on a mountaintop. If we were attacked, it would be by the special forces. If they attacked, we were basically dead already. The instructions were clear; do not, under any circumstances, get attacked. Accomplish that by hiding well enough. If that failed, delete the data, then die. Resistance is useless, won't do a thing.