Demolition man....it's not 2032 yet, but we're almost there...

[HDQQ]

My son (not entirely sure he wasn't mocking me) pointed out to me the other day how many things in that film are starting to look like the actual future. If you've never seen it, it's set in a liberals utopian future where smoking, drinking, swearing, eating meat and even sex are banned. Everyone is a wonderful lovely human being, but anything that even looks like it might be fun is illegal. Everyone looks, says and does the same things.

Some posters on here already have a head start mind, but it's coming.

What you describe above is not a liberal utopia but restrictive totalitarianism, which could be left-wing, right wing or indeed religion-based. Which of those it is has more to do with how it came into being than how it actually affects peoples' basic freedoms.

If a Martian whose only knowledge of earthly politics was from reading basic definitions of communism and fascism landed in North Korea, I wonder what he* would conclude.

* The individual Martian in this scenario is male, by the way, otherwise I'd have said 'he or she' or perhaps 'he/she'.

[DeppityDawg]

So I could imagine what a truly inclusive, caring, and empathetic society should be like and how these things should be addressed, but obviously we are far far away from that today.

What do you think should have been done then?

Thank you for that considered response. I won't quote it all, but I am referring to it entirely.

The honest answer? I don't know definitively Javert. I can't disagree with much of what you say. In principle, it sounds right and you identify many issues. Its in the practice where these things generally go wrong

We are I guess talking about a largely working class problem. That's not to say other families don't have their problems, because drink or gambling are not class specific. But I guess the neglect which can spring from them is most prevalent in poorer communities. Those where education and opportunities are limited

What you've said about "coming to the attention of social services", you should consider that living in these kind of places, any kind of intervention by the authorities is often seen as interference. Years ago, things like domestic violence for example, the Police were reluctant to get involved, not I think out of any malevolence, but because more often than not the victim would refuse or withdraw testimony and it was hard to get convictions. Its not confined to domestic violence either. These things all go hand in hand - drinking, gambling, crime, violence, domestic abuse, neglect - they are all part of the same vicious circle, that feed off each other. And if you are born in a jungle, Javert, you have to learn to live in one. This breeds people who are ambivilent, and just because you aren't guilty of one indiscretion, it doesn't necessarily mean you are innocent of them all. I've said it before, but I don't believe that there are just wholly good or wholly bad people. But there are degrees. What may help some, may not work with others. Hence the reluctance to see authority (of which social services is definitely in that category) as anything other than a problem in itself, and consequently a last resort. In the 60s and 70s, when I was a kid, there was very much a sense that the community looked after itself, and sometimes people might face a different kind of justice to the recognised one if they crossed certain lines - to an extent that still happens, but not like it used to. The rise of drugs gangs for instance makes any sense of social justice obsolete, but they will certainly 'protect' financial interests without regard for the law. Its much harder for parents or the law abiding to go against these kind of interests these days, particularly with the rise in knife and gun crime

Its not often I agree with Patman Post, but his remarks in the other thread about community involvement are I believe on the right track. If this is a working class issue, then its those degenerated estates/communities that have lost their way, their ethics, self respect, call it what you will, that need to start getting more involved in their own futures again if they want to make things right. It can't always be the states/someone elses fault, or someone elses responsibility to put it right. I'm not suggesting that a few handy lads go around the corner with pick axe handles as used to happen, but that by reclaiming values, education, mutual support, these communities can regain their self respect - that alone might help many not slip into the spiral of drinking, joblessness, gambling and violence that puts children not just at risk of hunger, but of repeating the whole cycle they see normalised by their own families and other families around them, to become reruns in their own adult lives

This is why I made the (sarcastic) remark about you knowing about child poverty. Because its just one thing among many. Its never just as simple as blaming the government or throwing money at problems, its about attitudes and learned behaviour. In retrospect, I maybe should have put it differently, because I do understand that your motives are good and that you probably do really want to help. But the truth is Javert, unless you've lived in one of these places, you'll never truly understand these problems

[Javert]

Well, I didn't really expect someone like you to see the issue

But anyway, considering your comments on the hungry children thread, and using the gambling example you've given, what do you suggest would be the correct course of action? Bearing in mind of course that I experienced this very thing (if you substitute drink for gambling)?

I'm interested to hear how you would have "saved" my sister's and me?

Of course, I don't have a  magic answer.

I am sorry to hear about that - my ex wife was also in a similar situation when she was a child.  The long term damage and effect that this has on children can be huge, and often bigger than they themselves realise.  I often have very strong disagreements with her, usually about various aspects of parenting, and I do often wonder if her parenting style is in some ways a reaction to what she had to go through as a child.

I guess my reaction is that what should happen, in a properly funded and organised society, is that these kind of tragic situations should be picked up before they become out of control.  This requires a whole series of cultural and society preconditions around people having the honesty and awareness to ask for help when they need it, and then that help being given.

As to the reality, the situation in the UK today seems to be that if there is child neglect due to drug or alcohol addiction, social services would get involved and work with the parents to try to resolve the situation, and they would be offered support in terms of addiction services etc.  The ultimate sanction that they have is to temporarily or permanently remove the children, but this is obviously seen as a last resort, and since the UK care system is far from perfect either, this option has to be weighed up on a risk basis.  That said, there are some amazing foster parents and adopting parents in the UK.

This relies of course on the situation actually coming to attention of social services in the first place - typically children love their parents and don't want to report these things as they are fully aware that their parents might be punished or they might end up being separated, and potentially ending up in a worse situation. 

I am also all too aware of a couple of similar situations that I'm aware of in extended family, and even at the family level outside of the household where the neglect is happening, there seems to be a strong reluctance to intervene or report anything.  There is a strong bias against taking steps to intervene in household parental life on the basis that "parents know best" - I'm not sure if that's especially strong in the UK.

So I could imagine what a truly inclusive, caring, and empathetic society should be like and how these things should be addressed, but obviously we are far far away from that today.

What do you think should have been done then?

[Sheepy]

The point being, when the rules weigh so heavy on every corner of your life you have no life, but are just a fecking Zombie repeating the party line.

[DeppityDawg]

As such I'm not quite seeing the issue - I totally agree that everyone should be free to do exactly what they want, but, with the proviso that there has to be some limit set based on the extent that those actions impact on other people.  For example, if someone really loves gambling so much that they gamble away all their money, and then they don't have any food to give their children....

These arguments are easy to agree with until you start to consider the impact of your actions on others and on society as a whole.

Well, I didn't really expect someone like you to see the issue

But anyway, considering your comments on the hungry children thread, and using the gambling example you've given, what do you suggest would be the correct course of action? Bearing in mind of course that I experienced this very thing (if you substitute drink for gambling)?

I'm interested to hear how you would have "saved" my sister's and me?

[papasmurf]

I totally agree that everyone should be free to do exactly what they want,

Which in reality cannot happen, unless they are on a desert island on their own.

[Javert]

Looking around various news sources, I can't find anything indicating that peanuts are going to be made illegal nor that anyone is going to be forced to have cancer surgery if they don't consent.

As such I'm not quite seeing the issue - I totally agree that everyone should be free to do exactly what they want, but, with the proviso that there has to be some limit set based on the extent that those actions impact on other people.  For example, if someone really loves gambling so much that they gamble away all their money, and then they don't have any food to give their children, they are impacting negatively on their children, and then in turn impacting on society who might have to step in to take care of those children.

These arguments are easy to agree with until you start to consider the impact of your actions on others and on society as a whole.

[Sheepy]

Well the better half has noticed so it must be rife, the other day she said, have you noticed, the youth on the tv are all clones. No I said but I will look out for it.

[DeppityDawg]

The answer isn't "no-one" for the same reason is not "this specific person", the answer is variable based on the facts of the situation. Because we have knowledge, and can apply that to the situation.

Ok, so in the context that the sentence was written, if one group of peoples idealism and belief in a better world leads to a situation where many other peoples personal freedom is curtailed (as if the example film), it will be ok if the "science" supports it as it will make a "better" world? (even if its just better for the first group, but not the second?) Is that what you are saying?

but we have answered these questions, as a society for example we have age limits on sex, smoking, and alcohol. We have not put legal limits on Arachnophobia. We decide these things collectively as a society, with the well-being of individuals in mind.

As a society we don't "collectively" make decisions about things concerning personal freedoms and choice. Rather, you mean we elect people who then listen to scientists/advisors who tell them what the "science/advice" is, and then make policy based on that. The protection there of course is that it has to get through parliament (in this country)

If we are talking about personal freedoms, the one that springs to mind is like if scientist A says 500,000 people will die if we don't lock down our country?

[Nalaar]

Its you talking about morals and "fact derived values", not me. The question was, "who has the right to decide what is a "better" world on behalf of others? And the answer was "no-one". Its your answer to this which causes me to believe your thinking is grounded in an elitist attitude. The example given did not "confirm your position on individual autonomy", it forced you to climb down from your previous comments about "abdicate any sense that this is knowable" because you couldn't do anything else without appearing totalitarian. So WHO does have the right to decide what is a better world, because you haven't provided any answer at all?

The answer isn't "no-one" for the same reason is not "this specific person", the answer is variable based on the facts of the situation. Because we have knowledge, and can apply that to the situation.

Who is denying that we have no knowledge about the input? Its you that's claiming it is a "solved moral question", and then going on to concede that people are all different, even if it is to reduce people to a science experiment by saying its now about "brain chemistry"?

If person A's brain chemistry is different to person B's, how does any of this show who has the right to decide what is a "better world"?

In the same sense that we have solved whether peanuts are a food or a poison.

Yes, its about as simple as the analogy about not wanting invasive surgery at 80 odd years old. And the answer is of course, we should all have the choice whether we want to eat peanuts or not, not have it foisted on us because the lowest common denominator is that someone, somewhere might die if they eat peanuts. Why do I get the impression that we are not even talking about the same thing here?

The peanut analogy is not about whether you can choose to eat it, it's about how you classify the peanut into the vague category "food" or "poison".
If person A says "Peanuts are a food." and person B retorts "You elitist, how can you declare peanuts a food when they can kill people who eat them? They are not food"
With your knowledge of peanuts - Who is correct here, person A, or person B.

Listen, if "facts" decided everything, life would be simple, but they don't and it isn't. Apart from selectivity, presentation and vested interest, information, statistics, figures and studies can be made to support any viewpoint if you try hard enough. There are certain incontravertable facts - if I jump out of an aeroplane I'll hit the ground sooner or later. Then there are "facts" of a lesser definition. There are all sorts of "facts" being bandied about over Coronavirus, but not all of them are true. Because scientist A said X, and scientist B can offer a whole different interpretation of those "facts". Its a "fact" that the chances of the average Joe dying of CV-19 in the UK are infinitely small, yet that hasn't stopped irrational hysterics from guiding governments as well as pub politicians

The chances of being harmed, still less being killed, by a spider in the UK are even infinitely smaller than the risk posed by CV-19. Yet facts and science doesn't stop people being irrationally afraid of spiders. The point was, who gets to decide whether someone can smoke, drink, swear, have sex, or anything else really, to which you claimed it was a solved "moral question", not whether drink harms them or spiders can kill them?

So what do you suggest is the answer? Ban people from being afraid of spiders because the science says its irrational, and jail people who aren't afraid of dying of CV-19 because some scientists say they should be? The logic of what you are saying doesn't even make sense.

...but we have answered these questions, as a society for example we have age limits on sex, smoking, and alcohol. We have not put legal limits on Arachnophobia. We decide these things collectively as a society, with the well-being of individuals in mind.

[DeppityDawg]

Talk about trying to have it both ways - You start by projecting that I am an elitist who knows best for others, and finish by confirming my position of individual autonomy in the example given.

Hang on a minute. This is what you replied to...

Quote from: DeppityDawg on Today at 09:36:08 am
In essence the point is, who has the right to decide what is a "better" world on behalf of others? No one is the answer.

I think this is a solved moral question.

Human well-being is a fact derived value. If you want to abdicate any sense that this is knowable then I think that can be challenged with a few real world examples.

Its you talking about morals and "fact derived values", not me. The question was, "who has the right to decide what is a "better" world on behalf of others? And the answer was "no-one". Its your answer to this which causes me to believe your thinking is grounded in an elitist attitude. The example given did not "confirm your position on individual autonomy", it forced you to climb down from your previous comments about "abdicate any sense that this is knowable" because you couldn't do anything else without appearing totalitarian. So WHO does have the right to decide what is a better world, because you haven't provided any answer at all?

Someone's experience is fact based, two people can be subject to the same input and because of differences in their brain chemistry etc can result in different outputs. That does not mean we have no knowledge about the input, merely it acknowledges that the processing in the brain is a variable factor.

Who is denying that we have no knowledge about the input? Its you that's claiming it is a "solved moral question", and then going on to concede that people are all different, even if it is to reduce people to a science experiment by saying its now about "brain chemistry"?

If person A's brain chemistry is different to person B's, how does any of this show who has the right to decide what is a "better world"?

For a simple analogy consider the question 'Are peanuts Food or Poison?'
I think (without being too elitist) we can confidently say that peanuts are a food. However, if they are consumed by an unlucky person, they will result in their death. Notice that even though the question 'what is food or poison' is vague, littered with countless variables, and open to interpretation, we would not for a second consider that their is nothing to be known about nutrition.

Yes, its about as simple as the analogy about not wanting invasive surgery at 80 odd years old. And the answer is of course, we should all have the choice whether we want to eat peanuts or not, not have it foisted on us because the lowest common denominator is that someone, somewhere might die if they eat peanuts. Why do I get the impression that we are not even talking about the same thing here?

Listen, if "facts" decided everything, life would be simple, but they don't and it isn't. Apart from selectivity, presentation and vested interest, information, statistics, figures and studies can be made to support any viewpoint if you try hard enough. There are certain incontravertable facts - if I jump out of an aeroplane I'll hit the ground sooner or later. Then there are "facts" of a lesser definition. There are all sorts of "facts" being bandied about over Coronavirus, but not all of them are true. Because scientist A said X, and scientist B can offer a whole different interpretation of those "facts". Its a "fact" that the chances of the average Joe dying of CV-19 in the UK are infinitely small, yet that hasn't stopped irrational hysterics from guiding governments as well as pub politicians

The chances of being harmed, still less being killed, by a spider in the UK are even infinitely smaller than the risk posed by CV-19. Yet facts and science doesn't stop people being irrationally afraid of spiders. The point was, who gets to decide whether someone can smoke, drink, swear, have sex, or anything else really, to which you claimed it was a solved "moral question", not whether drink harms them or spiders can kill them?

So what do you suggest is the answer? Ban people from being afraid of spiders because the science says its irrational, and jail people who aren't afraid of dying of CV-19 because some scientists say they should be? The logic of what you are saying doesn't even make sense.

[johnofgwent]

Gosh - you don't have to don boxing gloves with me. We have Thomas saying there is nothing to discuss and everyone moaning that politics has reached dullsville and there I go to try and create a discussion and get my head chopped off. It's Sunday we are supposed to be nice to people!

I don't apologise for my idealism if that's what it is. I believe in a better world - surely most people do - it's how we achieve it that is the question. I don't know the film mentioned, it sounds like something I wouldn't waste time on, but if as you say everyone is a clone then no it isn't for me. I'll leave it there regretfully.

Well, I have not seen that film either. But I have seen The Stepford Wives....

[Nalaar]

It does nothing of the sort. Thats simply you being an elitist and deciding what you think is best, not what a person might actually want or what makes them "feel better"

Both euthanasia and assisted suicide are illegal under English law. That you've had to climb down and conceded that someone should have autonomy over their own life and death in those circumstances kind of illustrates that its what someone might feel to be in their own best interests, not yours or anyone elses

Talk about trying to have it both ways - You start by projecting that I am an elitist who knows best for others, and finish by confirming my position of individual autonomy in the example given.

Everything in it could indeed be said to be "fact based". But that is not what is being contested.

You said that human "well being" was a fact derived value, and I don't agree. Something that might make you feel "well", might not make me feel well? The clue is in the words - you "feel" well or you don't. What factual measures can you use to decide that your feelings are worth more than someone elses?

Someone's experience is fact based, two people can be subject to the same input and because of differences in their brain chemistry etc can result in different outputs. That does not mean we have no knowledge about the input, merely it acknowledges that the processing in the brain is a variable factor.

For a simple analogy consider the question 'Are peanuts Food or Poison?'
I think (without being too elitist) we can confidently say that peanuts are a food. However, if they are consumed by an unlucky person, they will result in their death. Notice that even though the question 'what is food or poison' is vague, littered with countless variables, and open to interpretation, we would not for a second consider that their is nothing to be known about nutrition.

[patman post]

Howard? soddin autocorrect meant howzat 

Welcome to the growing ranks of victims of productive smelling — but perhaps understandable, your device may not have crochet teams in its worm stare.

However it's not yet banned, and injects a bit of levity to a fearful world...

[cromwell]

I assume then that you agree with him that human well being is a "fact derived value" - in which case I refer the honourable gentleman to my previous post. Howzat for a fascist? 

I was making reference to where Nalaar said this

Everything mentioned in this post is fact based - illness, pain, medical procedures, desires etc. Changing those factual variables could change the outcome. This supports my claim.

In the above example as described I think the individual should have autonomy over their life/death.

So basically he was agreeing with that part of your post and something I've always thought important that people when they've had enough sho legally be able to end it without going off to Switzerland.