Spectator N0 2651 By Fieldfare
Crosswords0 min ago
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by eash. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
foxyfagin, I won't accuse you of being insulting this time because you weren't.
To answer your points. Did I say that they shouldn't riot because I have been to Malawi/Thailand and China? No, so why accuse me of saying something so stupid? Twisting someone's words and then pointing out how ridiculous those twisted words are isn't going to help you win an argument.
Also, I'm sure these people haven't had the chance to travel much. What exactly does that prove? When I was their age, I hadn't either.
To answer your points. Did I say that they shouldn't riot because I have been to Malawi/Thailand and China? No, so why accuse me of saying something so stupid? Twisting someone's words and then pointing out how ridiculous those twisted words are isn't going to help you win an argument.
Also, I'm sure these people haven't had the chance to travel much. What exactly does that prove? When I was their age, I hadn't either.
foxy.fagin's point was perfectly clear - YOU may have had the luxury of travel abroad, and you may have been on nice holidays and seen poverty in other countries, but many of the French rioters haven't had that luxury.
Also, this arguement of "but someone else has it worse" is just ridiculous. That means that anyone who complains can just be told to shut up on the classic grounds that "there are starving children in Africa" - that doesn't detract from the fact that OTHER people in this world are rightly unhappy with their lot, even if it's better than that of people in some of the world's least developed countries.
Just because some of the rioters have their roots in Africa, doesn't mean they deserve to be in the same awful state as those Africans we tend to see on TV during Live8 or Comic Relief. Your post did seem to imply that because someone has it worse, the French rioters have no right to complain.
Re women being violent - we just have a tendency to be less violent. Also, perhaps the women are staying at home looking after children whilst their husbands/partners/sons/fathers etc are out on the streets. I don't think the women are any less angry, they just simpy don't have the physical strength, or perhaps the mental propensity to get involved in rioting.
My comments about you not knowing people personally, was because you spoke about them owning mobile phones etc as if you were there. You know no more about these people than what you've read in the papers, and neither do I. I therefore feel that it's unwise to judge them all (by that I mean ALL French people, as in the course of this thread the French have basically been lumped into two groups: ungrateful immigrant rioters, and racist white people) by what you read. Surely it's better to give people some benefit of doubt? Or is that too bleeding-heart liberal for you?
I agree with you january bug: just because there are people worse off than you, you're still free to complain about your lot. But they're not complaining, they're rioting, so why do you use the word "complain"? Don't you think there's a difference?
The French rioters have every right to complain, I wouldn't suggest otherwise. But do they have a right to riot? I don't think being poor or jobless or subject to racism gives people an automatic right to go on a rampage. If you disagree with me, then I guess you do think that (and presumably you also think the injured and the dead are a price worth paying.) If you don't disagree, then what are we arguing about?
As for your defending foxyfagin, his/her words were:
"You [blinky] think they have no reason for rioting because you have been to, amongst other places, Malawi, Thailand and China."
I don't think that, I didn't say that, so why should I accept it when someone else says that I did?
As for your point about people having African roots etc, I'm not going to defend myself because I didn't say anything about that and I didn't even think it for one second.
And lastly, as for your "too bleeding heart liberal" comment, I don't know where that came from. However, your point that you shouldn't judge people if you don't know them.... Hmmm... Let's take it to a logical conclusion shall we? I never knew Hitler or Fred West.... (You see where this is going, don't you?)
The French rioters have every right to complain, I wouldn't suggest otherwise. But do they have a right to riot? I don't think being poor or jobless or subject to racism gives people an automatic right to go on a rampage. If you disagree with me, then I guess you do think that (and presumably you also think the injured and the dead are a price worth paying.) If you don't disagree, then what are we arguing about?
As for your defending foxyfagin, his/her words were:
"You [blinky] think they have no reason for rioting because you have been to, amongst other places, Malawi, Thailand and China."
I don't think that, I didn't say that, so why should I accept it when someone else says that I did?
As for your point about people having African roots etc, I'm not going to defend myself because I didn't say anything about that and I didn't even think it for one second.
And lastly, as for your "too bleeding heart liberal" comment, I don't know where that came from. However, your point that you shouldn't judge people if you don't know them.... Hmmm... Let's take it to a logical conclusion shall we? I never knew Hitler or Fred West.... (You see where this is going, don't you?)
There is another cause of their dissatisfaction. If you discuss with immigrants (as I have many times) they often say "Look to your history!" By this they mean "Your empire made us poor. You took all that we had, and now we want some of it back".
I am deliberately not getting into how right or wrong they are, but in any dispute it helps enormously to know what the other chap is thinking. This deficiency shows up at the moment in the foreign policies of several countries.
And no, I am not saying that the treatment of their ancestors (or anything else) excuses rioting.
If you are going to quote blinkyblinky, then quote correctly. Anyway those who are interested can see my post with the words you missed out AND IN CONTEXT if they look a few posts up from yours.
But what's this "they nave no right to riot"? Have no right?
As for deaths, there was one during the riot and theis is being looked into as it probably had nothing to do with the riot but problems between neighbours.
Funny that you accuse me of misquoting you, then you put "they have no right to riot" in quotes as if it's something I said.
Allow me to cut and paste my own words.
"But do they have a right to riot?"
A question, not a statement.
"I don't think being poor or jobless or subject to racism gives people an automatic right to go on a rampage."
If it does, then we should have rioting on every street corner in every city in the UK every day of the week.
As for injuries and deaths, as I understood it from the news sources I've read there have been many serious injuries and one death as a direct result of the riots. If those sources are wrong, it's still a miracle that there haven't been more.
It seems that politicians in France are making noises now about trying to combat discrimination and help young people get better training and job opportunities. If these are not just empty promises made in order to placate the rioters, then that's a good thing to come out of all this. Still doesn't mean the violence was justified.
Allow me to cut and paste my own words.
"But do they have a right to riot?"
A question, not a statement.
"I don't think being poor or jobless or subject to racism gives people an automatic right to go on a rampage."
If it does, then we should have rioting on every street corner in every city in the UK every day of the week.
As for injuries and deaths, as I understood it from the news sources I've read there have been many serious injuries and one death as a direct result of the riots. If those sources are wrong, it's still a miracle that there haven't been more.
It seems that politicians in France are making noises now about trying to combat discrimination and help young people get better training and job opportunities. If these are not just empty promises made in order to placate the rioters, then that's a good thing to come out of all this. Still doesn't mean the violence was justified.
I'm sorry BB but I'm stopping - I follow the French media (papers, TV, rdio). If it happened in the UK I would follow the events but I certainly wouldn't dream of telling the British what it's all about.
One death is still being looked into as I said. Short memory, or just that British reporting is more reliable? Even the wife says he had problems with the people involved BEFORE the riots. Many serious injuries, yes, but on ALL sides. And injuries, even deaths is not just over here, is it? I believe there are (there certainly were, or perhaps you would prefer there have been) serious injuries, even death, your side of the water on many Saturday afternoons.
Okay, I should have used italics or colour or simple quote marks instead of double quote marks, but seriously why be so petty: But do they have the right to riot? I don't think being poor or jobless or subject to racism gives people an automatic right to go on the rampage. Big deal what you think, they obviously felt it did and as has been said today by the police yes, there were many youngsters (male and female) amongst the disturbers of the peace, but far more adults (male and both white and coloured). Still as I've said before, you obviously know what's happening.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
ChatterBank1 min ago
News21 mins ago
Protesters Call For Islamic State In...
News23 mins ago
