SpursNetwork

How stubborn/open are you?

0 Members and 9 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline dimexi

  • ****
  • 689
  • Country: gb
  • Gender: Male
  • I have a dream... a white hart dream
  • Season Ticket: No
How stubborn/open are you?
« on: December 27, 2012, 06:33:05 PM »
Well, I do not usually post in this section as usually the only topic on my mind when I come here is Spurs. However, due to some rather interesting debates shall we say? As well as the fact the there have been a few comments made in regards to some posters repeating themselves, opening up old debates and accusations of others not being able to see sense. I thought this would be a chance to explore some debating skills without the spurs tinted glasses we all wear.

So the aim of the task is as follows. Can we start a debate on a topic that will divide opinions. We must then try and work through the debate giving ideas, evidence if available and remain respectful. We are usually so involved in our own ideas and perspectives we tend to dig our heels in, regardless how compelling the opposition is. It would be nice if we could try and really listen to each others' ideas and see if we are willing to shift positions.

If anybody would like to start the debate with a topic that they feel strongly about or perhaps is currently in the news you can start us off?

Good luck  :D
Maybe next year...

Offline aspursfan

  • *
  • 875
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
  • Season Ticket: No
Re: How stubborn/open are you?
« Reply #1 on: December 27, 2012, 08:15:46 PM »
Better film? Terminator 1 or Terminator 2?

I say 1.

I hope this isn't too controversial.

 :fishing:
"Whenever BAE's hair isnt in corn rows he plays poorly. You may laugh but it is a proven statistical fact." -bigv

Offline Glenn R

  • *
  • 3818
  • Country: gb
  • Gender: Male
  • Hero: Glenn Hoddle, Greaves, Bill Nicholson etc
  • Season Ticket: Yes
Re: How stubborn/open are you?
« Reply #2 on: December 27, 2012, 08:31:35 PM »
Better film? Terminator 1 or Terminator 2?

I say 1.

I hope this isn't too controversial.

 :fishing:

By far the second.
I’ve lived a life that’s full. I’ve travelled each and every highway;
And more, much more than this,
I did it my way.

Regrets, I’ve had a few;
But then again, too few to mention.
I did what I had to do
And saw it through without exemption.

Offline Glenn R

  • *
  • 3818
  • Country: gb
  • Gender: Male
  • Hero: Glenn Hoddle, Greaves, Bill Nicholson etc
  • Season Ticket: Yes
Re: How stubborn/open are you?
« Reply #3 on: December 27, 2012, 08:53:42 PM »
As this is non Spurs - I presume - who do you think was wrong? The police of the politician over the Pleb gate argument?
I’ve lived a life that’s full. I’ve travelled each and every highway;
And more, much more than this,
I did it my way.

Regrets, I’ve had a few;
But then again, too few to mention.
I did what I had to do
And saw it through without exemption.

Offline dimexi

  • ****
  • 689
  • Country: gb
  • Gender: Male
  • I have a dream... a white hart dream
  • Season Ticket: No
Re: How stubborn/open are you?
« Reply #4 on: December 27, 2012, 10:43:27 PM »
Better film? Terminator 1 or Terminator 2?

I say 1.

I hope this isn't too controversial.

 :fishing:

Very controversial although I will add in my own at the end.

I think Terminator 1 was the purist idea which really challenged the thinking of time travel in the right way. Yes it was a little raw, but it was old Arnie at his best.

However, Terminator 2 was a joy to watch. Groundbreaking Special effects which at the time seemed so real, my jaw was on the floor when I first saw it. It was a good film and was made for popcorn viewing.

A very tough call but I would have to go T2 for taking films to a new level.

For me the ultimate challenge which I feel separates the men from the boys in terms of how I value the film critique expertise is - Kill Bill Vol.1 or Kill Bill Vol.2?
Maybe next year...

Offline dimexi

  • ****
  • 689
  • Country: gb
  • Gender: Male
  • I have a dream... a white hart dream
  • Season Ticket: No
Re: How stubborn/open are you?
« Reply #5 on: December 27, 2012, 10:47:48 PM »
As this is non Spurs - I presume - who do you think was wrong? The police of the politician over the Pleb gate argument?

Don't trust either account.

Police have too many incidents where they have manipulated the evidence

Politicians have an uncanny knack of lying through their teeth, committing illegal acts and getting away with it without recourse.

Therefore I just hope the truth comes out and the response taken is just
Maybe next year...

Offline dimexi

  • ****
  • 689
  • Country: gb
  • Gender: Male
  • I have a dream... a white hart dream
  • Season Ticket: No
Re: How stubborn/open are you?
« Reply #6 on: December 27, 2012, 10:59:35 PM »
If you want something a little more controversial, you could take on one of the following statements:

- Prisons are an ineffective way to deal with crime, therefore we should look to shut the majority of prisons.

- The war on drugs is a complete failure, therefore all drugs should be decriminalized.

- The school curriculum does not develop individuals sufficiently to become useful citizens in today's changing world.

- The financial system will eventually collapse, due to the continuing pyramidal nature of wealth travelling to the top.

- Perception is the key to understanding behaviour.

Or if they are too heavy, make up your own, or we can carry on with one of my favorite topics and talk films all day.  :) :) :)
Maybe next year...

Offline aspursfan

  • *
  • 875
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
  • Season Ticket: No
Re: How stubborn/open are you?
« Reply #7 on: December 28, 2012, 12:49:25 AM »
Better film? Terminator 1 or Terminator 2?

I say 1.

I hope this isn't too controversial.

 :fishing:

Very controversial although I will add in my own at the end.

I think Terminator 1 was the purist idea which really challenged the thinking of time travel in the right way. Yes it was a little raw, but it was old Arnie at his best.

However, Terminator 2 was a joy to watch. Groundbreaking Special effects which at the time seemed so real, my jaw was on the floor when I first saw it. It was a good film and was made for popcorn viewing.

A very tough call but I would have to go T2 for taking films to a new level.

For me the ultimate challenge which I feel separates the men from the boys in terms of how I value the film critique expertise is - Kill Bill Vol.1 or Kill Bill Vol.2?

T2 was definitely groundbreaking with its special effects, but I absolutely enjoy the first one more overall. I love the story.

While we're on this topic, I felt that the 4th one was a huge letdown and the 3rd one was absolutely awful.
"Whenever BAE's hair isnt in corn rows he plays poorly. You may laugh but it is a proven statistical fact." -bigv

Offline aspursfan

  • *
  • 875
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
  • Season Ticket: No
Re: How stubborn/open are you?
« Reply #8 on: December 28, 2012, 01:09:39 AM »
If you want something a little more controversial, you could take on one of the following statements:

- Prisons are an ineffective way to deal with crime, therefore we should look to shut the majority of prisons.

- The war on drugs is a complete failure, therefore all drugs should be decriminalized.

- The school curriculum does not develop individuals sufficiently to become useful citizens in today's changing world.

- The financial system will eventually collapse, due to the continuing pyramidal nature of wealth travelling to the top.

- Perception is the key to understanding behaviour.

Or if they are too heavy, make up your own, or we can carry on with one of my favorite topics and talk films all day.  :) :) :)

Prisons: I think a big problem with prison systems is that they're looked at as a blanket fix for crime. Supposedly prison will serve as a deterrent for potential criminals, but from the poorest criminal to the wealthiest white collar criminal, they were aware of the risk and the reward and choose to commit the crime anyway.

Prison is also supposed to rehabilitate criminals. Sometimes it does, but the expectation is much higher than the reality. In my opinion it's not that prison is necessarily ineffective at dealing with crime, it's that expectations and the general perception of what purpose prison actually serves is very distorted. It's the laws and the judicial systems that decides who the authorities are placing in prisons. If prisons aren't proving effective then we need to look at the laws responsible for putting people in prison as well as the social patterns (poverty, mental health) associated with their arrests before saying just shut the prisons.

I'll also say that the privatization of prisons is a very very dangerous thing in my opinion. The so-called prison industrial complex seen here in the US is a system designed to make profit. I feel that's a huge conflict of interest to any type of possible rehabilitation for convicts. It also reeks of corruption and there's a very disturbing paper trail between tough new laws being enacted that lead to more and more arrests and the soaring profits these for-profit prison systems are making.

The incarceration of impoverished communities should not be the backbone of any local economy. Sadly that isn't the case in many places in America where local businesses depend on a thriving and ever-increasing population of convicts.

Or maybe I just watch too many documentaries and read too much.
"Whenever BAE's hair isnt in corn rows he plays poorly. You may laugh but it is a proven statistical fact." -bigv

Offline dimexi

  • ****
  • 689
  • Country: gb
  • Gender: Male
  • I have a dream... a white hart dream
  • Season Ticket: No
Re: How stubborn/open are you?
« Reply #9 on: December 28, 2012, 11:07:39 AM »


Prisons: I think a big problem with prison systems is that they're looked at as a blanket fix for crime. Supposedly prison will serve as a deterrent for potential criminals, but from the poorest criminal to the wealthiest white collar criminal, they were aware of the risk and the reward and choose to commit the crime anyway.

Prison is also supposed to rehabilitate criminals. Sometimes it does, but the expectation is much higher than the reality. In my opinion it's not that prison is necessarily ineffective at dealing with crime, it's that expectations and the general perception of what purpose prison actually serves is very distorted. It's the laws and the judicial systems that decides who the authorities are placing in prisons. If prisons aren't proving effective then we need to look at the laws responsible for putting people in prison as well as the social patterns (poverty, mental health) associated with their arrests before saying just shut the prisons.

I'll also say that the privatization of prisons is a very very dangerous thing in my opinion. The so-called prison industrial complex seen here in the US is a system designed to make profit. I feel that's a huge conflict of interest to any type of possible rehabilitation for convicts. It also reeks of corruption and there's a very disturbing paper trail between tough new laws being enacted that lead to more and more arrests and the soaring profits these for-profit prison systems are making.

The incarceration of impoverished communities should not be the backbone of any local economy. Sadly that isn't the case in many places in America where local businesses depend on a thriving and ever-increasing population of convicts.

Or maybe I just watch too many documentaries and read too much.

Prisons are an interesting topic due to the way that they reflect the society they are within. Before looking into that though we need to establish what the purpose of a prison is. It seems strange but actually we are not all that clear on their purpose, or at least their purpose differs depending on whom you ask. The main areas usually fall into one or more of: Punishment, Protection, and Rehabilitation.

Punishment:

We often think that when someone does something bad, they should suffer the consequences. If you hurt me, you should be hurt. When we have personally suffered it becomes harder to be rational in the kind of response we would like. Take a situation where someone has harmed your child, many would call for torture of some sort. But that in itself raises too many problems ethically. Therefore the judicial system takes that extreme viewpoint and transfers it into a recognised removal of one’s civil liberties for a set amount of time. In some countries this can become a loss of life. I would argue that these actions do little to change anything for either the victim or the perpetrator. It is too simplistic and masochistic to have any positive outcome. Will the criminal then become less likely to commit the crime again because they have been harmed? Obviously if they are dead, they cannot, but is the taking of a human life justifiable? 

Protection:

Another reason cited for prisons is to protect the public. If the criminal is in jail, they cannot harm the public. Again, this is too simplistic. This depends largely on the crime being committed. If we are talking about drugs, then someone else will just take their place. With violence we should be looking into the reasons behind the violence, which is usually to do with upbringing, culture, and mental health. In the case of robbery it is usually an economic issue, linked to education, career opportunities and upbringing or drug abuse. It costs around £35,000 per year to keep someone in prison. Wouldn’t that money be better spent on re-educating them and providing them with an income which they could work their way out of their current situation? I know that this is controversial because it will be suggested that people would start committing crimes in order to receive this opportunity. But that only tells you more about the lack of opportunities that people have rather than highlighting the unfairness of this idea. Protection only protects for the duration of the sentence so then what?

Rehabilitation:

The final goal of prison is to rehabilitate the offenders. Or at least that is what we would like them to do. The problem here is that it just does not work. Over 50% of people in prison have been to prison before. Until we are able to find alternative ways to help these individuals, we will keep going round in circles with this problem. There are an incredibly high number of illiterate people in prisons, which means that education is vital. That does not mean we need to blame the schools, the problems are far greater than that. The main issue here is that the view of a prison is a blanket vision. It does not look at the individual sufficiently, in order to make the correct decisions about what is actually best not only for the victim/society but also for the offender, as that will always be what is also best for society as a whole. Until we start treating the offenders as human beings that are misguided in their views of the world, due to circumstances quite often out of their control, we will not reduce the amount of crime or the numbers of incarceration.

Other issues:

The United States has the worst outlook on prisons of any nation. The numbers per capita are the highest by far in the world. Their record on rehabilitation is shocking and they impose sentences that are severe. The privitisation of them is also a worry, but not surprising given the way that corporations are continually looking for ways to make a buck.

Prisons also serve as a way to maintain the status quo, those in power are able to remain in these positions because anyone who would wish to depose them, in the way that would have been done in the past (ironically in the way that many of these gained their power in the first place), are not able to do so, without the threat of prison. It is usually the poor and lower classes in prison, which although is due mainly to the social hegemony that exists, there is also many cases where those with power, or financial means, avoid being put through the legal system.

I will conclude with a personal view. I feel that we do need to have a serious look at a number of things within our justice system. One of which is the actual use and purpose of prisons. Yes there are individuals whom are simply too unstable to have amongst society in their present state. But they should be kept securely within a hospital environment, looking at ways to heal those issues if possible, but if not kept indefinitely in a humane way. For others we need to look more deeply at the causes of crime and realise that those that are in power, are quite happy with the way things are now. But can we carry on heading in the direction we are in? Or is it time to make some changes, for the betterment of the whole of society?
Maybe next year...

Offline Glenn R

  • *
  • 3818
  • Country: gb
  • Gender: Male
  • Hero: Glenn Hoddle, Greaves, Bill Nicholson etc
  • Season Ticket: Yes
Re: How stubborn/open are you?
« Reply #10 on: December 28, 2012, 05:29:29 PM »
Better film? Terminator 1 or Terminator 2?

I say 1.

I hope this isn't too controversial.

 :fishing:

Very controversial although I will add in my own at the end.

I think Terminator 1 was the purist idea which really challenged the thinking of time travel in the right way. Yes it was a little raw, but it was old Arnie at his best.

However, Terminator 2 was a joy to watch. Groundbreaking Special effects which at the time seemed so real, my jaw was on the floor when I first saw it. It was a good film and was made for popcorn viewing.

A very tough call but I would have to go T2 for taking films to a new level.

For me the ultimate challenge which I feel separates the men from the boys in terms of how I value the film critique expertise is - Kill Bill Vol.1 or Kill Bill Vol.2?

A couple of months ago I bought the box set of the Terminator films.

I also enjoy and have Kill Bill films.
I’ve lived a life that’s full. I’ve travelled each and every highway;
And more, much more than this,
I did it my way.

Regrets, I’ve had a few;
But then again, too few to mention.
I did what I had to do
And saw it through without exemption.

Offline Glenn R

  • *
  • 3818
  • Country: gb
  • Gender: Male
  • Hero: Glenn Hoddle, Greaves, Bill Nicholson etc
  • Season Ticket: Yes
Re: How stubborn/open are you?
« Reply #11 on: December 28, 2012, 05:33:16 PM »
As this is non Spurs - I presume - who do you think was wrong? The police of the politician over the Pleb gate argument?

Don't trust either account.

Police have too many incidents where they have manipulated the evidence

Politicians have an uncanny knack of lying through their teeth, committing illegal acts and getting away with it without recourse.

Therefore I just hope the truth comes out and the response taken is just

When it all started and going on the evidence I supported the police (after all we can’t trust politicians). Since then ‘new’ evidence has come out – more powerful – and I now believe the MP Mitchell. Because the email has been discredited and the police report and the CCTV also backs the MPs account I think Mitchell was stitched up.
I’ve lived a life that’s full. I’ve travelled each and every highway;
And more, much more than this,
I did it my way.

Regrets, I’ve had a few;
But then again, too few to mention.
I did what I had to do
And saw it through without exemption.

Offline Glenn R

  • *
  • 3818
  • Country: gb
  • Gender: Male
  • Hero: Glenn Hoddle, Greaves, Bill Nicholson etc
  • Season Ticket: Yes
Re: How stubborn/open are you?
« Reply #12 on: December 28, 2012, 05:38:17 PM »
If you want something a little more controversial, you could take on one of the following statements:

- Prisons are an ineffective way to deal with crime, therefore we should look to shut the majority of prisons.

- The war on drugs is a complete failure, therefore all drugs should be decriminalized.

- The school curriculum does not develop individuals sufficiently to become useful citizens in today's changing world.

- The financial system will eventually collapse, due to the continuing pyramidal nature of wealth travelling to the top.

- Perception is the key to understanding behaviour.

Or if they are too heavy, make up your own, or we can carry on with one of my favorite topics and talk films all day.  :) :) :)

Prisons: I think a big problem with prison systems is that they're looked at as a blanket fix for crime. Supposedly prison will serve as a deterrent for potential criminals, but from the poorest criminal to the wealthiest white collar criminal, they were aware of the risk and the reward and choose to commit the crime anyway.

Prison is also supposed to rehabilitate criminals. Sometimes it does, but the expectation is much higher than the reality. In my opinion it's not that prison is necessarily ineffective at dealing with crime, it's that expectations and the general perception of what purpose prison actually serves is very distorted. It's the laws and the judicial systems that decides who the authorities are placing in prisons. If prisons aren't proving effective then we need to look at the laws responsible for putting people in prison as well as the social patterns (poverty, mental health) associated with their arrests before saying just shut the prisons.

I'll also say that the privatization of prisons is a very very dangerous thing in my opinion. The so-called prison industrial complex seen here in the US is a system designed to make profit. I feel that's a huge conflict of interest to any type of possible rehabilitation for convicts. It also reeks of corruption and there's a very disturbing paper trail between tough new laws being enacted that lead to more and more arrests and the soaring profits these for-profit prison systems are making.

The incarceration of impoverished communities should not be the backbone of any local economy. Sadly that isn't the case in many places in America where local businesses depend on a thriving and ever-increasing population of convicts.

Or maybe I just watch too many documentaries and read too much.


I just want to make one remark on a comment you made. Prisons are supposed to “rehabilitate”. No, they are supposed to punish. If they can rehabilitate then well and good. But its first mission is to punish. Too many prisons are now a holiday camp making any crime worth trying; after all prison offers some people a better home than their actual home can give them. On these grounds crime is well worth the risk.
I’ve lived a life that’s full. I’ve travelled each and every highway;
And more, much more than this,
I did it my way.

Regrets, I’ve had a few;
But then again, too few to mention.
I did what I had to do
And saw it through without exemption.

Offline dimexi

  • ****
  • 689
  • Country: gb
  • Gender: Male
  • I have a dream... a white hart dream
  • Season Ticket: No
Re: How stubborn/open are you?
« Reply #13 on: December 28, 2012, 08:55:31 PM »

Prison is also supposed to rehabilitate criminals. Sometimes it does, but the expectation is much higher than the reality. In my opinion it's not that prison is necessarily ineffective at dealing with crime, it's that expectations and the general perception of what purpose prison actually serves is very distorted. It's the laws and the judicial systems that decides who the authorities are placing in prisons. If prisons aren't proving effective then we need to look at the laws responsible for putting people in prison as well as the social patterns (poverty, mental health) associated with their arrests before saying just shut the prisons.


I just want to make one remark on a comment you made. Prisons are supposed to “rehabilitate”. No, they are supposed to punish. If they can rehabilitate then well and good. But its first mission is to punish. Too many prisons are now a holiday camp making any crime worth trying; after all prison offers some people a better home than their actual home can give them. On these grounds crime is well worth the risk.

Actually they are not. The act of being in prison is the punishment but it is only one aspect of their purpose.

 "It is not enough for prisons to punish and protect; they must rehabilitate as well." (Nick Hardwick, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector, 2011) Just a quick example showing that those who are still in favor of prisons, still agree with the general principles laid out. I cannot remember the name but there was a report back in 1890 something which set out the same thing. I also disagree that prisons are a holiday camp. However, if their lives are better in prison than out. Maybe there is even more reason at looking at ways to improving life out of it.
Maybe next year...

Offline Glenn R

  • *
  • 3818
  • Country: gb
  • Gender: Male
  • Hero: Glenn Hoddle, Greaves, Bill Nicholson etc
  • Season Ticket: Yes
Re: How stubborn/open are you?
« Reply #14 on: December 28, 2012, 09:01:51 PM »

Prison is also supposed to rehabilitate criminals. Sometimes it does, but the expectation is much higher than the reality. In my opinion it's not that prison is necessarily ineffective at dealing with crime, it's that expectations and the general perception of what purpose prison actually serves is very distorted. It's the laws and the judicial systems that decides who the authorities are placing in prisons. If prisons aren't proving effective then we need to look at the laws responsible for putting people in prison as well as the social patterns (poverty, mental health) associated with their arrests before saying just shut the prisons.


I just want to make one remark on a comment you made. Prisons are supposed to “rehabilitate”. No, they are supposed to punish. If they can rehabilitate then well and good. But its first mission is to punish. Too many prisons are now a holiday camp making any crime worth trying; after all prison offers some people a better home than their actual home can give them. On these grounds crime is well worth the risk.

Actually they are not. The act of being in prison is the punishment but it is only one aspect of their purpose.

 "It is not enough for prisons to punish and protect; they must rehabilitate as well." (Nick Hardwick, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector, 2011) Just a quick example showing that those who are still in favor of prisons, still agree with the general principles laid out. I cannot remember the name but there was a report back in 1890 something which set out the same thing. I also disagree that prisons are a holiday camp. However, if their lives are better in prison than out. Maybe there is even more reason at looking at ways to improving life out of it.

My point was that punishment should be the first priority. Rehabilitation comes next if possible. We live in a society where the criminal gets preferential treatment while the victim is all but forgotten. I read somewhere there are quite a few facilities that help the perpetrator (about 50 or more) and about one that helps the victim. We seem to have got our priorities wrong.
I’ve lived a life that’s full. I’ve travelled each and every highway;
And more, much more than this,
I did it my way.

Regrets, I’ve had a few;
But then again, too few to mention.
I did what I had to do
And saw it through without exemption.