Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
How bad is bad?
On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 11:46:59 +0100, "Bill Grey"
wrote: "Mike Lyle" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 20:18:21 +0100, "Bill Grey" wrote: [...] The "do-gooders" have ruined society and we are now reaping the products of their actions. Did you miss the history lessons at school? If you want to catch up, it would be fun to investigate the celebrated London Mob, and various big-city riots of earlier centuries when the do-badders were still in charge as nature intended. Oh, and the street crime: that was pretty fruity, too. -- Mike. Who's talkng about earlier centuries?? I refer the period covered by the last 50 tears or so. You're the one pointing to _changes_: that would be meaningless if you weren't comparing with what went before. So you _are_ talking about earlier periods, when "do-gooders" weren't in charge. No one listened to Mary Whitehouse, yet now we are all paying for innumerable illegitimate children the product of unbridled promiscuity. I'm not changing the subject but illustrating the effect of the relaxation of moral standards. They do say that a fish rots from the head. Biologically questionable, but a telling metaphor. Behaving in a socially aceptable manner starts with youngsters being aware of their place and responsibilities in society. The do-gooders are the ones who relaxed the means of teaching the rules of good behaviour. It's never quite clear what do-badders mean by "do--gooders"; but I doubt if the expression includes those who use huge publicity budgets and influence to promote alcohol, casual sex, gambling, and acquisitiveness. If I were given to slogan T-shirts, I'd be wearing the one declaring "It's probably more complicated than that..." -- Mike. |