Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

sebster wrote:

No, what I'm saying is that every generation looks at the undisciplined louts of the next generation and thinks they're the worst ever. Then that mob grows up, looks at the next mob and thinks they're the worst ever.

Yep human nature to do that.

sebster wrote:
Your model of waxing and waning conservatism has a problem in that it's only seen one iteration. That can't be reasonably relied on as a pattern.

This pattern has been going on for a long time, though it is interrupted by major wars and some other events can throw it out of synch. WW1 and WW2 both froze the cycle. If you look at Victorian society the moral cycle certainly presented itself, you also see it in Roman society.

A good example was London with a moral 'high' in the late Victorian era. Symptoms included the conflict between the Skeleton Army and the Salvation Army, Sturgeons church, and the change of policies and government in Westminster at the time (Galdstone vs Disraeli). edwardian England was looser, the Great War reintroduced social conservatism by necessity so the 20's and 30's became very loose, the war reintroduced social conservatism which continued into the 50's due to rationing so the 60's were exceptionally loose, etc and so on. You can see the tide back before the 1880's if you wish, which were loose however the rollers become deeper and longer because fashion and technology moved at a slower pace, generally you saw alternate generations, nowe we are seeing decade long cycles, or at aleast attempts at them and smaller subcycles that roll much faster due to the speed of modern media.

Orlanth wrote:And Stalin was an oblate (priest in training). This is not relevant what any individuals beleived on the inside, the face and doctrine of Naziism and Soviet communism was atheism.

There is nothing atheist about Nazism. Nothing. It's a ridiculous thing to say. There were all manner of spiritual beliefs among the leaders of the Nazi party. Hitler specifically opposed state atheism.

This is different to communism, where atheism was a specific tenant and had been since Marx. There is a lesson to be learned from the atrocities of communism and its atheism, and that lesson is that religion isn’t the cause of fanaticism.

Trying to turn that basic lesson into an idea that religion somehow stops fanaticism is non-sensical.

Neither Mussolini nor Franco rose on the same ideas as Hitler and the Soviets, Mussolini took a different path on a different ideological ticket. After all they never abolished religion and so never had to make the state replace it. Furthermore Mussolini was a better leader than given credit for in the big scheme, he just chose to back the wrong side and ended up riding Hitlers coat tails because he had no choice. If Mussolini had any say on the matter the war and its attendent horrors would never had happened. Franco obviously thought the same and was able to distance himself from Hitler enough that his government, and that in Portugal survived until the 1970's.

But you said this;

“The real danger, sir, is that in order for communist or fascist dictators to rise people must first say 'no more religion', this leads to the horrible irony in your logic.”

So when you said fascist you meant fascists except for the fascists that don’t support my argument.

And your admiration for Mussolini is odd. Relative to the other fascists he was much better, but he still got up to a lot of bad things by himself.

Orlanth wrote:This pattern has been going on for a long time, though it is interrupted by major wars and some other events can throw it out of synch. WW1 and WW2 both froze the cycle. If you look at Victorian society the moral cycle certainly presented itself, you also see it in Roman society.

A good example was London with a moral 'high' in the late Victorian era. Symptoms included the conflict between the Skeleton Army and the Salvation Army, Sturgeons church, and the change of policies and government in Westminster at the time (Galdstone vs Disraeli). edwardian England was looser, the Great War reintroduced social conservatism by necessity so the 20's and 30's became very loose, the war reintroduced social conservatism which continued into the 50's due to rationing so the 60's were exceptionally loose, etc and so on. You can see the tide back before the 1880's if you wish, which were loose however the rollers become deeper and longer because fashion and technology moved at a slower pace, generally you saw alternate generations, nowe we are seeing decade long cycles, or at aleast attempts at them and smaller subcycles that roll much faster due to the speed of modern media.

But when you look at other examples you start looking at much wider time frames. You can't compare the 50s with the Victorian era, because they're massively different time frames. All you're left with then is 'conservatism waxes and wanes over largely random time frames' which has to be true. And such a vague pattern is pretty irrelevant compared to the massive decrease in social mores over the last 100 years.

jp400 wrote:Those Poor Poor Cavemen!

We're all just monkeys throwing poo at each other.

Teenagers have always been naughty, it is a natural part of the process of growing adult. Among teenagers there have always been naughtier and less naughty examples.

The hope is that most teenagers will pass through the naughty phase and become responsible adults. The chance of success in this depends partly on how they are handled by the adult world.

Ok I think this has gone off the rails somewhat.

I don't think this is the time or place for a debate on the Importance of religious influence in society or the morals of youth. That certainly wasn’t the point of the thread! Incidentally I don’t think there is any great issue with the youth of today. As sebster pointed out the downfall of civilization caused by the upcoming generation has been predicted since the ancient Greeks.

My point was the bullyboy tactics and intrusive and sensationalist nature of the Express and its reporting has become a real issue. Not to mention that their (and the Daily Mails) role as self appointed moral guardians of the country is viewed as patronising, offensive and unwelcome by the vast majority of educated Britons.

i cant belive the press i suprised by these kids acting this way. they grew up in scotland, so they are bound to turn out violent alcoholics. ist the natioinal pastime up there.

just more reason we should rebuild the wall. check out the film "Doomsday" to see what im talking about

LuciusAR wrote:Ok I think this has gone off the rails somewhat.

I don't think this is the time or place for a debate on the Importance of religious influence in society or the morals of youth. That certainly wasn’t the point of the thread! Incidentally I don’t think there is any great issue with the youth of today.

Actually we are more on topic than it at first looks.

You raised the article which raised two valid topics:

1. Alleged mishandling of data by the Daily Express and poor journalism techniques.

2. Alleged decline in the standards of youth of today. Not your point admittedly, but you cannot raise an article and omit discussion of its content.

I gave three points as to why the youth of today has been in moral decline, one due to media, one due to government policy and one due to declines of moral example as set by organised religion. This third point has been questioned and I was holding my ground with logical secondary examples. Had the other two pointers been challenged I would be defending them and the discussion would be on 'media' or 'politics'.

LuciusAR wrote:
As sebster pointed out the downfall of civilization caused by the upcoming generation has been predicted since the ancient Greeks.

Sebsters commentaries that declines in morality were illusory and generated by the older sections of the populace are relevant, as are the counterarguements that there are relative changes because the system is essentially cyclic. Thus standards do rise and fall relative to each other.

LuciusAR wrote:
My point was the bullyboy tactics and intrusive and sensationalist nature of the Express and its reporting has become a real issue.

Yes there are valid issues with how some of the press is conducting its affairs but this problem does not begin and end with the Daily Mail and the Daily Express.

LuciusAR wrote:Not to mention that their (and the Daily Mails) role as self appointed moral guardians of the country is viewed as patronising, offensive and unwelcome by the vast majority of educated Britons.

Those Britons who truly claim to be amongst the majority of the educated will understand the need for a counterpoint.

Before the counterpoints used to be between the Sun and the Mirror, since the defection of the Sun to New Labour and a leftward shift in the Times there has been a very strong media imbalance which was exploited by Tony Blair for years and masked much of what his government was doing. The Telegraph provides the only consistently right wing point of view and that is a broadsheet, the lack of a Tory tabloid has cost that nations debate dear. Daily Mail stepped into the role vacated by The Sun, and has been vilified for it.

The Daily Mail raises points other newspapers refuse to touch, until the bandwagon gets so large they end up falling on it. When the Daily Mail wrote about issues alone it was flatly dismissed as hysteria, first as a ploy by opposite press, later by those members of the populace taken in by this concept. Until from time to time there is found to be enough of an issue that the rest of the press noted reported the problem. At which point comments of Daily Mail hysteria mongering subsided, on the one issue at least, to immediately resurface later whenever a new issue arose. Immigration debate is one such issue first repeatedly raised by the Daily Mail, again this topic is not about immigration, just the obvious example that the Daily Mail often adresses delicate topics, albeit indelicately, years before they are addressed by the rest of the press.

Now if we assumed that the Mirror instead defected to the right and there was no readible left wing bias newspaper a similar situation would have occured, it would have been left to one of the less hitty left wing newspapers to take up the slack and that newspaper going alone against the flow would have reaped the accusation of wildeyed bias and ridicule.

I am not defending the Daily Mail as 'truth', or their morals; just seeking honest perspective. If you actually do think you get better morals from the journalism of the Sun/Mirror you are gravely mistaken, morals in the Guardian, Times etc still have the journalistic twist but are better disguised and less tonal. If you think you can discover truth from reading or boycotting any newspaper in Britain today you are naive. Daily Mail feels the brunt of the wrath because it goes against the flow and criticises the government squarely and on issues the rest of the press would rather ignore or are paid to support by their editors. Just because an issue or article is uncomfortable to a Liberal or left doesnt mean it is 'just made up'. However flat denial is the standard defence against the Daily Mail, based solely on the arguement there are few of you, and many of us in Fleet Street. This may thus be the spoonfed view of a majority of Britons, but it hardly consitutes the view of educated ones. Educated people look at the press with educated eyes, they look at the press as a whole and in part and see not only the words on the page but the culture behind it. Britain is sick, the Daily Mail likes pointing this out; the human nature of blaming the messenger rises to a fore eagerly encouraged by those who profit from the culture of doing so. New Labour most of all.

This has had appalling consequences. The culture of ridicule generated around the Mail, solely based on the disparity of the volume of media is one reason why New Labour has got as far as it has. Before the Sun defection there was never a lower press imbalance and no government could have got away with what this government has got away with. Poll Tax all but finished Thatcher, the Fuel strike in 2000 was just as bad, as was the farmers protest the next year; but they were largely damp squibs because the press fuel was not there to fan them. The Callaghan government opposition could rely on the Sun as the base tabloid, the Mail as the rather more in depth one. Thatcher was opposed by the might of the Guardian and the Mirror. Blair only faced the Mail and has a double broadside of lower tabloids with small words in big letters and large breasts on page 3. These are the most powerful media weapons in print today, and always have been. Together and with no small amount of unremarked hypocrasy they attempt to trash the rep of the Daily Mail in order to reduce the value of its opinion.

As for the Daily Express, it would be wrong for me to say the Daily Mail are totally alone. The Express aspires to be what the Mail is, but while the Mail has genuinely clever journalists the Express in general does not. Thus resorting to cheap shots like the article you quite rightly vilified. The Express follows on the coattails of the Mail following it, rather than debating alongside and supporting it. Thus in political terms the Daily Mail is alone, also accusations need not touch the Express, due to the parasitic nature of the one newspaper to the other fire focused on the Mail automatically hits the Express too.

I do however detect that your vilification of the Express and the Mail is far more despising the mouth than despising the content. This in turn blinds you to valid points they may raise and prevents you from seeing the larger picture. I apply this logic to myself and for that reason will eagerly read the Mirror, especially in conjunction with the Sun, despite having a low opinion of them, doing so helps me see with better perspective.

Edited for spelling and grammar as I notice it. Also the same reason most of my posts above have several edits.

double post, sorry.

I certainly wouldn't I'm say blind to the Mails valid points. I would however say that I am deeply distrustful of what they have to say by default and certainly never take them at face value. When they do say something I agree with its normally wrapped up in some sort of twisted agenda.

Take today's front pages as an example. Both the mail and express covered the same non-story with the same sensationalist methods.

http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/category/front-pages/

Now I agree with the Mail and the Express in that we both strongly condemn the views of the protesters. However I don't agree with the sentiment of the story or the sensationist nature of the headlines.

The number of protesters was actually about 20, this can hardly be described as 'mob', especially as their conduct was largely peaceful in that they did not attack anyone. The tone of the headline indicates a mass of violent protestors. The actually number is mentioned, almost reluctantly, later on in the article. The most likely reason for this is their wish to make a mountain out of a molehill and fuel racial tensions. Besides planting them on the front page gives these few nutters the publicty they crave. It's clearly counter productive but doubtless will shift a few more units.

Secondly, we either have freedom of speech or we don't. You can't complain about erosion of civil liberties and then subsequently complain when people take the opportunity to peacefully protest just because you don't happen to disagree with their cause. Whatever happened to "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?

So the Mail/Express had the opportunity to win my sympathy yet failed to do so by using inflammatory language and displaying rank hypocrisy.

Its not just today. Show me almost any Mail/Express headline and regardless of the nature of the story or whether I agree with the sentiment chances are some aspect of the reporting I will disapprove of. I've not been brainwashed by some government conspiracy to discredit the mail. I just know when I'm being manipulated.

The thing about the Daily Mail is they espouse some totally arrant nonsense, such as MMR vaccines, which tends to obscure anything good they may do in other fields.

LuciusAR wrote:
Take today's front pages as an example. Both the mail and express covered the same non-story with the same sensationalist methods.

http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/category/front-pages/

Actually this story was also in the Sun and the Telegraph. It was reading an online copy of the Sun pointed to by an ex-services friend that awoke me to the particular story. I noticed in the supermarket on the way home the word 'mob' on the front page of the Mail and thought it a little off.

However.... while the protesters were few in number what they said was highly inflamatory and a breach of the peace. If you or I said such things on a street we could well be arrested on section 4 or 5 of the Public Order Act. I do agree with the cliche "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" but actually a lot of this is now against the law particularly if it implies an incitement to racial or religious hatred. Wakey wakey LuciusAR, this is New Britain, actually we dont have the freedom of expression we once had.

Anyway, this is itself topical because I live in Watford, and yesterdays article indicated the Anglains would be parading in Watford today, so I turned up. I was reminded of this quote from a Roman centurion living 18 centuries ago: 'We hear that there are tumults and riots in Rome, and that voices are raised concerning the army and the quality of our soldiers. Make haste to reassure us that you love and support us as we love and support you, for if we find that we have left our bones to bleach in these sands in vain, then beware the fury of the legions.' I love and support our soldiers, even if the government does not represent us, these soldiers do because they are a citizen army. So I had to go, especially after the disrespectful incidents from Luton yesterday. There were no fanatics in sight and the event passed peacefully. I took the time to talk to police and soldeirs alike on various topics I learned that because of the overwhelming support of the majority of the crowd yesterday the actions of the protesters did not offend, the soldiers themselves drew support from the crowd (it is why they have such events, especially during such an unpopular war) who made it known in peaceful ways that they were welcome and their sacrifices were not forgotten.

I took a good look around after showing my respect to the parading soldiers, the police were taking no chances but the crowds moved freely. Either the fundamentalists had not turned up or they had been removed. Quite likely the latter as any demonstration over a certain size must be prearranged with the authorities, thus they could legally say no at this late stage and remove protesters prior to the event or force them to demonstrate offsite. Whether or not this happened I cannot say.

I am sure you might want to spout the line that it was only a tiny minority of moslem extremists, the councillors on the podium said so, as did the polticians yesterday. Also mentioned - in accordance to their dogmas the 'diversity' of Watford. While 'diversity' is a goal to head towards in many respects it is the watchword prominent in the talk - a creed of the new secular religion as mentioned above, and for it to be always mentioned is alarming in its own fashion. Something not mentioned was that today as with Luton yesterday despite large crowds from the black and white communities very few Asian supporters were to be seen in the crowd, thoroughly dispropiortionate from the demographics of the town. Despite the oft repeated 'diversity' mantra I doubt that the protestors represent as small a percentage of the Islamic community than the press and police would have you believe.