The definition of stupidity is "doing the same thing again and again and expecting the outcome to be different".
Like Canute?
Like the socilogist who think's if I jump off this building (or rather persuade
every one else to) then the laws of gravity will change
And then we'll all be equal
I mean, like that tory widdercomb was on telly while I was painting up a chair, she was down peckham on the estates with the hoody's. And basically its the same sad story, they persist
ad nauseum to think the way to sort it is SPEND SPEND SPEND more tax funded stunt's as the way that things will change, and that if your from a poor place your automatically doomed to fail unless mr sociologist grants you cash money; some folk's still persist with that smash windows with guinea's mentality, when they gonna wake up and see it is a fallacy? And its the same with laws, judicial policy, social policy etc. The new establishment just point blank will NOT ADMIT that the experiment's started back in the 60's by Jenkin's/Castle/Crosland/Longford et al in the realm's of law, sociology, education etc have been a dismal failure. Isn't stupidity also flogging an imaginary horse, that never lived, and expecting it to walk
They utopianley imagined that people are intinsically good, and that if the state had more reach and influence that life would magically get better and egalitarian
So they made drastic changes which reverberate still even today. They agressively promoted the idea that criminals were
victims of economic misfortune, and not really responsible for there action's especially if they were "poor". This fundemental flaw is what underlies all the social policy we have had since the 60's. Personal rsponsibility has been usurped by ponsey PC state authority. What ever happened to knowing the difference betwen right and wrong instad of the moral relitivism we are told we have to live by now? Thieving/killing etc isnt wrong to some folk, rather a pastime or occupation with (increasingly) minimal risk's attached. So if something starts to go wrong (eg gun attacks or sword attack's) well for starter's it definately isnt our social policy thats at fault, so it must be because these people have these awful anti social weapon's, so we reserve the right to disarm them as we are far better qualified to act as moral adviser. We are from good homes, and we have a degree, and we are cultured and well informed, our researcher's have conducted studies (EG like the one that propmted this thread). If you challenge or question the relentless march of this "progressive" social revolution your a dissident, in fact you will be next in line for proscriptive (discriminatory) actions from the state. People are corrupt, human nature is a nasty thing ( at least without the intervention of being taught right from wrong, and firm discipline that is) Until someone in govt realises this, they'll keep repeating the stupidity cycle of "interfere and legislate" in a discriminatory fashion, keep moolly coddling criminal's (and demonizing law abiding folk) until something somewhere gives.
Apologies to all if my post isnt beautifully written its what you say that counts, not wether its "properly" written. Any way who says what proper writing is or should be, in olden days they didnt have standardised writing, they spelt things different all the tyme