Robsk II

Ah, more reasoned points. Come on, do you not think that this is a spot sensationalist? Young players ahve got to learn, and will always get taught lessons about today. Hell, maybe it will be all doom and gloom from now on, but you can't assume that from one performance. To be honest, I saw a lot worse last year. We weren't great, but I'm not as appalled at the players as a whole as I have been on many, many other occasions.

WSS, this is not really a reasoned response. Whether or not you like him, he was left woefully exposed at times today, yet commanded his area as well as could be expected, as well as making some truly excellent stops. Two in particular today I thought were immense. Granted, three other goals went past him, but you can hardly say he wasn't fouled for the first disallowed one. Penalty wasn't great work, but hey, it's always pretty poor show to blame the keeper. He's a hero if he saves it, sure, but he can't be the villian if he doesn't.

Fair point to be honest, played bloody well today.

Clearly played some decent passing but inexperience showed - too much giving the ball away without an excuse, too many poor decisions about when to give the ball etc. John should've come on earlier. Also, the defence looked awfully shakey far too many times in situations that really should've been dealt with much better. Still, there are positives; the youngsters did play well at times, Lallana again was good, McGoldrick was decent if a little wasteful at times, Davis played very well today.. Effort and workrate can't really be moaned about.

Alright, I've phoned a few places - a new 3 part clutch and all the work with a 2 year / 20K guarantee - £320. Sounds sort of OK to me, any thoughts?

Westons is indeed a good cider. As is my dads homebrew, surprisingly. Knocks your f*cking head off, mind.

If only I were.

Cheers

Another generation linked question I guess, but even then.. Stokes must've been quite something to have been considered better than the truly awesome Le Tissier. Everyone has their favourites upon growing up, once a generation there will be a player that everyone remembers as one of the greatest - and I'm truly blessed to have been the right age to have witnessed Le Tissiers entire career, to have seen its fledgling steps as a young lad, all the way to that last goal at the Dell. Just.. unbelievable. I mean, come on. Legend: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUt5CQPyWzs

Some americans are so, so retarded.

Cheers boggy, any good? Who should I say "sent me"?

Saying that Hatch - deterrents haven't proved to be that succesful in many countries. The US is the prime example of this. Norwaysaint - if need be, to deal with it - have an ongoing process of rehabilitation based aims, with continual evaluation. If they never manage to convince that they are able to control themselves, then hey, keep them locked indefinitely in a situation that is as reasonable as possible - ie away from their potential victims, but with some human rights as much as possible, but also having to work. Again, some form of secure unit commune. If they do come out, then yes, for everyone's benefit, strict monitoring of movements at the very least. Not an easy thing to find a perfect solution. Jill - hard to say. Maybe he always harboured these feelings, maybe he has in fact offended previously. Perhaps he only behaves this way now because for whatever reason he has lost the ability to make socially appropriate choices. Maybe it's a psychological manifestation of him tryng to hold onto his younger days of groupies and so on, who can say?

Hear hear.

Delldays - Clearly there are some who are pretty much undoubted. But that element of doubt must be fair across cases, that's what justice is. It's hard to make a case in their defence, of course. Same with people like Hitler - how can you say they deserve to live? Well, perhaps they don't. perhaps if anyone deserves death, they do. I'm just not comfortable with our society playing god, I guess, or lowering ourselves to the level of murderers etc. Perhaps them being kept alive and being made aware of the pain they've caused is a more worthy punishment anyway? It's not an easy issue, as yes, taxpayer money keeps them alive. As it happens, I think they should have to work in prison, but there we go.

All I'm saying is that I think the offending takes place due to a variety of factors. Their accountability is never really brought into question by me - only the reasons for their behaviours. Clearly, they are accountable. I'm not making excuses, only explanations, if that makes sense. Offenders are accountable. Ultimately, even if someone has had an awful life and ends up offending because of their background - which really can happen, no matter how lame it seems - then by a certain age, it becomes sort of irrelevent. There might be reasons, but it is always up to them to make the right choice. The issue in this case is that some people seem - for these reasons - to make the wrong ones, and seem not to realise why that's a problem! So the work that needs doing is on their empathy and understanding of social behaviour etc, so that they do adequately understand why it's bad. As for castration, I think that a justice system that allows for appeals and so on, and evidence based stuff, shouldn't kill or chop balls off because there is often an element of doubt. It's important to our concept of justice. You can't be too draconian because there is no appeal, which is a fundamental right. Also, I don't think there is much evidence to say criminal behaviour is a genetic thing, to be honest, and some people might literally end up inside through some poor choices rather than some 'evil' ones.

delldays, your points of view are valid - I just don't know why you need to come on an call me dull immediately. For what it's worth, I do think that if we go down the 'punishment' route, then it should indeed be a punishment. As it happens, I'm sort of vague about whether it really does anyone much good, but that's a different issue.

Bateman, agreed. No, but let's be honest, you probably are. Your insistence on acting like a moron 99% of the time seems to corroborate any suspicions I may have. Instead of engaging with a perfectly valid conversation, putting in well constructed and reasoned arguments, you instead chose to come on and be abusive and immature. Who are you trying to impress? If you choose to act like a c*ck, expect to be judged as such.

Ironically, that small polemic is probably more complex and advanced in linguistic terms than anything you will ever manage with such a limited intellect.

Great contribution Essruu.

Excellent point Dicko. It's natural to be curious etc about some odd things, thus why people look at accidents etc, even. None of us condone rape so why does this occur? I know women who fantasise about rape, more than one. Yet clearly, the practice is not acceptable in any way. Should we euthanise those who fantasise about it? Are we to assume all these people will then go out and do it? Of course not. It is, again, those who have other issues who will enact their fantasies, not caring about the harm they cause.

Delldays, you f*cking thick idiot, if you don't like what I post, **** off and have a w*nk over naval shelling or killing civilians or something. This is an entirely valid topic for discussion in the lounge, but you, true to type, feel the need to be a tedious, purile, intellect challenged c*ck. No-one else has felt the need to come on and abuse people, instead people have done what they are meant to do in the Lounge. You're a pretty ****-poor advert for the armed services mate. Words too long? Sorry.

Gemmel - I never said it gives them the right. If you read the bit above, I'd say that people only act on them if they are also sociopathic or psychopathic - as you put it, simply not caring about the impact on others and placing their gratification above all else. I am not in any way, whatsoever, condoning or accepting the actions.

No - I'm talking specifically about the term perversion rather than paedophilia. Whilst paedophilia is a perversion, it's an one that is unaccceptable if put into practice. Another point - If you think about it, it seems likely that 'proper paedophiles' only become such when they A) have that kind of desire and B) lack the social education or mental health to effectively restrict their actions. Many people have dark dreams, I suspect, or feelings they are not comfortable with, whether thats people who have violent fantasies or whatever else. I honestly suspect that for every paedo in the paper, there are several other people who harbour some of the same desires in their core but are within societal norms and thus never act on them. I would also add that it is not these people we should usually be conerned about - it's the ones who are also psychopathic or sociopathic, and don't have the same capacity to quash those things.

I'm not talking genetics actually, I mean chemical levels in the brain and so on. It's not as if we are going to kill those poor Fritzl kids and grandkids just because daddy / grandaddy was a grand old hardcore deviant. I would say these things are a result primarily of conditioning. Many serial killers have some similar past experiences etc, for example. I just think killing them is not a right a society that holds itself up as fair and just etc should have. If these people can't help it, which I truly believe is often the case - how can we kill them? Who deserves to die? It's just not a call we should rashly make. Plus - do you think we should also euthanise all those with other mental health issues, from schizophrenia to simple depression? Should we kill those with genetic health problems, or those more prone to them? In it's purest sense, this could be seen as benefitting society in the long term - but human society has perhaps always been strongest because of its desire to survive as a whole, to cure and preserve. Most dog owners know that mongrels are often the healthiest breed precisely because they have a mix of genetic material. Mix a red setter with a labrador and the chances of it developing epilepsy (almost all red setters do) drops. Even if we cannot "cure" some people, I still believe we made an important progressive step in abolishing capital punishment. I don't think anyone has a right to kill anyone, simple as that, and I'd be less comfortable if we still did in this country. If it means locking people up and getting them to earn their keep for the rest of their lives in a commune, so be it. We have always spent money on curing people and palliative care for those who cannot be cured, and as our understanding of mental health increases, so should the way we treat it develop. If someone can't help something, no matter what it is, it's perhaps more worthy a cause than spending it on health issues people could avoid, like smoking related stuff. Even then, some of these things like obesity and alcoholism - they, too, should be treated with a joined up approach, understanding that sometimes these people do need proactive treatment for their mental health as well as reactive treatment to their physical problems.

It's just lazy thinking and lazy language. It's one of those words which we still use as a kind of gut-reaction to something we are uncomfortable with, maybe built in from the days when we were more.. hmm, fundamentally christian as a society. Not that practices were that different, but certainly less openly accepted.