The criticism offered by Pericles’ comment was rather simplistic and pointless waffle. If a community is stranded from employment, education, transport, medical and shopping services, then it is fair to say that such a region is neglected by both state and federal governments. The pointless waffle offered by Pericles’ comment has places words in my mouth – I had not suggested that separate economic policies should be implemented in Mac Fields, rather that disadvantage in the area needs to be addressed. The link posted only supports my argument, after all how could a single mother of 3 that has a child with cancer and earns approximately 400 dollars a week be able to afford a 340,000 dollar house?..... Continue waffling, my friend!

Mickijo’s comments demonstrated how an uninformed perspective lacks any serious analysis into poverty. Social disadvantage is not mathematical, therefore because one grew up in certain living conditions does not mean certain outcomes will be produced. Again, I had not suggested that it was acceptable to break the law due to ‘social disadvantage’. Haygirl’s babble presented a similar argument “I grew up in a very underprivileged family’, please read the article ‘…there exists a massive disparity between the achievements of individuals from privileged backgrounds and individuals from low socio-economic backgrounds’.

Stigmatisations were brought up by BOAZ_David’s comment of single mothers, drugs and alcoholism. I can understand why one would adopt such stereotypes as they allow simplistic thinking and a method of making sense of complex issues. Such cognitive short cuts demonstrate a lack of capacity to think beyond labels and stereotypes, benefiting the individual using them and are harmful towards social groups that are involved in the stereotypes. The ‘lack of capacity to think’ is further demonstrated in BOAZ_David’s suggestion that I blame society for years of hardship… please read the article properly and acknowledge that not everyone has fortunate life experiences as yourself

(continued)

(author)

RJA .What i said wasn't babble it was the plain unadulterated truth.Are you one of these do gooders that finds excuses for every axxxole that walks.Get a life and walk in our shoes.Choices is what it boils down to.Choices not to be a crim,choices to find some way to entertain yourself,that doesn't entail ripping off or beating up some other poor bugger.I'm sick of people finding excuses for scumbags.How did people survive in the great depression?It wasn't by rioting,beating people up,stealing or being criminals.It was by making the best of what they had and endeavouring to improve their circumstances.I lived in a commission home in a not so salubrious area, raised 3 kids on very little money and still we didn't have to behave like animals to survive.If manners and accountability were still being upheld in this day,we wouldn't have so many bludgers and people that think the world owes them a living.Stop giving people crutches and excusing the un-excusable.

RJA “Now in being honest, I would respond with a basic observation – never have I seen such pathetic, uninformed criticism which only proves that morally bankrupt arguments are abundant”

Like haygirl said, I too am “sick of people finding excuses for scumbags”

RJA the real “moral bankruptcy” is all yours..

That you cannot deal with views contrary to your own illustrates a particular narcissism and contempt for others who disagree with your own sense of omnipotence (as illustrated by the quotation of yours above).

Your sense of “honesty” seems to be as twisted as your sense of “morality”.

I see you did not get around to commenting on my post.

Probably a fortunate omission, for your own sake.

As haygirl said and I agree with, “Are you one of these do gooders that finds excuses for every axxxole that walks.”

You are basically claiming that those who manage to walk by themselves, independently, with respect for their community and others, those who walk “unaided”, are full of “pathetic uninformed criticism” and are supposedly “morally bankrupt”.

I suggest you are simply exciting yourself with self gratification and frolicking in self-righteous.

However, just like you, I too am free to be as opinionated and critical of others as I choose.

You have come here to defend the drivel you wrote originally, excusing the habits of idiots who crap in their own nest (the Macquarie fields rioters) and blame their stupidity on other people (who hold higher values which the Macquariefields dross could, if they had half a functioning brain, aspire to).

I suggest whatever you have to say to me might well be critical.

Who cares, not me.

Your views and values are so far beneath me as to not be able to even crack a shadow on my horizon.

So, bring it all on.

(My Apology, Col Rouge, I didnt mean to make you feel left out of the criticism, as much as it encouraged me to pity your approach I do appreciate your comments)

(please note that I am limited to 2 posts within 1 forum in a 24 hour time-frame)

Enkew’s comment was evidently an attempt to diagnose me with the ‘poor bugger me’ syndrome. I found this fascinating, particularly with the follow up information of Aboriginality. From the comment I can see a lot of self- confusion – where sympathy and vilification of Aboriginality demonstrates Enkew’s ‘poor bugger me’ syndrome, further evident in his racist use of ‘white turds’. Please take your enthusiastic racial vilification of either Aboriginal or white communities elsewhere. Also note that it was the Redfern riots – not Macquarie Fields – which brought up issues of Aboriginal disadvantage. Please be informed before making any criticism.

Ro’s comment has also tried to put words in my mouth. I did not suggest that being poor is an excuse for crime, after all some of the worlds famous war criminals are in fact wealthy. In response to ‘who is morally bankrupt here?’, scroll up and look at the comments put forward at the beginning of this forum.

Col Rouge’s comment has amazing incite in being able to document the voting patterns of rioters – without examining any genuine research. I beg to differ in my understandings of the ‘haves’

1. decent access to education and training
2. sufficient transport services.
3. accessibility to employment opportunities
4. access to medical services and the ability to pay for sufficient health care
Hang on! Using this analysis - if Col Rouge’s comment used this to map out the ‘have nots’, we would witness the emergence of social disadvantage.

(Continued)

(continued)

Further, if these aspects characterize the living experiences of any individual or community, it would be difficult to ‘work harder’. Yet Col Rouge’s comment has chosen not to acknowledge these factors, rather crusade on ‘individual responsibility’ rhetoric which only feeds the ego of the moral ‘crusader’. CJ Morgan’s comment was bleatingly useless agreeing with aspects of Col Rouge’s comments, acknowledging alienation of young people and withdrawing any empathy towards their plights. The lack of context and understanding of poverty by both these comments demonstrates how morally bankrupt conservative arguments are either extremely useless or harmful towards disadvantaged groups.

Once again, more babble has emerged from Haygirl’s comments, this time accusing me of being a ‘do gooder’, illustrating how unadulterated paranoid babble leads to a strange conclusion – that I was justifying criminal actions by pointing out factors of poverty. After all, it’s all about choices – which do become limited if opportunities to prosper are restricted. Rather than criminalising lower class communities perhaps it would suit their interests to examine how ‘choices’ are limited. Further, advising me to ‘get a life’ is an ad hominem attack – only demonstrating an inability to exchange your views in a respectful discursive manner. I suspect that any more of Haygirl’s post would possibly be follow up ‘ad hominems’ therefore it would be pointless for me to acknowledge them let alone respond.

Once again, in the nicest possible way I would like to thank everyone for their comments.

RJA

RJA Isn't it amazing that every post disagrees with you on this topic.You have opinions from the well to do and the strugglers and all you can do is critise our opinions.If you didn't want to hear what people had to say you shouldn't have started the discussion.I'm outta here and on to some sensible topic.It's amazing you can defend the idiots but someone who has risen above that same lifestyle,you denigrate.Poverty is no reason to be criminal,just an excuse.