Jump to content
JosephM

Feeding Those Who Can't Support Their Families Or Self

Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, PaulS said:

It seems like a bit of a "how long's a piece of string" question.  Meaning that all of the 'higher security' things you mention could be appropriate in some areas, but perhaps are less necessary is others.  I think one should take a risk management approach - i.e. consider the credible likelihood against the potential consequences.  And the likelihood or consequences could indeed change if one was male or female, elderly or young adult, value of possessions, etc.

I was single when I bought my first house which was on a reasonable sized block of land in suburbia.  Burglaries did occur in the area but most people were happy with a home alarm system, locks on doors, security screens on doors (some on windows but they're pretty ugly), and be smart about locking things up when you're out.  Where I live now we had somebody murdered in an apartment block around the corner a couple of years ago - the offender was high on drugs, used to live in the apartment and went back there in his delusional state to collect his guitar.  Instead he killed the man who had since moved in there.  That's about as random in these parts as getting eaten by a shark, but it can happen.

That's just awful, & right around the corner too!

The things that you mention can be good ideas, but some of them can also be rather expensive. Perhaps the costs of alarm systems and security screens will come down, or become more standardized.

22 hours ago, PaulS said:

I mentioned previously about a security concept called CPTED (crime prevention through environmental design) which, very briefly, touches on things like designing areas which have high visibility to passersby and neighbors which discourages crime (cos they can see the bad guys too easily), well lit areas, clearing bushes away from driveways and doorways (so nowhere to hide in ambush), and yes of course, having neighbors in your condo that in themselves act as a deterrent or extra set of security eyes.

I'm thinking that this "CPTED (crime prevention through environmental design)" that you mention is a really good approach to things. It can help alot.

I've lived in neighborhoods where the expectation of good citizenship was really high, and everyone knew it. There were more good people than bad people and the "bad guys" just knew it, and just pretty much knew they would get caught and wouldn't get away with things. Having this collective sense of good citizenship also gives people who don't really know what to do, a way of thinking and seeing things that they can 'step in with' and perhaps not end up going in the other or unhealthy  directions.

22 hours ago, PaulS said:

I'm not sure if this is what Joseph had in mind when he said that, but I was thinking that about the only place I could imagine where one would be 'completely safe from harm' would probably resemble some sort of prison with razor wire and security gates or some sort of concrete fortress, all dark and dinghy.  From what I've seen, where there is a will there is a way - meaning that just about any security arrangements can be defeated if one has the will and resources to do so.  

 

 

18 hours ago, JosephM said:

My sentiments exactly. It seems we do have to manage risk as you pointed out in your previous post as best we are able within our own acceptable limits of freedom. It seems to me wise at that point to resign ourselves to be content (not worry) about the things we have no control over and  to live peaceably in this world that is filled with a level of uncertainties.

We may not really have "control" over these things, but we all do have some influence, even if it's just pointing these things out to other people, so eventually and step by step, a change is made and things get done.

One thing I've noticed and that happens in society, is that when one or some parts of people's collective sense of good citizenship needs to be changed or updated, what people tend to do is tear the whole thing down and start all over again, instead of just examining, challenging  and changing that one part. This is not a good or positive way of going about things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The Japanese do the dense population/small house/no crime thing exceptionally well.  The key seems to be an almost complete lack of diversity and an extreme sense of nationality.

Edited by Burl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Burl said:

The Japanese do the dense population/small house/no crime thing exceptionally well.  The key seems to be an almost complete lack of diversity and an extreme sense of nationality.

Yes, their violent crime is exceptionally low. Your observation of "an almost complete lack of diversity and an extreme sense of nationality" is an interesting principle to consider. There does seem to be a marked increase in violence on the average in the countries with the most ethnic and cultural diversity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, JosephM said:

There does seem to be a marked increase in violence on the average in the countries with the most ethnic and cultural diversity.

However it is not the simple fact of diversity that accounts for the increase in violence but the inability of some to accept the 'other.'

Edited by thormas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that a common sense of good citizenship might be what we need to bring down the crime rates and enable us all to be safe in our homes and in our lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

I think that a common sense of good citizenship might be what we need to bring down the crime rates and enable us all to be safe in our homes and in our lives.

I think that a common sense of good citizenship defined and lived is what we need but diversity has its own definitions , languages, and cultural rules. It takes time to become more common in our sense of what is good citizenship. Our laws help define what it takes but that is not enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, JosephM said:

I think that a common sense of good citizenship defined and lived is what we need but diversity has its own definitions , languages, and cultural rules. It takes time to become more common in our sense of what is good citizenship. Our laws help define what it takes but that is not enough.

It's not diversity that has its own definitions, languages and rules, it the  different diverse groups, correct? 

I agree that it takes time - just as integrating two families (after, for example, the death or divorce of previous partners and then a remarriage with kids) into one and it does take more than house rules (or laws of a society), it takes work by all but the payoff is/can be worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thormas said:

It's not diversity that has its own definitions, languages and rules, it the  different diverse groups, correct? 

Yes, i thought that was inferred but thanks for the clarification

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, JosephM said:

Yes, i thought that was inferred but thanks for the clarification

thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, JosephM said:

I think that a common sense of good citizenship defined and lived is what we need but diversity has its own definitions , languages, and cultural rules. It takes time to become more common in our sense of what is good citizenship. Our laws help define what it takes but that is not enough.

 

19 hours ago, thormas said:

It's not diversity that has its own definitions, languages and rules, it the  different diverse groups, correct? 

I agree that it takes time - just as integrating two families (after, for example, the death or divorce of previous partners and then a remarriage with kids) into one and it does take more than house rules (or laws of a society), it takes work by all but the payoff is/can be worth it.

I've found that different groups have different ideas about what is and isn't their business when encountering one another in public. "What are you doing here", seems to be one of the common attitudes between different groups. When is this someone else's business and when is it not is perhaps one of those questions that has multiple layers and a bit of complexity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service