[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Isn't anyone else sick how the NAACP, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and all the black leaders have turned African American leadership after Martin Luther King Jr. into a fuckin' joke? First it was O.J, then Michael Vick, and now Jena 6.
Let me tell you something, if MLK was still alive today by no means he would defend a criminal. All he would ask for is for a fair trial.
It doesn't matter for what reasons those 6 kids were provoked. It doesn't matter if this kid that was nearly beaten up to death was a white supremacist. What matters is that those 6 kids took justice in their own hands when they should have reported the incident with the nooses to higher authorities.
Let's not forget that the white kids are also guilty of a lesser crime, but a crime nonetheless.[/QUOTE]
Totally agree.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LozlanTheMage wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
There is nothing that can be done about racism, which in and of itself is harmless. We can only - in fact, we only should - concern ourselves with the effects of racism that infringe upon the rights of others.
[/QUOTE]
Sir, do you understand the base concept of racism? It is not harmless, because it is a prejudice deeply held by many people who wield power (be it political or physical) over those they loathe. What you seem to be arguing is that as long as someone is quietly, privately racist, and does nothing but sit on their porch drinking lemonade whilst thinking about lynching someone, then it's just dandy.
[/QUOTE]
Racism itself is indeed harmless. In fact, every person should have the right to judge any other person in any way they see fit. It is only when they act upon it, and when these actions infringe upon the rights of others, that it should be addressed. In fact, to try to control the way people think is, in itself, a gross injustice and an infringement upon our very basic rights. Also, to try to arbitrarily control how people act is also an infringement upon basic rights. The standard for controlling another's actions or thoughts is "if they infringe upon the rights of others." Thought has never infringed the rights of anyone - only actions.
As a Libertarian, I feel it is my duty to argue that as long as that person keeps to himself as he drinks his lemonade, he may think about anything he damn well pleases without being oppressed by the government.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LozlanTheMage wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
However, that's not entirely the point of demonizing an entire segment of the human race. People have this crazy little tendency to act on their deeply held beliefs. This action can adopt many subtle guises, and is not always readily discernible, namely because mindsets shape political and social landscapes. Therefore, claiming that racism is only an active social disease when it 'infringes upon the rights of others' is like saying murder is only murder when it's murder. Racism is an active and virulent social force, constantly shaping public policy and opinion.
[/QUOTE]
When people act on their beliefs, only when they act upon these beliefs, and only if these actions infringe upon the rights of others - only then should they be restricted or punished. Racism isn't inherently acted upon to the detriment of the rights of others, contrarily to what you believe.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LozlanTheMage wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Our college was recently visited by a black man from Minnesota who had been unjustly arrested and beaten by white policeman. The data he presented was startling: in Minnesota, there are roughly 25 black people incarcerated for every white person. This evens out to a 1-in-4 arrest ratio amongst blacks. Color me mad, but this seems to represent a gross unbalance in the realm of social justice.
[/QUOTE]
That data is more or less useless, aside from being an "interesting fact." There is no causation in it. It could just as easily be that black people are 25 times as likely to commit a crime, which could be due to social pressures, poverty, or any number of things. Numbers don't lie, but people's interpretations of numbers do all the time. Of course, it could be just as possible that it is due to racism in the system. However, to extrapolate that from those numbers is logically unsound.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LozlanTheMage wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Another startling example of ongoing racism revolves around drug charges. The possession of crack cocaine, a cheap drug readily available to the inner-city lower classes (composed largely of blacks), carries a much heavier jail time than possession of higher-quality cocaine, which is more refined and potent. This is in part an oppression of race, but also a spit in the eye of lower-cla
There is nothing that can be done about racism, which in and of itself is harmless. We can only - in fact, we only should - concern ourselves with the effects of racism that infringe upon the rights of others.
[/QUOTE]
Sir, do you understand the base concept of racism? It is not harmless, because it is a prejudice deeply held by many people who wield power (be it political or physical) over those they loathe. What you seem to be arguing is that as long as someone is quietly, privately racist, and does nothing but sit on their porch drinking lemonade whilst thinking about lynching someone, then it's just dandy.
[/QUOTE]
Racism itself is indeed harmless. In fact, every person should have the right to judge any other person in any way they see fit. It is only when they act upon it, and when these actions infringe upon the rights of others, that it should be addressed. In fact, to try to control the way people think is, in itself, a gross injustice and an infringement upon our very basic rights. Also, to try to arbitrarily control how people act is also an infringement upon basic rights. The standard for controlling another's actions or thoughts is "if they infringe upon the rights of others." Thought has never infringed the rights of anyone - only actions.
As a Libertarian, I feel it is my duty to argue that as long as that person keeps to himself as he drinks his lemonade, he may think about anything he damn well pleases without being oppressed by the government.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LozlanTheMage wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
However, that's not entirely the point of demonizing an entire segment of the human race. People have this crazy little tendency to act on their deeply held beliefs. This action can adopt many subtle guises, and is not always readily discernible, namely because mindsets shape political and social landscapes. Therefore, claiming that racism is only an active social disease when it 'infringes upon the rights of others' is like saying murder is only murder when it's murder. Racism is an active and virulent social force, constantly shaping public policy and opinion.
[/QUOTE]
When people act on their beliefs, only when they act upon these beliefs, and only if these actions infringe upon the rights of others - only then should they be restricted or punished. Racism isn't inherently acted upon to the detriment of the rights of others, contrarily to what you believe.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LozlanTheMage wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Our college was recently visited by a black man from Minnesota who had been unjustly arrested and beaten by white policeman. The data he presented was startling: in Minnesota, there are roughly 25 black people incarcerated for every white person. This evens out to a 1-in-4 arrest ratio amongst blacks. Color me mad, but this seems to represent a gross unbalance in the realm of social justice.
[/QUOTE]
That data is more or less useless, aside from being an "interesting fact." There is no causation in it. It could just as easily be that black people are 25 times as likely to commit a crime, which could be due to social pressures, poverty, or any number of things. Numbers don't lie, but people's interpretations of numbers do all the time. Of course, it could be just as possible that it is due to racism in the system. However, to extrapolate that from those numbers is logically unsound.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LozlanTheMage wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Another startling example of ongoing racism revolves around drug charges. The possession of crack cocaine, a cheap drug readily available to the inner-city lower classes (composed largely of blacks), carries a much heavier jail time than possession of higher-quality cocaine, which is more refined and potent. This is in part an oppression of race, but also a spit in the eye of lower-cla
Just so everyone knows, not all Louisiana people are racist.
*long sigh*
This is not to provoke flames, I'm just saying...because I live here and I don't care if you're black, white, or orange polka-dotss.
*long sigh*
This is not to provoke flames, I'm just saying...because I live here and I don't care if you're black, white, or orange polka-dotss.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sparrow wrote: [/QUOTENAME]soo im kinda naive on this, what is the story about in a nutshell?[/QUOTE]
1. Students go to college at what some still call a "segregated" part of the country.
2. At this college, there is an area where there have been KKK demonstrations years ago, part of the college received money from alumni who were KKK members. That happens a lot in the South. (The State Fair of Texas used to have KKK day!)
3. Some black tough-guy students, some with criminal records for assualt and other physical crimes, ask the school administrators if they can have a gathering under a tree in that same area.
4. School officials, who months prior had to cleanup nooses and other Aryan propaganda from the same area, decide that 'Yes, go ahead. It's time to heal the past'.
5. a few Black students gather under the tree. Within minutes, tensions flair, arguments arise, just what you'd expect. School officials kick everyone out of the area, figure it's all over.
6. The next day some White students decide to hange 4 nooses made of rope from the tree.
7. offended Black students find the identity of one of the kids that hung the nooses.
8. 6 offended black students assault the white student, who is all alone now. They beat him for several minutes, including several kicks to the head.
9. 6 students are later arrested and charged with serious felonies, due to the violence of the beating, which was also videod. Hence, the premeditation.
We all know what happens next.[/QUOTE]
I think the black students were right about asking permission to go there. If the USA are a democratic country, they should be allowed to be there.
The white students were wrong for hanging the nooses. The black people should've reported them.
But the black students didn't report them, they just hit the crap out of a guy. 6 against 1. They lost all the right they had to complain about the incident.
1. Students go to college at what some still call a "segregated" part of the country.
2. At this college, there is an area where there have been KKK demonstrations years ago, part of the college received money from alumni who were KKK members. That happens a lot in the South. (The State Fair of Texas used to have KKK day!)
3. Some black tough-guy students, some with criminal records for assualt and other physical crimes, ask the school administrators if they can have a gathering under a tree in that same area.
4. School officials, who months prior had to cleanup nooses and other Aryan propaganda from the same area, decide that 'Yes, go ahead. It's time to heal the past'.
5. a few Black students gather under the tree. Within minutes, tensions flair, arguments arise, just what you'd expect. School officials kick everyone out of the area, figure it's all over.
6. The next day some White students decide to hange 4 nooses made of rope from the tree.
7. offended Black students find the identity of one of the kids that hung the nooses.
8. 6 offended black students assault the white student, who is all alone now. They beat him for several minutes, including several kicks to the head.
9. 6 students are later arrested and charged with serious felonies, due to the violence of the beating, which was also videod. Hence, the premeditation.
We all know what happens next.[/QUOTE]
I think the black students were right about asking permission to go there. If the USA are a democratic country, they should be allowed to be there.
The white students were wrong for hanging the nooses. The black people should've reported them.
But the black students didn't report them, they just hit the crap out of a guy. 6 against 1. They lost all the right they had to complain about the incident.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=chartreuse>Thirtynine? wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Just so everyone knows, not all Louisiana people are racist.
*long sigh*
This is not to provoke flames, I'm just saying...because I live here and I don't care if you're black, white, or orange polka-dotss.[/QUOTE]
The world doesn't want to know this. If you're not racist, there's no conflict, nothing to talk or fight about. Sad, but true.
*long sigh*
This is not to provoke flames, I'm just saying...because I live here and I don't care if you're black, white, or orange polka-dotss.[/QUOTE]
The world doesn't want to know this. If you're not racist, there's no conflict, nothing to talk or fight about. Sad, but true.
"Another good point. It does not appear reasonable to define tennis shoes as "lethal weapons."
I have to disagree with this. I don't know the legal definition of "lethal weapon" in this case, however, to kick a person in the head, back or chest would be attempted murder as far as my reasoning goes. Just one kick to the nose area could cause the nose to go back into the brain. It doesn't matter if the shoe is soft and padded - it is the overall force that would matter. One kick to the side of the head - a broken neck possibly. One kick to the chest area could cause a punctured lung. Or how about a kick directly to the heart or kidney area? Even a kick to the leg could cause death if it causes the rupture of an artery. Don't you people ever watch those TV shows of emergency room cases?
And when the person or animal cannot fight back (such as a woman, child, dog, or a man who is being ganged up on) it is even more of an evil act.
There is often the excuse given for violent acts: "I was provoked." Yeah, right.
And I really do not think that racism is the main issue here. The main issue is violence.
If a man beats up his wife and kicks her in the head, is the issue the stuff that she said or did to provoke him? Or is the issue that he cannot control himself?
Bottom line - provocation does not justify violence in our society, unless it is self defense and your physical safety or the physical safety of others is threatened in an imminent way.
I have to disagree with this. I don't know the legal definition of "lethal weapon" in this case, however, to kick a person in the head, back or chest would be attempted murder as far as my reasoning goes. Just one kick to the nose area could cause the nose to go back into the brain. It doesn't matter if the shoe is soft and padded - it is the overall force that would matter. One kick to the side of the head - a broken neck possibly. One kick to the chest area could cause a punctured lung. Or how about a kick directly to the heart or kidney area? Even a kick to the leg could cause death if it causes the rupture of an artery. Don't you people ever watch those TV shows of emergency room cases?
And when the person or animal cannot fight back (such as a woman, child, dog, or a man who is being ganged up on) it is even more of an evil act.
There is often the excuse given for violent acts: "I was provoked." Yeah, right.
And I really do not think that racism is the main issue here. The main issue is violence.
If a man beats up his wife and kicks her in the head, is the issue the stuff that she said or did to provoke him? Or is the issue that he cannot control himself?
Bottom line - provocation does not justify violence in our society, unless it is self defense and your physical safety or the physical safety of others is threatened in an imminent way.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Donna13 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
And I really do not think that racism is the main issue here. The main issue is violence.
If a man beats up his wife and kicks her in the head, is the issue the stuff that she said or did to provoke him? Or is the issue that he cannot control himself?
[/QUOTE]
Donna, I agree with everything you said in your post. Everything.
To your battered wife comment, though, I have to say not long ago the issue WOULD have been about what she did or said to provoke him. It took a lot of publicity of brutal beatings before society saw a husband's "rights" over his wife in a different light.
In today's climate of political correctness, we're expected to show outrage at the whites for hanging the nooses but understanding of the blacks who responded out of 'defense'. It's going to take some brave and ballsy soul to come out and say publicly what you said here - while hanging nooses is disgusting and should be addressed somehow, the main issue here is not racism, it's violence.
And I really do not think that racism is the main issue here. The main issue is violence.
If a man beats up his wife and kicks her in the head, is the issue the stuff that she said or did to provoke him? Or is the issue that he cannot control himself?
[/QUOTE]
Donna, I agree with everything you said in your post. Everything.
To your battered wife comment, though, I have to say not long ago the issue WOULD have been about what she did or said to provoke him. It took a lot of publicity of brutal beatings before society saw a husband's "rights" over his wife in a different light.
In today's climate of political correctness, we're expected to show outrage at the whites for hanging the nooses but understanding of the blacks who responded out of 'defense'. It's going to take some brave and ballsy soul to come out and say publicly what you said here - while hanging nooses is disgusting and should be addressed somehow, the main issue here is not racism, it's violence.
Thanks, Magical. Gosh, it is pretty rare for anyone here to agree with me completely, so I appreciate it!
D:
*Throws away Labyrinth and all my Bowie albums*
No, I'm kidding.
But I think it's bullshit to say that the incident was merely a "schoolyard fight". A schoolyard fight consists of one kid against another, not six kids against one.
There's really no excuse for such savage behaviour, regardless of what someone else said or did to start the problem. I'm not defending the kids who hung the nooses, that was fucking stupid too, but there comes a time when you really just need to ignore the person/thing that's offending you and let *you* be the smart one. If those "Jena 6" kids or whatever had just said "You know what? Fuck them." and went on with their lives instead of deciding to take matters into their own hands by beating the shit out of one of the boys, none of this would've happened. :/
I love how the dumb fucks like Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton have to get involved, too... those guys make me so fucking mad, showing up at every goddamn rally or protest around something that might have been caused by racism and talking about how the black man is oppressed and they must eliminate the white man, etc. etc. What the hell?!
Eh.
*Throws away Labyrinth and all my Bowie albums*
No, I'm kidding.
But I think it's bullshit to say that the incident was merely a "schoolyard fight". A schoolyard fight consists of one kid against another, not six kids against one.
There's really no excuse for such savage behaviour, regardless of what someone else said or did to start the problem. I'm not defending the kids who hung the nooses, that was fucking stupid too, but there comes a time when you really just need to ignore the person/thing that's offending you and let *you* be the smart one. If those "Jena 6" kids or whatever had just said "You know what? Fuck them." and went on with their lives instead of deciding to take matters into their own hands by beating the shit out of one of the boys, none of this would've happened. :/
I love how the dumb fucks like Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton have to get involved, too... those guys make me so fucking mad, showing up at every goddamn rally or protest around something that might have been caused by racism and talking about how the black man is oppressed and they must eliminate the white man, etc. etc. What the hell?!
Eh.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Donna13 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]"Another good point. It does not appear reasonable to define tennis shoes as "lethal weapons."
I have to disagree with this. I don't know the legal definition of "lethal weapon" in this case, however, to kick a person in the head, back or chest would be attempted murder as far as my reasoning goes. Just one kick to the nose area could cause the nose to go back into the brain. It doesn't matter if the shoe is soft and padded - it is the overall force that would matter. One kick to the side of the head - a broken neck possibly. One kick to the chest area could cause a punctured lung. Or how about a kick directly to the heart or kidney area? Even a kick to the leg could cause death if it causes the rupture of an artery. Don't you people ever watch those TV shows of emergency room cases?
And when the person or animal cannot fight back (such as a woman, child, dog, or a man who is being ganged up on) it is even more of an evil act.
There is often the excuse given for violent acts: "I was provoked." Yeah, right.
And I really do not think that racism is the main issue here. The main issue is violence.
If a man beats up his wife and kicks her in the head, is the issue the stuff that she said or did to provoke him? Or is the issue that he cannot control himself?
Bottom line - provocation does not justify violence in our society, unless it is self defense and your physical safety or the physical safety of others is threatened in an imminent way.[/QUOTE]
I agree with mostly everything else you said, but anything can be considered a "lethal weapon" - a fist, an elbow, an arm... I would not argue that this wasn't attempted murder, as it could definitely be reasonably argued as so.
However, when it comes to lethal weapons, I would have a hard time defining tennis shoes as such. Then again, it is arguable, but I personally would not think that this is a reasonable categorization.
I have to disagree with this. I don't know the legal definition of "lethal weapon" in this case, however, to kick a person in the head, back or chest would be attempted murder as far as my reasoning goes. Just one kick to the nose area could cause the nose to go back into the brain. It doesn't matter if the shoe is soft and padded - it is the overall force that would matter. One kick to the side of the head - a broken neck possibly. One kick to the chest area could cause a punctured lung. Or how about a kick directly to the heart or kidney area? Even a kick to the leg could cause death if it causes the rupture of an artery. Don't you people ever watch those TV shows of emergency room cases?
And when the person or animal cannot fight back (such as a woman, child, dog, or a man who is being ganged up on) it is even more of an evil act.
There is often the excuse given for violent acts: "I was provoked." Yeah, right.
And I really do not think that racism is the main issue here. The main issue is violence.
If a man beats up his wife and kicks her in the head, is the issue the stuff that she said or did to provoke him? Or is the issue that he cannot control himself?
Bottom line - provocation does not justify violence in our society, unless it is self defense and your physical safety or the physical safety of others is threatened in an imminent way.[/QUOTE]
I agree with mostly everything else you said, but anything can be considered a "lethal weapon" - a fist, an elbow, an arm... I would not argue that this wasn't attempted murder, as it could definitely be reasonably argued as so.
However, when it comes to lethal weapons, I would have a hard time defining tennis shoes as such. Then again, it is arguable, but I personally would not think that this is a reasonable categorization.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Donna13 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]"Another good point. It does not appear reasonable to define tennis shoes as "lethal weapons."
I have to disagree with this. I don't know the legal definition of "lethal weapon" in this case, however, to kick a person in the head, back or chest would be attempted murder as far as my reasoning goes. Just one kick to the nose area could cause the nose to go back into the brain. It doesn't matter if the shoe is soft and padded - it is the overall force that would matter. One kick to the side of the head - a broken neck possibly. One kick to the chest area could cause a punctured lung. Or how about a kick directly to the heart or kidney area? Even a kick to the leg could cause death if it causes the rupture of an artery. Don't you people ever watch those TV shows of emergency room cases?
And when the person or animal cannot fight back (such as a woman, child, dog, or a man who is being ganged up on) it is even more of an evil act.
There is often the excuse given for violent acts: "I was provoked." Yeah, right.
And I really do not think that racism is the main issue here. The main issue is violence.
If a man beats up his wife and kicks her in the head, is the issue the stuff that she said or did to provoke him? Or is the issue that he cannot control himself?
Bottom line - provocation does not justify violence in our society, unless it is self defense and your physical safety or the physical safety of others is threatened in an imminent way.[/QUOTE]
I agree with mostly everything else you said, but anything can be considered a "lethal weapon" - a fist, an elbow, an arm... I would not argue that this wasn't attempted murder, as it could definitely be reasonably argued as so.
However, when it comes to lethal weapons, I would have a hard time defining tennis shoes as such. Then again, it is arguable, but I personally would not think that this is a reasonable categorization.[/QUOTE]
No, you are right, Music Man. I know what you are saying. I guess what I was trying to say (and didn't say it at all) is that discussion of the tennis shoes as being lethal or not lethal is just a diversion from what matters, which is the force behind the kick.
I have to disagree with this. I don't know the legal definition of "lethal weapon" in this case, however, to kick a person in the head, back or chest would be attempted murder as far as my reasoning goes. Just one kick to the nose area could cause the nose to go back into the brain. It doesn't matter if the shoe is soft and padded - it is the overall force that would matter. One kick to the side of the head - a broken neck possibly. One kick to the chest area could cause a punctured lung. Or how about a kick directly to the heart or kidney area? Even a kick to the leg could cause death if it causes the rupture of an artery. Don't you people ever watch those TV shows of emergency room cases?
And when the person or animal cannot fight back (such as a woman, child, dog, or a man who is being ganged up on) it is even more of an evil act.
There is often the excuse given for violent acts: "I was provoked." Yeah, right.
And I really do not think that racism is the main issue here. The main issue is violence.
If a man beats up his wife and kicks her in the head, is the issue the stuff that she said or did to provoke him? Or is the issue that he cannot control himself?
Bottom line - provocation does not justify violence in our society, unless it is self defense and your physical safety or the physical safety of others is threatened in an imminent way.[/QUOTE]
I agree with mostly everything else you said, but anything can be considered a "lethal weapon" - a fist, an elbow, an arm... I would not argue that this wasn't attempted murder, as it could definitely be reasonably argued as so.
However, when it comes to lethal weapons, I would have a hard time defining tennis shoes as such. Then again, it is arguable, but I personally would not think that this is a reasonable categorization.[/QUOTE]
No, you are right, Music Man. I know what you are saying. I guess what I was trying to say (and didn't say it at all) is that discussion of the tennis shoes as being lethal or not lethal is just a diversion from what matters, which is the force behind the kick.