quote:Originally posted by I Used to Be a Drummer:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: And at least one country has very lax gun laws and still has incredibly low rates of gun violence.
What's the rate of gun ownership in that country? Which country would you be referring to?
I have no problem with people owning hunting rifles and shotguns. Handguns are the problem.
I was thinking of Switzerland, where virtually every adult male owns a semiautomatic rifle (an automatic rifle with the auto-function deactivated, actually) and/or a semiautomatic handgun. Men in Switzerland undergo basic military training at the age of 20 (the backbone of the Swiss army is essentially militia) and they keep their guns when they go home.
Obviously, this means that in addition to a very high rifle and handgun ownership rate, there's also a very high level of firearm education.
Anyway, I'm not really interested in getting in a gun control debate with you, Former Drummer. I was just observing that there are lots of data points upon which the debate normally rages, and citing a random tragic event is a terrible justification for any policy.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: That's an interesting question Dan...and I think the answer for me is this: The target of the gun wielding psycho who escalates from words to physical violence -is wrong- and deserves a fine and/or up to three months in jail time for assault (on the assumption that knuckles on chin was the extent of the attempted physical assault). When GWP (gun wielding psycho) shoots and kills his target he -is wrong- and deserves years and years of incarceration, not only did he initiate contact, but escalated from (assumed) no permanent harm to kill you deader then dog crap.
Stone Wolf: Is nobody ever killed in hand-to-hand combat?
Is punching someone in the head a nonlethal attack?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: To use that argument you've had to hold two contradictory thoughts in your mind at the same time. The first thought is that Trayvon was a harmless, non-dangerous kid, and the second is that to even approach him was a highly dangerous act, akin to approaching a wild bear.
This is pretty much the definition of doublethink. Either approaching Trayvon was dangerous, because *Trayvon* was dangerous, either on drugs or in a criminal mood, or he was an innocent and harmless kid, and merely approaching him would not have been dangerous.
You can't have it both ways.
I didn't say that Trayvon wasn't dangerous, I said he was minding his own business. I myself am very dangerous, but only to people who deserve it, so if I'm walking down the street minding my own business I am not a danger to people who do likewise. But have some riled up cop wanna be with a history of violence and a gun roll up on me and act like I'm doing something wrong and -anyone- could be considered "dangerous".
The example with the bear wasn't to say Trayvon was a bear, it was to point out that Zimmerman put himself into a dangerous situation and then said his violence was justified because of the danger he purposely and willfully put himself in.
And because of it a kid is dead.
If you don't like the bears, how about this: It's like he tried to respond to a 911 call for fire fighters, without the proper gear and training and when someone didn't want to be rescued he felt justified in knocking them unconscious.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: That's an interesting question Dan...and I think the answer for me is this: The target of the gun wielding psycho who escalates from words to physical violence -is wrong- and deserves a fine and/or up to three months in jail time for assault (on the assumption that knuckles on chin was the extent of the attempted physical assault). When GWP (gun wielding psycho) shoots and kills his target he -is wrong- and deserves years and years of incarceration, not only did he initiate contact, but escalated from (assumed) no permanent harm to kill you deader then dog crap.
Stone Wolf: Is nobody ever killed in hand-to-hand combat?
Is punching someone in the head a nonlethal attack?
Fistfights are not usually deadly and seldom is a punch - even in the head - lethal. Gunshots quite frequently are deadly and often to bystanders. Just so far this year in Chicago.
quote:Behavior like following someone in a public space or otherwise making them uncomfortable is not justification for violence, whereas I think violence is a justification for violence in return.
That was a broad statement, so what I mean is: If I follow someone down a public sidewalk, or even follow them and call them names and otherwise act like a jerk, that doesn't give them the right to physically assault me. No matter how hurtful my words are, physical assault in response is unjustified and immoral in my opinion.
And if someone is physically assaulting you, I think you have the right to defend yourself by whatever means available, and I don't think that using a gun to stop someone from beating you up with their fists is immoral or unjustified.
I'm not sure if you recognize it or not, but the result of this broad philosophical argument is that if I can provoke someone into to hitting me first, I can legally kill them in self defense. That's wrong.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know why I bother arguing for handgun bans. This country is about as likely to ban handguns as China is to ban kung fu. Sure, Chicago had a handgun ban for a little while, until the Supreme Court struck it down. There's no way you could get the rural states on board, though.
Posts: 52 | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I was thinking of Switzerland, where virtually every adult male owns a semiautomatic rifle (an automatic rifle with the auto-function deactivated, actually) and/or a semiautomatic handgun.
Every sane, stable adult male. I don't know, but I'd imagine the crazier, less stable ones aren't allowed guns.
Also, Switzerland doesn't have the income inequalities and urban ghettoes that the US does. They also don't have the drug problems that the US does.
Posts: 52 | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:So I don't think the idea that Zimmerman followed him, therefore he is responsible, is sensible. In a causal sense, yes, his doing so may have been the action that led to the following events, but my walking down a dark alley in a bad part of town might lead to me being mugged, and yet I don't think it's logical to say I bear the responsible for my being mugged. (Hey this reminds me of our other conversation!)
It's actually not much like that when you consider that to walk alone through the dark alley at night in a high crime neighborhood is indeed foolish, it's...hmmm, entitrely personal? In other words, you don't have to go and do something to anyone in that situation for something bad to happen. Whereas following someone who is merely alive and walking at the same time, that does involve someone else-people generally react with negativity to being stalked and viewed with suspicion..even if they ARE doing something wrong.
Now, if you meant the comparison in the sense of 'both involve doing things which may result in violence, but both people haven't earned a violent response', then I agree.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by I Used to Be a Drummer:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I was thinking of Switzerland, where virtually every adult male owns a semiautomatic rifle (an automatic rifle with the auto-function deactivated, actually) and/or a semiautomatic handgun.
Every sane, stable adult male. I don't know, but I'd imagine the crazier, less stable ones aren't allowed guns.
Uh, weren't you just telling us how William Morva seemed totally sweet and stable and normal before he snapped?
quote:Originally posted by I Used to Be a Drummer: Also, Switzerland doesn't have the income inequalities and urban ghettoes that the US does. They also don't have the drug problems that the US does.
All true. Everywhere is different, so what works in one nation won't necessarily work in another!
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm not trolling you, and as for talking about it, you were the one who brought prison conditions into the conversation when you made an awful, evil in fact, insofar as you actually meant it (and you haven't backed off from it, either) statement supporting racially themed prison violence against Zimmerman. So, not trolling! It also wasn't trolling to insist on an answer to the question, particularly after you incorrectly suggested I hadn't answered yours.
As for...wow, your high school research paper!...well, here's the thing: you're speaking as though I am saying it would be easy for one individual, without much in the way of resources or influence, to change our prison policies nationwide. I'm sorry, but it's incredibly obvious that's NOT what I was saying-in fact, I specifically explained that when I rejected your apathetic claims that we have no power and there's nothing we can do.
What do those zillionaires you speak of DO with their money to enact their will in the world? The spend it largely doing two things: persuading us to either not care about a given issue or think about it 'correctly' or contributions to the campaigns of politicians who use that money to persuade us to give them the power to make those decisions.
So, yeah. Anytime you like, you can begin replying to what's actually been said.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: That's an interesting question Dan...and I think the answer for me is this: The target of the gun wielding psycho who escalates from words to physical violence -is wrong- and deserves a fine and/or up to three months in jail time for assault (on the assumption that knuckles on chin was the extent of the attempted physical assault). When GWP (gun wielding psycho) shoots and kills his target he -is wrong- and deserves years and years of incarceration, not only did he initiate contact, but escalated from (assumed) no permanent harm to kill you deader then dog crap.
Stone Wolf: Is nobody ever killed in hand-to-hand combat?
Is punching someone in the head a nonlethal attack?
Fistfights are not usually deadly and seldom is a punch - even in the head - lethal. Gunshots quite frequently are deadly and often to bystanders. Just so far this year in Chicago.
Kate, I have no argument with what you're saying, but you also didn't really answer me.
Of course, the answer is yes, people can die in hand-to-hand fights (whether solely with fists or by escalating to bashing heads against other surfaces).
And there are lots of other scenarios where an aggressor is by no means necessarily going to use lethal force. In addition to physical assault with fists (or a baseball bat), there's stuff like mugging, destruction of property, and rape. Any of those could end with the aggressor using lethal force, but it's by no means certain.
Why is there a moral obligation of restraint on the part of the victim? If someone is attacking me, why shouldn't I stop them the most effective way I can?
If someone tries to force me to give them my wallet, or tries to burn my house down, or tries to rape me, or, yes, tries to beat me up, I think I have the right to defend myself using whatever means available. Including shooting them.
Just a reminder, I'm discussing this broadly as a philosophical/moral issue, and not trying to specifically liken it to the case at hand. Further, in this post, I'm setting aside the issue of provocation to the initial violence (I've been discussing that in parallel).
So if you think the above stuff I said is true, but ceases to be true if you said mean words to the person before they tried to beat you up/burn down your house/rape you, then let me know and I can focus all of my attention on that issue instead. I think my view on the provocation issue is more controversial than my view re: self-defense in general, but maybe I'm mistaken.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If someone is attacking me, why shouldn't I stop them the most effective way I can?
Because not every crime should be punished with the death sentence? Because we should try not to take people lives if we don't absolutely have to?
Sure. Defending yourself against a deadly assault, rape, burning down your house could justify a lethal response. But throwing a punch in a fight you started? It doesn't have to escalate to someone being dead.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
America did manage to ban alcohol at one point despite drinking four times the amount the current USA drinks.
Fist fights however can be deceptively dangerous, the rates of accident are lower with unprotected boxing because the rules of where its okay to punch are stricter.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
quote:The answer to the question as to what "anti white racism" from the people whose views have been similar/exactly the same as Aris on this issue tend to say it's "affirmative action denying more qualified white people from going to college". Of course I don't recall Aris saying this, so obviously we can't attribute this view to him.
Blayne Bradley, what the **** are you doing? Are you intentionally trying to kill your own mind? You know *one* position from me, and you *intentionally* try to destroy as many of your braincells as you can by assuming whatever you want about the rest of my political positions?
Perhaps some Americans are stupid enough that they can only process politics by assigning everyone to the mental categories of either "us" or "the enemy", but that's no reason for you to intentionally flaunt such stupidity. And as for me I'm not an American. As such I'm under no obligation to obey the American haphazard political alliances. I'm anti-corporate-monopoly, pro-gay rights, pro-social welfare, anti-death penalty -- and I also happen to be in favor of immigration restrictions, in favor of referendums rather than court decisions, and in favor of shooting dead those thugs who assault other people, even if said thugs are 17-year young black kids.
quote:Where point "A" a kid with skittles is walking home from the store, and point "B" is a physical confrontation. And considering Zimmerman's actions (paroling the streets with a gun) I'd say that 99% of the time, the answer to your question is "No.". Even if Trey was beating Zimmerman's head on the ground, Zimmerman put himself into the situation by pursuing, confronting and in all likelihood assaulting an unarmed teenager who was minding his own business.
It's like if you were to strap on a meat suit and go wondering in bear infested hills, and then when you saw a bear, you threw rocks at it with a readied hunting rifle. "I was only defending myself from that dangerous charging bear." Self defense should not include scenarios where you do something (stupid and illegal) to put yourself -into- harm's way.
To use that argument you've had to hold two contradictory thoughts in your mind at the same time. The first thought is that Trayvon was a harmless, non-dangerous kid, and the second is that to even approach him was a highly dangerous act, akin to approaching a wild bear.
This is pretty much the definition of doublethink. Either approaching Trayvon was dangerous, because *Trayvon* was dangerous, either on drugs or in a criminal mood, or he was an innocent and harmless kid, and merely approaching him would not have been dangerous.
You can't have it both ways.
Slow down there taiga', I said no such thing. Only noting the dogwhistles as being similar, in fact I specifically said you hadn't said it so we couldn't attribute it to you.
IP: Logged |
quote:Behavior like following someone in a public space or otherwise making them uncomfortable is not justification for violence, whereas I think violence is a justification for violence in return.
That was a broad statement, so what I mean is: If I follow someone down a public sidewalk, or even follow them and call them names and otherwise act like a jerk, that doesn't give them the right to physically assault me. No matter how hurtful my words are, physical assault in response is unjustified and immoral in my opinion.
And if someone is physically assaulting you, I think you have the right to defend yourself by whatever means available, and I don't think that using a gun to stop someone from beating you up with their fists is immoral or unjustified.
I'm not sure if you recognize it or not, but the result of this broad philosophical argument is that if I can provoke someone into to hitting me first, I can legally kill them in self defense. That's wrong.
Yes, that's what I'm saying. I don't really think it's particularly wrong.
The whole concept of "provocation" in this context is a mess.
No matter how much someone hurts my feelings with words, it is not grounds for me to physically assault them or their property. I think that is a solid guiding principle. I think it is consistently true. People fail to live up to it all the time, but even then many of them agree it is true. What do you think? True?
Let's try another:
No matter how much someone physically assaults me, it's not grounds for me to defend myself. Is that similarly true? Well, no. Of course you can defend yourself. Maybe here's the principle:
No matter how much someone physically assaults me, it's not grounds for me to use lethal force to defend myself. How does that one hold up? Hmm, still not the best. If they're using lethal force, most people think I can use it too.
What's happening is people are applying this principle inconsistently. Sometimes when someone physically assaults you, you can shoot them. Sometimes you can't. It's a judgment call. You said mean words before they assaulted you so they aren't responsible for their actions, etc.
I guess some people think you should defend yourself only using the exact same level of force as your attacker. So then if they assault me with bullets, virtually everyone here will agree it's grounds to shoot back. If they assault me with fists, I can punch them back. If they try to burn my house down, I can do the same to theirs. If they try to rape me, I can rape them back.
Wait, no, that guiding principle also fell apart. It's not consistent either. It just boiled down to some sort of creepy eye-for-an-eye type of thing.
Not many people think the best response to an attempted kidnapping is to grab the kidnappers and keep them locked in your basement. The best response is to stop them from kidnapping.
The guiding principle that I think makes sense is this: No matter how much (or little) someone physically assaults me, I have the right to stop them the most expedient way possible.
I don't think I have a problem with applying that principle consistently.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If someone is attacking me, why shouldn't I stop them the most effective way I can?
Because not every crime should be punished with the death sentence? Because we should try not to take people lives if we don't absolutely have to?
Sure. Defending yourself against a deadly assault, rape, burning down your house could justify a lethal response. But throwing a punch in a fight you started? It doesn't have to escalate to someone being dead.
As I said earlier, I have a strong objection to the "fight you started" part.
If I call you names, and you hit me, that's a fight you started. No matter how many times I call you smelly, it's not going to hurt you. And yet how much I am hurt is directly correlated with how many times you punch me!
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aris, you realize that the boys who did that are being pursued, the case is being investigated, and will be prosecuted as a hate crime. Once those kids are caught, they will be punished. It was a terrible act committed by individuals, not systemic, institutionalized racism. Do you get the difference?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, that's what I'm saying. I don't really think it's particularly wrong.
So you are really saying that if I can stalk you, slander you and harass you until you loose your temper, I should have the right to kill you?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
I get the difference. Do you get the part's that the same: namely that innocent people suffer because of this racism? Or do you think that racism is somehow more bad if you call it "systemic" and "institutionalized", instead of "individual"?
Besides, there's an institutionalized, systemic *dismissal*/ignoring of anti-white racism, in a sense that you don't see people dismissing anti-black racism anymore. e.g. If two white teenagers had burned alive a black 13-year old, you would see some massive rallies. The whole American nation would turn itself upside down in consternation. You would see the President address the nation. It would not be largely *ignored*. And I'm fine with that, it *shouldn't* be ignored,
But why is the white burned kid ignored now in comparison? Because Americans somehow have come to believe in their stupid thick skulls that every population is divided into the oppressed and the oppressors, the underprivileged and the privileged. Since whites are politically/economically/etc on top, they therefore can't be sufferers of racism, they can only be its perpetrators.
Americans should learn from the Balkan experience, which shows that all the various groups of peoples can victimize each other simultaneously, and with great gusto, and without regard of who's on top as a *group*.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, that's what I'm saying. I don't really think it's particularly wrong.
So you are really saying that if I can stalk you, slander you and harass you until you loose your temper, I should have the right to kill you?
Seriously though, to the same extent that someone earlier in the thread commented that they thought the person who physically assaulted should get X legal fines/penalties, and the person who killed them should get life in prison or whatever...
If you slander me and stalk me and so on, then there are ramifications for those. You can suffer the appropriate fines and penalties for those acts. If I assault you, it isn't justified by your behavior. So yeah, you can defend yourself. I'm the aggressor at that point.
I think part of the disconnect here is that I see elevating an altercation from verbal to physical is a huge problem and by far the biggest jump in terms of responsibility for outcome. Once that's done, the degree of the physical altercation may vary but I think the responsibility of it all still falls on the head of the aggressor who elevated the situation to a physical one.
If I was the aggressor in a verbal altercation, that's bad and I am responsible for any verbal repercussions. But once the situation is elevated to physical, the aggressor is the one who did that.
I think you either disagree about my distinction in significance between physical/verbal, or you believe there is another similar gulf between physical/lethal.
But, if the latter, I think I explained in previous posts why I think there is not such a clear gulf between physical/lethal.
If the former, then you think that hitting someone in response to mean words is justified and moral, right?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know that, kmbboots. Indeed that's my exact point. That the fact they're on top *as a group* blinds you to the other fact, that individually whites can suffer also from anti-white racism.
What does it matter to the 13-year old kid, if as a *group* he's on top, when individually he suffers third-degree burns?
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan, do you think these rules about the aggressor bearing responsibility apply equally to children, people with mood disorders, or mentally disabled people?
I ask because I don't think the line between such judgmentally impaired people and unimpaired ones is very sharp, especially when someone involved is tired, under stress, etc.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aris, is that a serious question? Yes, absolutely, institutionalized racism is worse than individual racism. Which would you rather be a victim of, the former or the latter? Because the latter *includes* the former, whereas you can have invdividual without institutionalized racism.
As for the kid who was attacked with gasoline and fire, a few things to remember: he's alive, he suffered first degree burns according to your article, lost some skin, and the crime is being investigated along racial lines. Of course it was horrible, but it's being investigated and nobody goes to a funeral home.
C'mon! Or, and I don't believe you think this once it's pointed out, or is a burned white kid about as bad as a dead black kid? What did kmbboots say or suggest that whites cannot also be the victims of racism?
Are you even listening? You have continually demanded people reply to rebuttals to statements they haven't made and then getting more and more frustrated when they don't. And it wasn't third degree burns, according to the article-which also lists only the boy's mother as the source for the racial theme to the crime.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: I know that, kmbboots. Indeed that's my exact point. That the fact they're on top *as a group* blinds you to the other fact, that individually whites can suffer also from anti-white racism.
What does it matter to the 13-year old kid, if as a *group* he's on top, when individually he suffers third-degree burns?
To the individual? Well he isn't dead. He suffered first degree burns and, I am sure, some horrifying emotional trauma. He and his parents will also more than likely see the people who injured him punished. In a larger scale, most white 13 year old kids aren't as likely to live in the same kind of fear of violence that black 13 year olds do because they aren't as likely to be victims of it. Most 13 year old white kids have the luxury of having police assume they are innocent victims.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Stone Wolf: Is nobody ever killed in hand-to-hand combat?
Of course they are, but it is not a usual occurrence, either a highly trained person intentionally takes it that far or a freak accident happens, either way, very rare.
quote:Is punching someone in the head a nonlethal attack?
Yes. It really is. Just look at the different charges brought against people. You try and swing on someone, that's assault. You succeed, that's assault and battery. You beat the crap out of them that's aggravated assault. You have to go several more steps before it's legally considered a "lethal" attack.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Besides, there's an institutionalized, systemic *dismissal*/ignoring of anti-white racism, in a sense that you don't see people dismissing anti-black racism anymore. e.g. If two white teenagers had burned alive a black 13-year old, you would see some massive rallies. The whole American nation would turn itself upside down in consternation. You would see the President address the nation. It would not be largely *ignored*. And I'm fine with that, it *shouldn't* be ignored...
Just thought I'd mention, hey, that whole burning black people alive thing? Not exactly a hypothetical, and it's not something from the distant past either. So let's just calm the hell down with how much equivalence there is between racism from whites to blacks as vice versa, hmm? If you're the victim of any sort of crime, would you rather be calling 911 from a phone in a white neighborhood, or a black one? If you encounter the police, are you likely to feel safer as a white person or a black person? If a lone white person encounters a group of blacks, versus a lone black encountering a group of whites, which do you think is more likely (though for this, more info is needed, really) to be safer? If you are charged with a crime, would you rather be white of one income level or black of the same? If your kid gets kidnapped, would you rather she be white or black, for the sake of media attention? If your kid is wandering through a neighborhood patrolled by a paranoid self-appointed armed watchman who's white Hispanic, would you rather your kid be black or white?
Get a grip on yourself, Aris.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Dan, do you think these rules about the aggressor bearing responsibility apply equally to children, people with mood disorders, or mentally disabled people?
I ask because I don't think the line between such judgmentally impaired people and unimpaired ones is very sharp, especially when someone involved is tired, under stress, etc.
Well, I said that my guiding principle involved expedience (and actually, I didn't say this earlier but: Kate's comment about "We shouldn't kill people unless absolutely necessary" is a sentiment I generally think has great value, but it's still pretty fuzzy as far as what constitutes "absolutely necessary")
So with that in mind, regarding children (actual children, not physically adult 14 year olds or what-have-you) I can't imagine too many situations where the most expedient way of stopping aggression involves all that much force. When my 6 year old nephew gets angry and punches me, it's pretty easy to defend myself.
If I myself was a child, and I pulled an Ender v. Bonzo, I think that would essentially be justifiable.
But in general, I'm not sure how many allowances I think you should have to make for people who are "judgmentally impaired."
You said: "I don't think the line between such judgmentally impaired people and unimpaired ones is very sharp, especially when someone involved is tired, under stress, etc."
I actually agree with this statement, but I don't think it means the same thing to me that it does to you.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is punching someone in the head a nonlethal attack?
Yes. It really is. Just look at the different charges brought against people. You try and swing on someone, that's assault. You succeed, that's assault and battery. You beat the crap out of them that's aggravated assault. You have to go several more steps before it's legally considered a "lethal" attack.
Once again, not addressing the legalities here, SW.
As a philosophical point, for this to be true, then nobody has ever died from being punched repeatedly in the head. Right?
Because if someone has died from it, then it can be a lethal attack.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, absolutely, institutionalized racism is worse than individual racism. Which would you rather be a victim of, the former or the latter?
That's a moronic question. "institutionalized" and "individual" don't indicate degree. The "systemicness" of the racism doesn't indicate the severity thereof. E.g. I'd rather get mildly prejudiced against on a systemic level, than brutally murdered on an individual level.
Btw, here we see two (I assume) Americans, Rakeesh and kmbboots seek to downplay the harm done to a white kid by anti-white racism -- and as an excuse THEY KEEP BRINGING ANTI-BLACK RACISM to the topic.
And by this, they again prove my point, that Americans somehow believe in their STUPID THICK HEADS that to find out if someone suffers from racism, you need to compare the privileges/suffering of their *group* with the privileges/suffering of some *other* group.
The kid's suffering from being burned alive because of racism IS HIS OWN. It's not the "white race's" suffering. That individual white kid suffered the consequences of anti-white racism. Not the white race as a whoole.
The extent to which he or other white kids can suffer from racism has nothing to do with whether black kids ON AVERAGE suffer from more racism.
This isn't a *scale* where on one side you have "white" and on the other side you have "black", and whoever's worse off is the victim, and whoever's better off is the victimizer.
If you get victimized by racism, it doesn't matter diddly-squat if your group as a whole doesn't.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So with that in mind, regarding children (actual children, not physically adult 14 year olds or what-have-you) I can't imagine too many situations where the most expedient way of stopping aggression involves all that much force. When my 6 year old nephew gets angry and punches me, it's pretty easy to defend myself.
So if the six-year-old were as strong as an adult, you would be within your rights to "stand your ground" and shoot him?
quote:You said: "I don't think the line between such judgmentally impaired people and unimpaired ones is very sharp, especially when someone involved is tired, under stress, etc."
I actually agree with this statement, but I don't think it means the same thing to me that it does to you.
Probably right, since I tend to think impaired people obviously shouldn't be treated as morally responsible for their actions in most cases.
quote:Because if someone has died from it, then it can be a lethal attack.
So a bee sting is a lethal attack? Come on, man.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:So with that in mind, regarding children (actual children, not physically adult 14 year olds or what-have-you) I can't imagine too many situations where the most expedient way of stopping aggression involves all that much force. When my 6 year old nephew gets angry and punches me, it's pretty easy to defend myself.
So if the six-year-old were as strong as an adult, you would be within your rights to "stand your ground" and shoot him?
You mean if an adult with the mind of a child attacked me? Yeah, I think so.
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:You said: "I don't think the line between such judgmentally impaired people and unimpaired ones is very sharp, especially when someone involved is tired, under stress, etc."
I actually agree with this statement, but I don't think it means the same thing to me that it does to you.
Probably right, since I tend to think impaired people obviously shouldn't be treated as morally responsible for their actions in most cases.
Right.
But you yourself established that this sort of responsibility shifting can be interpreted numerous ways, even to the extent that someone who is overly sleepy isn't culpable for their actions.
I definitely reject that attitude. Most "impairments" are essentially just bad ideas, and we all have bad ideas to some extent or another. That doesn't change our level of responsibility for the actions we choose to take based on those ideas.
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:Because if someone has died from it, then it can be a lethal attack.
So a bee sting is a lethal attack? Come on, man.
To people allergic to bees, yes. Even though they don't all die, it's a good rule of thumb to assume that possibility if you're allergic!
It's not analogous to someone not allergic to bee stings being stung. We're all allergic to sufficient amounts of head trauma, believe me.
People of my approximate height and build have been beaten to death with bare fists.
So if someone starts beating me with their bare fists, why would it be unreasonable to fear for my life?
PS: Destineer, I don't see your email in your profile. Mine is public. If you don't mind, could you sling me an email?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Just thought I'd mention, hey, that whole burning black people alive thing? Not exactly a hypothetical, and it's not something from the distant past either. So let's just calm the hell down with how much equivalence there is between racism from whites to blacks as vice versa, hmm? If you're the victim of any sort of crime, would you rather be calling 911 from a phone in a white neighborhood, or a black one? If you encounter the police, are you likely to feel safer as a white person or a black person? If a lone white person encounters a group of blacks, versus a lone black encountering a group of whites, which do you think is more likely (though for this, more info is needed, really) to be safer? If you are charged with a crime, would you rather be white of one income level or black of the same? If your kid gets kidnapped, would you rather she be white or black, for the sake of media attention? If your kid is wandering through a neighborhood patrolled by a paranoid self-appointed armed watchman who's white Hispanic, would you rather your kid be black or white?
Yes, Rakeesh, keep making my point, that Americans are too stupid too condemn racism in its entirety, because they must always compare two groups with each other, and their tiny minds can't comprehend the idea that two groups can brutalize each other SIMULTANEOUSLY.
Every single post of yours keeps making my point. Whenever you say "blacks have it worse", and I keep saying "did I ever say the opposite"? And you keep saying "Why are you talking about anti-white racism, then?" And I keep responding "BECAUSE YOU PEOPLE DON'T, AND IT SEEMS SOMEONE HAS TO, AND ENCOURAGING ANTI-WHITE RACISM, LIKE YOU'RE EFFECTIVELY DOING DOESN'T ACTUALLY HELP YOU COMBAT ANTI-BLACK RACISM!"
Yes, white people are on top in America.
*I'm* the one who mentioned it first here, so stop repeating it to me as if it's news, and start READING WHAT I'M ACTUALLY SAYING.
That whites are on top *as a group* doesn't prevent individual whites from being brutalized.
That black people are at the bottom, doesn't stop anti-white racism from flourishing. The very opposite.
And you don't combat anti-black racism, by downplaying anti-white racism. The very opposite. The more anti-white racism, the more young black people join black gangs, the more crime-rate in black neighbourhoods, the more poverty and underprivilege for black people.
So if you want to fight anti-black racism -- you must at the same time fight anti-white racism. Otherwise the ghetto remains the ghetto. A door locked from the inside is just as much a barrier as a door locked from the outside.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Aris some of your comments make sense to me but insulting Americans and calling people stupid seems counterproductive.
If the conversation's making you angry, take a step back.
And if not, then why insult people? It's not going to persuade them you're right.
Aris, I think this guy had some useful advice for you.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's a moronic question. "institutionalized" and "individual" don't indicate degree. The "systemicness" of the racism doesn't indicate the severity thereof. E.g. I'd rather get mildly prejudiced against on a systemic level, than brutally murdered on an individual level.
Well, freakin' duh, Aris. If you're comparing really awful individual racism to mild systemic, that's a nice movement of the goalposts.
quote:Btw, here we see two (I assume) Americans, Rakeesh and kmbboots seek to downplay the harm done to a white kid by anti-white racism -- and as an excuse THEY KEEP BRINGING ANTI-BLACK RACISM to the topic.
This is a lie. You're lying, loudly, about what she and I said. I don't care if you THINK we are downplaying it, read what we actually said-you made the initial comparison in coverage, and it was explained to you why the firs degree burned boy wasn't as bad as the DEAD one. Try and follow along.
quote:And by this, they again prove my point, that Americans somehow believe in their STUPID THICK HEADS that to find out if someone suffers from racism, you need to compare the privileges/suffering of their *group* with the privileges/suffering of some *other* group.
By all means, shout that people are stupid when you're clearly missing the point and then lying about what was said. Get. A. Grip.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Uh, weren't you just telling us how William Morva seemed totally sweet and stable and normal before he snapped?
He lived alone in the woods for several years before it happened. He became afraid of civilization, and authority, and "civilized" foods. Something had clearly gone very wrong with him long before he committed the robbery that got him arrested, which then led to his escape from the hospital, which led to the shootings of several officers.
So no, he was not sane or stable at that time, nor for quite a while beforehand.
But you make a good point about different things working in different countries. I can't argue with that. I think the problem comes when people are stuck on "this is the way we've always done it", instead of tailoring the current policies to the current moment. Perhaps.
Handguns were all well and good in the Wild West, but do we really need them in heavily populated cities? I would prefer not to be hit by a stray bullet from a "gunfight at the OK Corral", you know?
Posts: 52 | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged |
I'm not trolling you, and as for talking about it, you were the one who brought prison conditions into the conversation when you made an awful, evil in fact, insofar as you actually meant it (and you haven't backed off from it, either) statement supporting racially themed prison violence against Zimmerman. So, not trolling! It also wasn't trolling to insist on an answer to the question, particularly after you incorrectly suggested I hadn't answered yours.
As for...wow, your high school research paper!...well, here's the thing: you're speaking as though I am saying it would be easy for one individual, without much in the way of resources or influence, to change our prison policies nationwide. I'm sorry, but it's incredibly obvious that's NOT what I was saying-in fact, I specifically explained that when I rejected your apathetic claims that we have no power and there's nothing we can do.
What do those zillionaires you speak of DO with their money to enact their will in the world? The spend it largely doing two things: persuading us to either not care about a given issue or think about it 'correctly' or contributions to the campaigns of politicians who use that money to persuade us to give them the power to make those decisions.
So, yeah. Anytime you like, you can begin replying to what's actually been said.
Number 1, I'm not evil. Don't call me that. That's a discussion-ender, right there, and you're trolling if you act like it's not.
Number 2, bring some content to the discussion. Calling me evil is not only ad hominem, it's contentless filler.
Number 3, what on earth was that last paragraph? There are two groups of people who change public policy. Groups of concerned citizens, like the mothers of MADD, and corporations with lots of high-paid lobbyists. That's mostly it. I'm one person with little money. VERY little. I owe more than I'm worth, that's for sure.
FWIW, though, I don't think prison reform should be the primary thrust of intervention in poor/minority populations. Education is far more important. It's much easier to turn a child into a productive citizen than to reform someone who's already had a few assault and robbery convictions, for example. Nutrition is important, as well. Kids need nutritious food at school, especially if they're not getting it at home.
Look dude, blacks and Hispanics get awful, AWFUL treatment in the criminal justice system.
In fact, one of the worst (IMO) problems is that killers of whites are MUCH more likely to get the death penalty, versus killers of blacks. That's ugly.
And Zimmerman hasn't even been charged. Do you think maybe the brothers aren't just mad about THIS incident, but also all the other times when a white person killed a black one, and did no time, or did little time?
They pay taxes too. It's even worse than taxation without representation.
And for the record, I think the whole situation is sad. I really hate the idea that Zimmerman has so many supporters. That says bad things about my fellow Americans, and I find it reprehensible that ANYONE would see the facts of the case and assume that Zimmerman is somehow in the right. Lots of people do, though, even people in this thread.
If there weren't so much support for the guy I'd be less likely to quietly support the possibility of some rough justice. But if he gets away with this, and nobody DOES anything about it, even to reform the police in Sanford, what message does THAT send, to other Zimmermans, to the black community, to our children?
If the LAW won't fix it, who will? I'm not the law, don't hold ME responsible. I'm pretty disgusted with politicians, cops, and ESPECIALLY District Attorneys. The D.A. here is most of the problem. He's like Mike Nifong, but with LESS integrity and common sense. That's about par for the course, though, when it comes to D.A.s, you know?
So I ask you again, if the law won't fix it, who will? I don't live in Florida. I have no control over local or state government there. Do you have control over it?
The fact is, vigilante justice mainly happens when the legal system fails the public. I'd have to say this would be a perfect example of a situation where the vigilante justice would be a DIRECT RESULT of the failure of the legal system, specifically the D.A..
Young black men are often doomed by circumstance, and it's disgusting to see how this society treats them as disposable. At least give them a chance, you know? And if you don't, then don't expect them to be all happy and smiley when people who kill them get off scot-free.
Posts: 52 | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: So if someone starts beating me with their bare fists, why would it be unreasonable to fear for my life?
Let's be clear here, the hugely vast majority of the time that someone takes a swing at someone else it won't result in -any- permanent harm.
There is a world of difference between a fist fight and a being beaten to death. It is just incredibly rare.
Realize that legally most attempts to punch someone are the same as touching them at all. Assault. So since you seem to be so comfortable killing someone for trying to punch you, how far does that go? A shove? An unwanted push? An unwanted touch? All of these things carry the potential for lethality, with about the same chance as a random punch does.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
I said you made an evil statement after explaining why it was awful (as well as several other people), and asking you more than once if you wanted to back off of it. Expressing satisfaction that Zimmerman might be the victim of prison violence is an awful, evil thing to say. It amounts to torture, when you bear in mind that they're OUR prisons. No, you don't think you're evil, or even that your idea is, perhaps-who does? Not persuasive. You're welcome to let that be a conversation ender, if you like: if you meant what you said, I stand by it.
quote:Number 2, bring some content to the discussion. Calling me evil is not only ad hominem, it's contentless filler.
One, no it isn't given what I said and two, I already explained why and given that I had to ask, what, three times? More? For an answer to a straightforward question, you're in no position to demand others 'bring content'.
quote:Number 3, what on earth was that last paragraph? There are two groups of people who change public policy. Groups of concerned citizens, like the mothers of MADD, and corporations with lots of high-paid lobbyists. That's mostly it. I'm one person with little money. VERY little. I owe more than I'm worth, that's for sure.
Here, I'll mimic your laughably smug tone from before, except here it will actually be warranted: it's funny that you can really assert your own powerlessness as an individual citizen and then also mention MADD in the same breath.
quote:FWIW, though, I don't think prison reform should be the primary thrust of intervention in poor/minority populations. Education is far more important. It's much easier to turn a child into a productive citizen than to reform someone who's already had a few assault and robbery convictions, for example. Nutrition is important, as well. Kids need nutritious food at school, especially if they're not getting it at home.
Nor do I, and I'd love to see where I or anyone else suggested it should be a primary thrust. Man, no crows getting' into YOUR cornfield, dude! Reducing prison violence isn't a 'minority issue' even though it would benefit minorities more, it's a human decency issue.
quote:If the LAW won't fix it, who will? I'm not the law, don't hold ME responsible. I'm pretty disgusted with politicians, cops, and ESPECIALLY District Attorneys. The D.A. here is most of the problem. He's like Mike Nifong, but with LESS integrity and common sense. That's about par for the course, though, when it comes to D.A.s, you know?
Well when you so loudly proclaim your own powerlessness, it's easy to say there's nothing you can do-that doesn't make it true, though. For example, you could learn whether your state representatives support stand your ground style laws.
-----
Aris, your repeated personal insults call for more than a 'lost my temper'. You lied about what I and others said. I don't expect one, but you did more than 'lose your temper', and it was noticed.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: So if someone starts beating me with their bare fists, why would it be unreasonable to fear for my life?
Let's be clear here, the hugely vast majority of the time that someone takes a swing at someone else it won't result in -any- permanent harm.
There is a world of difference between a fist fight and a being beaten to death. It is just incredibly rare.
Realize that legally most attempts to punch someone are the same as touching them at all. Assault. So since you seem to be so comfortable killing someone for trying to punch you, how far does that go? A shove? An unwanted push? An unwanted touch? All of these things carry the potential for lethality, with about the same chance as a random punch does.
Do you think shooting someone who touches you without permission is the easiest way to resolve that? Because that sounds only slightly less insane than shooting a toddler who punches you.
I have no problem with people using "try not to kill people if you can resolve an issue another way" as another guiding principle. Seems solid to me.
And, once again, I'm talking about this issue on philosophical and moral grounds, so the fact that hitting & touching are legally similar is irrelevant to me.
Anyway, I'm not saying the likelihood of being beaten to death is high, simply that it's there, and even worse, if the beating gets to that point, by the time it does you'll likely be so incapacitated that you will no loner have the option of shooting your assailant.
So, if it's not okay to shoot someone who is beating you up, what is okay? Stabbing them? Still pretty lethal. Pepper spray? Sometimes that's effective, but not always.
Punching them back? And if they are vastly stronger than you, what then? Just take it, and hope they stop before they cause permanent damage or kill you?
And if you think that's the right approach, then do you think it's okay to shoot someone who is trying to rape you? Or is that another situation where doing so is unreasonable and wrong? If you can fight them off with your fists, good on ya, but otherwise just take it and hope they don't kill you?
I think the idea that when it comes to guns for self-defense we suddenly take the burden of responsibility off the assailant and put it on whoever has a gun is ludicrous.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you slander me and stalk me and so on, then there are ramifications for those. You can suffer the appropriate fines and penalties for those acts. If I assault you, it isn't justified by your behavior. So yeah, you can defend yourself. I'm the aggressor at that point.
I think you are either misunderstanding the issue or misusing the word assault. Any threat of imminent violence, either through word or act, is legally assault. Assault does not involve any physical contact. If my actions or words cause you to believe that I am about to do you physical harm, intentionally, I have committed assault. If I threaten you using a deadly weapon, I have committed aggravated assault.
If I actually make physical contact with you, that would be considered battery, not assault.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
