If common sense is so lacking, why then do you suppose our government would have it? I am not equating the two forms of speech, I am simply saying that when your ideology is not dominant in Congress, you risk laws restricting your speech. You did not address the FACT that FISA was a direct influence on the creation of PATRIOT, which of course is more sweeping and unconstitutional than FISA could ever hope to be. The first federal automatic weapons bans in the 1930's have led to magazine restrictions on pistols, and the criminalization of cocaine and marijuana led to the criminalization of other drugs. My point has historical validation. You chose instead to create a strawman, and it points to the lack of substance in your argument.
Let me just say, that just because you state something or believe it, does not make it true...no matter how many times you say it, or how loud.
And I don't give a good gahoot about whatever it is you're talking about...what the Sam Hill does FISA have to do with people watching what they say...especially when it is to insult or hurt someone? Talk about lack of substance to an argument...apples and oranges.
Socialization begins at home when the kid first starts talking and understanding others. If the parents teach their child to hate, and the family home is an atmosphere of racism, the child will more than likely turn out racist. No quantity of laws and no effort of social engineering will change this fact.
If socialization begins at home, why didn't you state that in the first place, instead of inferring that racism stems from without instead of from within?
And if there is a law on the books, criminalizing "hate speech" (of which the "n' word draws reference, as does "coon", which you failed to acknowledge, in your previous post...mighty funny), then I'll bet even money, those words won't be so apt to issue from the lips of children, students, or adults.
Call it benign social engineering.
I'm going to use MLK as an example because he, unlike yourself, shared with this country the idea that skin color doesn't matter, AT ALL.
And use whatever reference you like, but don't expect not to be called on it...because MLK believed that skin color "shouldn't matter"...he wouldn't have been so naive as to admit that it didn't matter. Of course it matters...and shamefully so. To think otherwise would be to deny reality.
You don't own him because you're black, nor because I support punishment for a group of SIX who attacked a group of ONE.
I may not "own" him...but I am connected to him on so many levels as to render you obsolete....and the explanation for such is so apparent, it need not be expounded upon. I don't know who you think you are...but you are totally confused and reaching for straws.
And, indeed, it is significant that you support punishment for six black students for attacking one white one...when he was attacked for him saying whatever racial slur or insult came to his mind....and he suffered the consequences for his action, stupid as it was. I am in no way condoning the action of the 6 against the one...but the one bears culpability that you continue to disregard and ignore. And if you think that MLK wouldn't be standing on the side of the 6 as opposed to the 1, then you don't know anything about the man, and should keep his honorable name out of your vocabulary.
Again, you are being intellectually dishonest by stating that I SUPPORT the white student involved, I don't. I support justice, and under the law he committed no crime (I swear to god if you mention the SEPERATE, TWO-DAYS BEFOREHAND, DIFFERENT KID shotgun incident as a crime he committed, I am just going to lose it. Different day, white kid, and number of black kids).
And as Rhett Butler told Scarlett O'Hara, in GWTW, "Quite frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn", in reference to you "losing it". In my opinion, you "lost it", some time ago, and continue to not be able to "find it".
You love to bandy about the phrase "intellectually dishonest"
From Wikipedia:
Intellectual dishonesty is the advocacy of a position known to be false. Rhetoric is used to advance an agenda or to reinforce one's deeply held beliefs in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence. If a person is aware of the evidence and the conclusion it portends, yet holds a contradictory view, it is intellectual dishonesty. If the person is unaware of the evidence, their position is ignorance, even if in agreement with the scientific conclusion.
The terms intellectually dishonest and intellectual dishonesty are often used as rhetorical devices in a debate; the label invariably frames an opponent in a negative light. It is an obfuscatory way to say "you're lying" or "you're stupid", and has a cooling effect on conversations similar to accusations of ignorance.
The phrase is also frequently used by orators when a debate foe or audient reaches a conclusion varying from the speaker's on a given subject. This appears mostly in debates or discussions of speculative, non-scientific issues, such as morality or policy.
I have already acknowledged, in previous posting that there were two, separate incidents. The fact that the incidents were separate, and at different times, in no way negates the fact that both incidents were instigated by the white students, as testimony in the case has borne out.
For you to call me "intellectually dishonest" is a misnomer, as the point has become moot, when I indicated that I had made an error in thinking there was only one incident in question. I still stand by my assertion that had the white student applied common sense, and restraint...he wouldn't have gotten his a.. beat. I further submit that if you resort to public retorts, using the "n" word, or such similar epithets, some black folk might also being going to jail, but you might not be aware of the goings on, because you might be in a coma, or worse...and knowing you, you might think it worth it, in order to stress a point...those with common sense, might think better.
No matter how damaging it is to your position of indignation, the principal sought to have the noose-hangers expelled, but was overruled by the Superindendent, possibly out of anti-black sentiment, possibly out of the impossibility of proving they actually hung the nooses (if they just "show up", there isn't any evidence without a confession, which is always suspect from a minor).
Cowards have a long history of being overt and feeling their "cheerios", in numbers, but turn into "cowering little girls", when having to face the music, alone or on their own.
In the case of at least two of the six assailants, we know they had violent prior convictions and we know they attacked the student during the Jena Six incident despite their victim having nothing to do with the noose-hangings.
Prejudicial and stereotypical...we know nothing of the criminal history of the white students... but rest assured, they were not angels, by definition.
I support JUSTICE and FREEDOM.
Now you're being "intellectually dishonest"
Just because you don't like an opinion doesn't mean you have the right to silence it.
Opinion....key word.....a racial epithet is not an opinion. What school did you say you came from?
I suppose you support laws that criminalize advocating the violent overthrow of the government too (despite our 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Amendments all being designed to HELP with such a measure)?
Actually, at this point in our history, I can think of nothing more appropriate. Do you think I'm guilty of sedition?
Speech can only harm someone if the target of the speech allows it to hurt them, and therefore does not violate the right to life, liberty, or property of any individual, and therefore, must remain unrestricted.
Is this your own contribution to the Bill of Rights? Or just some ramblings of a recalcitrant mind?
My argument is morally, logically, intellectually, and most importantly CONSTITUTIONALLY sound.
For you to have to make that pronouncement means you're not entirely certain of the validity...and you're correct, in your belief. It's "flawed".
Your argument is strawman-based emotional nonsense derived from the fact that YOU'RE BLACK.
And yours is predicate on the assumption of "white privilege"
Of course you want hate speech gone, it offends you. I'd like rap music and heavy metal style music banned, I hate that garbage and think it's bad for America's youth.
Well, we've found common ground...I hate rap music and metal, also.
I'm more inclined to classical or jazz, the latter, which by the way, is considered "an original American musical art form", borne entirely from African Americans.
however am smart enough to know that if we give the government the power to censor, they will not stop. Living in a free society requires a backbone, I suggest you grow one.
I might grow one, but it would be predicate on you growing a brain, and a heart.
Skin color and race only matter so long as we continue to treat minorities differently from others. Affirmative Action, hate crime laws, and public assistance programs only further tensions between races because the GOVERNMENT is TELLING them that they're DIFFERENT. If you want equality, you have you accept EQUALITY. No preference to minorities, no race indicator on job applications or tests, and no more laws making using racially-charged thoughts illegal. You're only perpetuating racism by maintaining this idea that we're all different.
Pure BS...you completely disregard "white privilege", and majority rule...whites hate sharing any piece of the pie, let alone a substantial "piece".
Therapy might help your abject denial.
If you kill somebody intentionally, it should be the same crime whether you killed them for their wallet or because they were gay.
Let me just say, that just because you state something or believe it, does not make it true...no matter how many times you say it, or how loud.
And I don't give a good gahoot about whatever it is you're talking about...what the Sam Hill does FISA have to do with people watching what they say...especially when it is to insult or hurt someone? Talk about lack of substance to an argument...apples and oranges.
If socialization begins at home, why didn't you state that in the first place, instead of inferring that racism stems from without instead of from within?
And if there is a law on the books, criminalizing "hate speech" (of which the "n' word draws reference, as does "coon", which you failed to acknowledge, in your previous post...mighty funny), then I'll bet even money, those words won't be so apt to issue from the lips of children, students, or adults.
Call it benign social engineering.
And use whatever reference you like, but don't expect not to be called on it...because MLK believed that skin color "shouldn't matter"...he wouldn't have been so naive as to admit that it didn't matter. Of course it matters...and shamefully so. To think otherwise would be to deny reality.
I may not "own" him...but I am connected to him on so many levels as to render you obsolete....and the explanation for such is so apparent, it need not be expounded upon. I don't know who you think you are...but you are totally confused and reaching for straws.
And, indeed, it is significant that you support punishment for six black students for attacking one white one...when he was attacked for him saying whatever racial slur or insult came to his mind....and he suffered the consequences for his action, stupid as it was. I am in no way condoning the action of the 6 against the one...but the one bears culpability that you continue to disregard and ignore. And if you think that MLK wouldn't be standing on the side of the 6 as opposed to the 1, then you don't know anything about the man, and should keep his honorable name out of your vocabulary.
And as Rhett Butler told Scarlett O'Hara, in GWTW, "Quite frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn", in reference to you "losing it". In my opinion, you "lost it", some time ago, and continue to not be able to "find it".
You love to bandy about the phrase "intellectually dishonest"
From Wikipedia:
Intellectual dishonesty is the advocacy of a position known to be false. Rhetoric is used to advance an agenda or to reinforce one's deeply held beliefs in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence. If a person is aware of the evidence and the conclusion it portends, yet holds a contradictory view, it is intellectual dishonesty. If the person is unaware of the evidence, their position is ignorance, even if in agreement with the scientific conclusion.
The terms intellectually dishonest and intellectual dishonesty are often used as rhetorical devices in a debate; the label invariably frames an opponent in a negative light. It is an obfuscatory way to say "you're lying" or "you're stupid", and has a cooling effect on conversations similar to accusations of ignorance.
The phrase is also frequently used by orators when a debate foe or audient reaches a conclusion varying from the speaker's on a given subject. This appears mostly in debates or discussions of speculative, non-scientific issues, such as morality or policy.
I have already acknowledged, in previous posting that there were two, separate incidents. The fact that the incidents were separate, and at different times, in no way negates the fact that both incidents were instigated by the white students, as testimony in the case has borne out.
For you to call me "intellectually dishonest" is a misnomer, as the point has become moot, when I indicated that I had made an error in thinking there was only one incident in question. I still stand by my assertion that had the white student applied common sense, and restraint...he wouldn't have gotten his a.. beat. I further submit that if you resort to public retorts, using the "n" word, or such similar epithets, some black folk might also being going to jail, but you might not be aware of the goings on, because you might be in a coma, or worse...and knowing you, you might think it worth it, in order to stress a point...those with common sense, might think better.
Cowards have a long history of being overt and feeling their "cheerios", in numbers, but turn into "cowering little girls", when having to face the music, alone or on their own.
Prejudicial and stereotypical...we know nothing of the criminal history of the white students... but rest assured, they were not angels, by definition.
Now you're being "intellectually dishonest"
Opinion....key word.....a racial epithet is not an opinion. What school did you say you came from?
Actually, at this point in our history, I can think of nothing more appropriate. Do you think I'm guilty of sedition?
Is this your own contribution to the Bill of Rights? Or just some ramblings of a recalcitrant mind?
For you to have to make that pronouncement means you're not entirely certain of the validity...and you're correct, in your belief. It's "flawed".
And yours is predicate on the assumption of "white privilege"
Well, we've found common ground...I hate rap music and metal, also.
I'm more inclined to classical or jazz, the latter, which by the way, is considered "an original American musical art form", borne entirely from African Americans.
I might grow one, but it would be predicate on you growing a brain, and a heart.
Pure BS...you completely disregard "white privilege", and majority rule...whites hate sharing any piece of the pie, let alone a substantial "piece".
Therapy might help your abject denial.
I was comparing how one piece of legislation turns into an even stronger one. I wasn't comparing hate speech to FISA, you have to read for understanding.
I shouldn't have to say that in the first place, socialization begins when your family interacts with you, and I took that as a given. Clearly self-education has faltered. I also shouldn't have to type out, "Coon is a racial epithet". The context of my use was enough for a fifth grader to figure it out.
Social engineering is not the place of the government, and they are nowhere in the Constitution empowered to engage in it. Further, what is "benign" depends on who you ask. I'm sure the klan wouldn't find it benign. They have a right to their opinions as much as you or I do.
Skin color only matters because of though processes like your own. Ignore skin color (like Dr. King advised), and it ceases to become an issue. Hell, the Irish used to be persecuted, but other Europeans figured out that they were all in the same boat in this country and have accepted them now (for the most part). The same can happen for other minorities but it takes patience and time, social engineering sets the process back because it highlights differences that should be downplayed.
You're connected to him on SO many levels that you needn't explain? Do share, how exactly, other than your skin color, are you more involved with MLK than the rest of us? The man has a day named after him, ALL Americans benefitted from his activities (except the klan).
I don't disregard the fact that he called them names, but that is hardly culpability on a criminal level or a level that would justify the beating (which you are not trying to justify, I understand that). If six kids of mixed skin tones savagely beat another student for calling them "fatties", would you still be as angry? Calling somebody a name like "***" is dehumanizing, just like "fag", or "fattie". I understand the impact of words, I reject the idea however that simply uttering those words justifies assault. Further, we don't even have evidence that Justin Barker uttered any profanities.
You were lying in implying that I supported the white student, hence the term intellectual dishonesty. I've called you a liar before, because you do it with regularity.
As I mentioned, I can find no evidence or reports that Justin Barker, the victim, uttered racial slurs. I was willing to concede this point until you tried to blame him for the actions of his attackers. I do see reports that he taunted Robert Bailey about a fight with white students at a party, but no reports of racial epithets. I could be missing it, so please post it if you find any reliable sources (no, blogs don't count).
I agree, but that doesn't create evidence.
Barker was arrested on possession of a firearm (hunting rifle) on May 10, 2007, six months AFTER his beating. He had it in the backseat of his vehicle and claims he had forgotten to remove it after going hunting. Thirteen rounds of ammo were also recovered.
Bell has 3 violent offense convictions (was 4, one was overturned), Bailey had been in two fights in two days, and the other four I can only assume had clearn records since I can't find information (we assume innocence in this country, remember?).
So at the time of the beating, you had 2 criminals and their four friends attacking a kid with no record for mocking the plight of one of the two criminals.
This kid deserved to be hospitalized why?
Find for me one instance of me uttering a single word opposed to personal liberty and the protection of rights. Burden of proof is on you my friend.
A racial epithet is an opinion concerning one or many people. It IS opinion because it represents nonfacutal viewpoint. I graduated from the University of Texas at Austin with a BA in Government with an emphasis on international politics. You? Oh, right.....let's just not play the "my educational dick is bigger" game, ok?
I think your stance is idiotic and invites tyranny. You live in a fantasy world where the government is nice and would never harm you. Would you even be willing to take up arms against the government if it became tyrannical?
I don't think you guilty of sedition because I think sedition is an idiotic premise. In this country, given our founders, sedition and patriotism are one in the same.
No, it's actually exactly what the founders were thinking when they ensured that we'd have unrestricted speech. Our founders were big proponents of "natural rights".
Please show me the moral flaw in equal application of laws
Please show me the logical flaw in assuming the worst from our government
Please show me the Constitutional flaw in maintaining unrestricted free speech.
Your argument is strawman-based emotional nonsense derived from the fact that YOU'RE BLACK.
Here we go. Typical racist ramblings from an angry black man. When in doubt, blame whitey.
Jazz isn't my cup of tea (too much brass). I love classical, country, and of course, being white, love electric guitar and therefore rock and roll. Some of the best music has come from musicians with darker skin tones.
Says the man who has yet to provide legal or factual backing for the formulation of his opinions on this matter.
Racism rears its ugly head again. You just engaged in blanket generalization of an entire group of people based on an unfounded stereotype. Welcome to the klan, your robes are in the mail.
Motivation for a crime is only applicable in determining whether or not the act was intentional. If you go any further, you make having certain thoughts a crime, and that my friend moves us closer to a police state.
[FONT="Arial Black"][SIZE="6"]Gobbledygook[/SIZE][/FONT]
Oh lawdy lawdy, truly you are the master.
N.Y. considers felony for display of noose
By MICHAEL GORMLEY, Associated Press
Last updated: 6:23 p.m., Monday, October 22, 2007
ALBANY -- Following a growing use of a threatening image, New York state's Legislature on Monday moved toward making a felony of etching, drawing, painting or displaying a noose.
"We won't tolerate this," said Sen. Dean G. Skelos, a Long Island Republican who sponsored the measure that passed Monday in the Senate. "There is no place for racism and intimidation in America and this rash of incidents clearly demonstrates the need for tough new penalties."
According to the (Albany) Times Union the NY Legislature is stepping up:
I can't remember the name of the case but I know the courts have found, on the basis of the First Amendment, that racist graffiti cannot be punished more severely than other graffiti so I wonder how that will apply to "images" of nooses?
According to the (Albany) Times Union the NY Legislature is stepping up:
I can't remember the name of the case but I know the courts have found, on the basis of the First Amendment, that racist graffiti cannot be punished more severely than other graffiti so I wonder how that will apply to "images" of nooses?
Thanks for adding to the thread. At least we have support for the fact if one hates then keep it to yourself. Some opinions are not free speech. And this almost 2008 why should something so many gave their lifes and suffered so much pain for be allowed. This type of HATE leads to othe ractions which cause more pain and suffeing. Besides how can one in this fast paced world find time to devote on the useless display of a noose or to spread hate. Isn't the world about as messed up as it can get. And hate/dislike/differance of opinion is the driver of it all.
Still waiting for you to address my points aaron.
I cannot believe I've had to argue with someone over the issue....the solution should be, and is obvious to all. Just goes to show you, really how messed up the world is, with hardly any light at the end of the tunnel.
Thanks for adding to the thread. At least we have support for the fact if one hates then keep it to yourself. Some opinions are not free speech.
And this almost 2008 why should something so many gave their lifes and suffered so much pain for be allowed. This type of HATE leads to other actions which cause more pain and suffeing.
