My Wednesday Rant (holla back black people)

I should have seen that one coming, lol ;-)

I hear ya cjhsa, if there's two things I hate it's people who are prejudiced about nationality and Canadians!

:-D

Re: My Wednesday Rant (holla back black people)


No. That is not the way that the justice system works.

Attorneys are required to represent the interests of their clients, without going so far as to suborn prejudice. Period. No lawyer is required to "secure the truth" at the expense of his or her client. In fact, attorneys are required to represent their clients' interests in the Code of Professional Responsibility. Violate the Code, and the lawyer can be disciplined, perhaps even disciplined so far as to lose his or her license to practice.

This isn't a matter of not securing the truth. That's why both sides have lawyers, and there is a judge, and there is often a jury. The factfinder(s) - jury and sometimes also the judge - are charged with determining the truth from the matter being presented. It is not the attorneys' job to do so; it is the lawyers' job to assure that the facts are presented in a manner that is as favorable as possible to the client without committing perjury. The lawyer cannot present lies as truth and is also not required to have his or her client volunteer information if it is not requested.

Court cases are what's called "adversarial proceedings". You refer to them as competitions and that's not 100% accurate. Rather, court cases proceed from the premise that the sides are at odds. There are many versions and interpretations of what may be true. Not everyone agrees because not everyone has the same memory or perspective. Or agenda. For example, an auto accident could be a result of a rear-end collision, or the first car could have backed into the second car.

As for attacking the premise of proof beyond a reasonable doubt (and you say "beyond doubt", which is not accurate), the fact is that that proof standard is designed to (a) protect the defendant, so that it's less likely for innocent people to be convicted and (b) require the prosecution to be on its toes, so that the DA doesn't go after people simply on a hunch or a whim. We all know that the system does not work perfectly and that is unfortunate. In the case of innocents being jailed or executed, it is downright tragic. But what would you substitute for proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Proof beyond any doubt whatsoever? If that's the case, then killers go free, because the defense introduces some sort of illogical theory and a tiny sliver of doubt creeps in. Or would you prefer proof beyond a bit of doubt? If that's the case, then more innocents go to jail (and perhaps are executed), because just about every trial ends in a conviction. Which type of injustice do you prefer?

BPB - i don't mind a bit...but next time, i want to be the 'most qualified, bitchy' applicant. Thanks.



So saying, NTA, it's not that simple, and never will be, because the 'starting point' will never be equalized. Not without another 'great flood' that is. No matter where we, as black people, start out the race (of life) will not ever be equal simply because we're black - taking of course, the most basic reason why 'equalizing the starting point' would be tricky...at least. It's either tilted against us, because we're black and somewhere along the line someone in some position is going to take some action (be it as small as a race based hate comment, or prejudgment in some arena in which we're trying to get ahead) or tilted in our favor because we're black, in the name of affirmative action.

By the way, I love you (because you're a person & I am one of those nicey nicey usually likes everybody people) and while I mostly skip past your threads until the curiosity of what the length of it would be pulls me in, I am a bit offended that you would say to me 'sistah' and use the term loosely.....you don't know me like that...

May I call you 'sistah', Onyxelle? Or is our friendship still in the developmental stage?

go right ahead. I'm waiting anxiously for the first occurrence. By the way, I prefer the geezer with the pitchfork.

BPB......given the right sitch...i'd say you are right. I was told that the entire 9 months of my first pregnancy i was bitchy....i ask you...how in the WORLD could that be???? It was a case of everybody else being wrong....and my being right. I don't know why those idiots around me coudn't see that... :wink:

onyx I know what you mean every month right before squinney's period I become an unbearable ass hole and she can't stand to be around me....in fact upset her so badly she can't stand anyone....my lousy behavior even gives her mood swings and cravings for chocolate.....

BPB: hahahah my 4 year old saw your avatar and she said 'ewwww, look at that lady, she got a bald head!!"

out of the mouths of babes.....

I'll see if I can find him. In the meantime I'll use my actual photo for an avatar.

if you find it, let me know, I'll go to bed happier

ok, sistah. (damn... that felt good)

i don't agree with some of his contentions either,

but simply spamming this thread isn't doing anyone any good.

Well, I've been avoiding it. Hi, Onyx.

I am white, u.s. american of irish descent. My niece is american of liberian and irish descent. She is my and our future, so I am interested in this and similar threads re her life after I am not here.

Just listening for now.

We're not spamming, we're hi-jacking ;-)

I think what many of you are falling to do is to merge time into your analysis. In particular, Craven is using this flawed reasoning method. If one assumes, erroneously, that the present exists in a vacuum unrelated to the past, then it would be true that government policy and programs aimed to promote equality are wrong, due to the discriminating nature of them. However, such an assumption is fallacious due to the fact the existence is a continuum of actions, reactions and mutations that occur temporally. Consequently, the present is created overwhelmingly from events of the past. Thus, the calculus of what is right and wrong must include actions and reactions of the past. Indeed, a Newton law says that any object in a state of equilibrium, which is acted upon by an external force, requires an equal and opposite external force to maintain equilibrium. Without an equal and opposite force, disequilibria will occur and be preserved.

Now what is right or wrong is subjective and based more upon power and self inters. However, what is logical is objective and not prone to biases. I will not argue subjectively about what is right or wrong philosophically, but rather, what is right or wrong logically. Thus, I am more concerned about logical right and wrong and logical equality, than I am about subjective right and wrong. Two subjective opposite wrongs my not make a subjective right, however, it does create a logical EQUALITY, which the black struggle is all about.

Also, most of you should learn to understand that Ying that comes with the Yang. There are equally as many problems that are created from competition as there are benefits. We live in a culture and economic system that is driven by competition. Competition will ALWAYS create and PROMOTE “US” against “THEM” mentalities. The only way to reduce the “US” against “THEM” mentality is reduce the competition between humans. If humans are not competing with one and other, then they should be helping to promote one and other. This is hard to accomplish when so many people are driven by status and have material desires that are never quenched. One cannot profoundly help others until they themselves reach a point of contentment and satisfaction to the point that they can give time and resources to help other get what they have.

I am sorry that objective TRUTH hurts and thus divides, however, no pain, then no real gain.

If you invent a line of "flawed reasoning" it is easy to apply it to others. But before you do so make sure that even your invention applies. See below.




A) I never said government policy was wrong. I said you were.

B) You assume (and this is getting tedious) that I do not support AA. This is an incorrect assumption and I support even quota based AA.



While this is a patently false statement I will take the time to mention that it is so due to your assumptions about what my assumptions are.

Please note that I have been trying to get you to stop pre-judging people. And you have done so again.




It might create equality.



Again, it's not the "truth" dividing here. It's your penchant to generalize and pre-judge people.

Regards.

Do you accept the fact that the presidency is valid due to the generalization about how the populous voted? You are trying to prevent me from generalizing, when I am saying that my generalizations represent the general or dominant objective truth. One cannot say that the presidency is invalid, due to lacking the absolute consensus of everyone’s vote. This nation has decided that the fairest methodology for electing the leader to the highest office is by allowing the dominant or general rule of voters choices decide it (yes...I know about the electoral college). Yet, it is somehow construed that I am being unfair, by generalizing or speaking in terms of the dominant truth or reality about the behavior of certain peoples.

Dissidents to the general rule or dominate truth, such as yourself, try force the discussion into absolutism. Thus, you and they feel it necessary to point out exceptions to the dominant or general rule and present these facts as if it not only is an epiphany to my position, but also as if it negates or offset the dominate or general rule. When I talk about white people and black people, I am NOT speaking in terms of absolutes. It is not true that every black person is poorer than every white person. There are many white people poorer than many black people. However, the general dominant truth is that the MEAN economic condition of whites is much greater than the MEAN economic condition of blacks, in this nation and most certainly this world. It is the equalizing of this MEAN and MEDIAN condition, that is the goal of the black struggle. Do not portray the struggle to be the creation of equality between each and every black and white individual, for that is improbable if not impossible.

So NO. I will NOT end my focus on generalizations when those generalizations represent the dominant objective truth.