Site Search:
 
TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Should the North Secede from the union?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
geldedgoat



Joined: 05 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yay!

Ya-ta Boy wrote:
My problem comes in the realm of human rights. An American citizen's fundamental rights should not depend on where he lives. We are Americans and Americans have the following rights: a, b, and c.


Two questions: 1) Why do you assume that federalism is somehow incompatible with a constitutional republic? 2) Why do you only care about the 'fundamental rights' of those living in your secessionist states (maintaining the nation would allow citizens everywhere to have their rights defended by an appropriately limited central government)?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ya-ta Boy



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good questions.

#1: I guess I would say that federalism sounds better in theory than practice.

I have no problem with federalism when different jurisdictions experiment with different ways to expand rights...a better way to fund educating citizens, a better and more efficient way to protect the vote, etc. However, historically, it has been used to restrict rights to vote/human rights, to play one state against another in a race to the bottom.

While there is a lot to be said for spreading power around so it is not concentrated, that also has a downside, as I just mentioned. States, rightly conceived, are nothing more than local administrative regions. They are not and never were sovereign, no matter how many times that word is used in national political party conventions. (Check the Constitution for the truth of that.)

#2: Are you serious?

I'll try to say this simply. Rights are rights. A right is something that all members of a polity have. Anything less is just a privilege. You either do or do not have a right to vote. Your current address should not matter. It is no skin off my nose if one state allows a 16-year-old the privilege of driving and another state says you have to wait until you are 17.

In short, I say the federal government is in charge of all rights; states are in charge of privileges and can vary as they see fit.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2012 4:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ya-ta Boy wrote:

#1: I guess I would say that federalism sounds better in theory than practice.

I have no problem with federalism when different jurisdictions experiment with different ways to expand rights...a better way to fund educating citizens, a better and more efficient way to protect the vote, etc. However, historically, it has been used to restrict rights to vote/human rights, to play one state against another in a race to the bottom.


Give examples of when Federalism has been used to restrict rights.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2012 6:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kuros wrote:
Ya-ta Boy wrote:

#1: I guess I would say that federalism sounds better in theory than practice.

I have no problem with federalism when different jurisdictions experiment with different ways to expand rights...a better way to fund educating citizens, a better and more efficient way to protect the vote, etc. However, historically, it has been used to restrict rights to vote/human rights, to play one state against another in a race to the bottom.


Give examples of when Federalism has been used to restrict rights.

Or better yet, see if ya-ta has the intellectual honesty to list the numerous historical examples of when the central government has restricted our rights (including having previously defined black people as non-humans).

Of course we all know already that ya-ta hasn't a shred of such honesty; he would love to tell us how great and benevolent central authority is for "giving" us rights, but would never admit that the hand with the power to giveth can also take away.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ya-ta Boy



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2012 6:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Give examples of when Federalism has been used to restrict rights.


Jim Crow.

I'm reading an absolutely brilliant book (David Blight's 'Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory' 2001) about how memory has been manipulated to achieve political goals.

He mentions that in pre-Civil War years the Southern planters educated their kids with tutors at home. Some few churches set up a few other schools. There was no need for public schools. Sound familiar?

Call me a bleeding-heart liberal if you will, but I consider the education of all children to be a civil right...and the right not to lynched.

Again, we are one nation and therefore rights are the same for all of us; privileges can vary from state to state. I don't care.

To go back to the original idea of this thread, day by day it grows more clear that we have developed into two distinct conceptions of what it means to be Americans. For everyone's happiness, we should consider negotiating a peaceful separation before we are forced into a violent confrontation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2012 9:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ya-ta Boy wrote:
He mentions that in pre-Civil War years the Southern planters educated their kids with tutors at home. Some few churches set up a few other schools. There was no need for public schools. Sound familiar?

Rolling Eyes The world according to ya-ta boy... If you want to home school your children and not have them brainwashed in our deplorable public school system, then you must be a racist.

Quote:
Call me a bleeding-heart liberal if you will, but I consider the education of all children to be a civil right...and the right not to lynched.

Not being lynched is a right. Education is NOT a right, not by any working definition.

Quote:
Again, we are one nation and therefore rights are the same for all of us; privileges can vary from state to state. I don't care.

We are all individuals.

Quote:
To go back to the original idea of this thread, day by day it grows more clear that we have developed into two distinct conceptions of what it means to be Americans. For everyone's happiness, we should consider negotiating a peaceful separation before we are forced into a violent confrontation.

You're not interested in a peaceful separation. You're interested in forcing others to conform to your worldview. All your bleeding heart pretense is mere dressing, covering the hard-core, savage, bloody tyranny that you and your ilk actually stand for and espouse.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ya-ta Boy



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2012 5:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The world according to ya-ta boy... If you want to home school your children and not have them brainwashed in our deplorable public school system, then you must be a racist.

Quote:
Call me a bleeding-heart liberal if you will, but I consider the education of all children to be a civil right...and the right not to lynched.

Not being lynched is a right. Education is NOT a right, not by any working definition.


I see. A 'free' public education for all children no matter what class or race so they have an equal chance at success is unreasonable in a democracy, Um-hmmm.

Your knee-jerk anti-government neurosis is just a cover for permanent class superiority. Is it that you are afraid of having to compete based on your native talent?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2012 9:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ya-ta Boy wrote:
I see. A 'free' public education for all children no matter what class or race so they have an equal chance at success is unreasonable in a democracy, Um-hmmm.

I love how you quote the word 'free' there... (just goes to show that even you know, deep down, that such a notion is a total fallacy).

As for 'education', well that's a laugh. The public school system was invented in Prussia to take children from their parents and indoctrinate them with loyalty to the state. The US imported this exact same model, and it's still in use today and is one of the most disgusting institutions the world has ever seen. I will never put my children inside such a deplorable system. I will home school them (which is very practical, and they will actually have the opportunity to learn), but I'd rather they receive no formal 'education' at all than to send them to tax-funded indoctrination camps to practically nothing of value and be brainwashed by the government.

Quote:
Your knee-jerk anti-government neurosis is just a cover for permanent class superiority. Is it that you are afraid of having to compete based on your native talent?

Permanent class superiority? Where do you come up with this stuff Laughing I'm middle class all the way. I have my own small business and I compete just fine with my native talent. It's the government that impedes my livelihood more than anything else. A bunch of bloodsucking ticks producing nothing of value, living off the labor of others, and sucking the lifeblood out of the middle class.

And that includes your phoney messiah, Obama, the guy who reads every lie he speaks from a teleprompter, and receives millions in contributions from Wall Street (top contributor: Goldman Sachs). The banks buy him and his cohort off with a few million dollars, and receive a return on investment in the trillions (like paying for some $2 crack wh0re).

In short, you're on here every day cheerleading for a no account politician whose administration has handed over trillions of dollars to megabanks, and you have the unmitigated gall to accuse me of advocating 'permanent class superiority'?


Last edited by visitorq on Fri Sep 07, 2012 9:58 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ya-ta Boy



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2012 9:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I will never put my children inside such a deplorable system. I will home school them (which is very practical, and they actually have the opportunity to learn), but I'd rather they receive no education than send to them indoctrination camps to be brainwashed by the government.


Shocked You have children? Shocked
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ya-ta Boy wrote:
Quote:
I will never put my children inside such a deplorable system. I will home school them (which is very practical, and they actually have the opportunity to learn), but I'd rather they receive no education than send to them indoctrination camps to be brainwashed by the government.


Shocked You have children? Shocked

Soon enough... And there's no need to be envious at the prospect ya-ta, you still have time yourself (or maybe I'm wrong?)...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2012 4:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ya-ta Boy wrote:
Quote:
Give examples of when Federalism has been used to restrict rights.


Jim Crow.


That's it? Yeah, I mean, Jim Crow happened. But pervasive national racism allowed Jim Crow up until blacks served in WWII. After WWII, it took less than 10 years to get to desegregation. You remember when Eisenhower sent troops to Southern States? And then the Civil Rights Act?

But you had to go back 50 years to blame "Federalism" for Jim Crow. In fact, Federalism solved Jim Crow. If your secession idea had been advanced in disgust at Jim Crow, it might very well still exist in the New Confederacy.

More recently, Federalism has done much good for gay rights. States have been far more advanced in terms of gay rights than the Federal power. [/url]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Titus



Joined: 19 May 2012

PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2012 4:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

32,000 white women are raped by black men every year (320,000 over ten years - a war crime in a different context) and white people talk about the horrors of Jim Crow. Incredible. Explain that to an alien race that just discovered our silly little society.

2006
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus0602.pdf
Table 42: 32,443 white women raped by black men, 0 black women raped by white men.
*Estimate is based on 10 or fewer sample cases.

I know it isn't on topic, but I do not understand, after the last 40 years of destroyed cities and fleeing citizens, how normal and intelligent white people still act as if Jim Crow was somehow worse than 32,000 of your own raped every year. Where are our priorities!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2012 5:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Titus wrote:
32,000 white women are raped by black men every year (320,000 over ten years - a war crime in a different context) and white people talk about the horrors of Jim Crow. Incredible. Explain that to an alien race that just discovered our silly little society.

2006
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus0602.pdf
Table 42: 32,443 white women raped by black men, 0 black women raped by white men.
*Estimate is based on 10 or fewer sample cases.

I know it isn't on topic, but I do not understand, after the last 40 years of destroyed cities and fleeing citizens, how normal and intelligent white people still act as if Jim Crow was somehow worse than 32,000 of your own raped every year. Where are our priorities!


http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=26368#comment-630623418

Quote:
if you look at table 42, you will notice that there were ten or fewer white-on-black crimes of violence reported, making up 4.7% of the 192,040 total single-offender victimizations. Now, my liberal mathematics holds that 4.7% of 192,040 is 9,025.88 and that 9,025.88 is greater than 10 - which suggests that 'reports' and 'victimizations' are not the same thing.

Reading the survey methodology section makes several things clear. First of all, this is in fact a survey of a limited subset of the population being generalized to the entire population. (This is why the notes indicating small report sizes are there in the first place - very small report counts are much more strongly perturbed by random factors than large report counts are.) Table 5 makes it clear that the total number of black respondents who reported ANY form of rape or sexual assault is less than twenty - a number low enough that random fluctuation could easily add or remove thousands of rapes from the estimates.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Titus



Joined: 19 May 2012

PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2012 5:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Haha. Frontpagemag. David Horowitz to the rescue! He's a right-winger, dontchaknow.

Yes, I'm familiar with the concept of a statistical sample and even included that detail in my post! I also know you're not dumb enough to doubt the data but are engaging in status-seeking. It's ok. Maybe one of the other posters will be honest with me and say "yes Titus, 32,000 white women raped by black men is an acceptable cost of integration". A smidgen of honesty to start the weekend!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2012 5:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Titus wrote:
Haha. Frontpagemag. David Horowitz to the rescue! He's a right-winger, dontchaknow.

Yes, I'm familiar with the concept of a statistical sample and even included that detail in my post! I also know you're not dumb enough to doubt the data but are engaging in status-seeking. It's ok. Maybe one of the other posters will be honest with me and say "yes Titus, 32,000 white women raped by black men is an acceptable cost of integration". A smidgen of honesty to start the weekend!


No. The detail you included in your post was related but different. It refers to the meaning of 0.0%, and that it indicates 10 or fewer nationwide white-on-black rapes. The detail provided in my quote shows that the 0.0% was derived from only 20 black women sampled.

20 individuals is not a representative sample. It would be unremarkable to find 20 black women who had not been raped by any white men.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 7 of 9

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2013 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International