|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 19, 2014 9:38 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| I'm not deaf to concerns of systematically harmful racial prejudice, especially in the American South. I think I made that clear when I took issue with the Supreme Court's treatment of the Voting Rights Act. But if you want to prove that there's a genuinely unjust, racially-driven disparity here, emotional appeals to lynching in the past is not the way to go about it. The evidently equal (to an almost shocking degree) fashion in which defendants of different racial backgrounds have been treated makes me reflexively wary of leaping to accusations of racism, especially systematic accusations (as opposed to the suggestion that any individual case may evince some irregularities), especially given those accusations seem very much to be politically motivated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Progress has been made - largely due to the Civil Rights Movement - toward ameliorating institutional racism, but pernicious racism on an interpersonal level is still manifest to a degree by juries and judges in courtrooms - as evidenced by the statistics indicating that a defendant is much more likely to be acquitted when the victim is black than if the victim were white. Your statistical analysis only focuses on the race of defendants (which is understandable if you're trying to win a tough debate or make a closing argument in a case (hoping that jury members will neglect the preponderance of evidence presented by the other side...) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 20, 2014 2:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
| Progress has been made - largely due to the Civil Rights Movement - toward ameliorating institutional racism, but pernicious racism on an interpersonal level is still manifest to a degree by juries and judges in courtrooms - as evidenced by the statistics indicating that a defendant is much more likely to be acquitted when the victim is black than if the victim were white. Your statistical analysis only focuses on the race of defendants (which is understandable if you're trying to win a tough debate or make a closing argument in a case (hoping that jury members will neglect the preponderance of evidence presented by the other side...) |
Tough debate? When you can step up and provide a compelling case for the notion that "racists" are treating Black and White defendants similarly while still allegedly "discriminating" based on victim ethnicity in a fashion which specifically harms Blacks, do it. Until then, far from being a "tough debate," this isn't a debate at all; your participation here has been limited to telling us how much you dislike the Daily Caller and reminiscing about lynch mobs. Kuros was at least on poiint, but he's relying upon "disparity means discrimination," which is a dysfunctional principle. It's used to rile up the mob, not in sincere, thoughtful discussion.
Anyone who wants to prove these laws are somehow systematically racist has a long way to go. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 20, 2014 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't post for the sake of debating - I'm more concerned with uncovering the truth ...
Stand Your Ground laws may not constitute systematic racial discrimination in a strictly legal sense; however, when combined with turbulent socio-cultural and political factors/factionsl they amount to a de facto license to kill blacks. The legislative history of such laws reveals the involvement of right-wingnuts (including "religious" ones) and self-serving corporate and political interest groups (i.e. the NRA and ALEC) who often do engage in rabble-rousing with coded racist messages.
It's really a matter of common sense that such laws encourage racists who have basic knowledge of them to act with lethal force in situations where they otherwise would not be so confident of getting away with murder...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/11/1276834/-Stand-Your-Ground-Laws-Creating-Racist-Killing-Fields-Across-America# |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 20, 2014 5:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
| I don't post for the sake of debating - I'm more concerned with uncovering the truth ... |
No, you are posting to support your political ideology, and completely disinterested in an actual investigation of what is true. You even outright said, "I don't have the time to carefully research the stats myself," and after you had dismissed them via an ad hominem attack on the link through which I supplied them. That is not the conduct of someone whose goal is uncovering truth. In fact, it's almost the polar opposite; everything you've posted in this thread has been ideological in character.
| Rteacher wrote: |
| Stand Your Ground laws may not constitute systematic racial discrimination in a strictly legal sense; however, when combined with turbulent socio-cultural and political factors/factionsl they amount to a de facto license to kill blacks. |
If this were true, Michael Dunn would not be going to jail. If you want to demonstrate that this law amounts to a "de facto license to kill Blacks," you need to demonstrate that the difference between successful "Stand Your Ground" defenses when the victim is Black vs when the victim is White is almost entirely made up of unjustified applications of the law. That is what you will do if you are interested in uncovering the truth. If, instead, you continue to post Wikipedia links about newspapers, Dailykos articles about party politics, and reminisce about lynching, all you're doing is pushing your party ideology.
I've given you a number of opportunities to put aside your partisan-politics talking points and actually argue your case, and I've made it clear what such an argument should entail. I want to be generous, but your repeated failure to do this is implying to me that you can't, and if you can't, then what more is there to say? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 20, 2014 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I guess there's no use appealing to common sense with a poster like you...
Dunn isn't going to jail for killing his young black victim - he was convicted of shooting at the ones who got away, sending the (statistically supported) message that you have a better chance of getting away with it if you actually kill the guy you target (due to a mixture of great fear and hate fueled by racial prejudice...)
Btw, your arbitrary criteria for what constitutes a valid argument misses the point. There is no need to prove "unjustified application" of the law if the law itself is unjustified because of its negative ramifications. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 20, 2014 6:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
| I guess there's no use appealing to common sense with a poster like you... |
That's exactly correct.
| Rteacher wrote: |
| Dunn isn't going to jail for killing his young black victim - he was convicted of shooting at the ones who got away ... |
Putting aside the fact that the charge of first degree murder resulted in a mistrial which will be retried rather than an acquittal (the latter of which would be the logical conclusion of a law which is a "de facto license to kill Black people" being applied), the fact that he's already been convicted in no uncertain terms of merely shooting at some young Black men makes it clear enough that killing them would not have been all right.
| Rteacher wrote: |
| Btw, your arbitrary criteria for what constitutes a valid argument misses the point. There is no need to prove "unjustified application" of the law if the law itself is unjustified because of its negative ramifications. |
Proving the law is racist requires demonstrating unjustified application in the fashion I outlined above. Merely arguing the law itself has other negative ramifications of a non-racist character is a separate matter. I've already made it clear I'm no particular supporter of the laws in question (or of America's infatuation with guns in general). The difference between us is merely that I'm also not susceptible to race-hysteria talking points. You're the one that keeps insisting this is all about racism, so you're the one that has a burden to actually back that up. I've outlined how you can do that, and you've made it clear you can't rise to the challenge, so I think this conversation has reached its logical conclusion. Have a nice day, Rteacher. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 20, 2014 10:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think that "race-hysteria" more aptly describes the irrational fear of whites. Stand Your Ground law is not prima facie racist until unarmed blacks are shot and killed by racially-motivated whites who utilize such law to get away with murder. Even if racist murderers try to utilize it as a legal defense but are unsuccessful, the very existence of such laws serves to promote the killing of unarmed blacks, which I think amounts to a racist ramification.
I personally have no problem with a white person standing his or her ground and shooting an armed black person who aggressively poses a real mortal threat. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 21, 2014 5:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
| I think that "race-hysteria" more aptly describes the irrational fear of whites. |
That's right. Many whites on juries affirm the irrational and unreasonable fears of blacks. Its right there in the statistics. Its also right there in American history. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
