|
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 |
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 19, 2013 4:41 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| W.T.Carl wrote: |
| Could you say "Thuglet"? |
No. Too tall. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I suppose you could say Martin was a thugger and Zimmerman a motherthugger (but that wouldn't be very constructive ...) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Disappointing. Not surprising, but disappointing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 19, 2013 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| He has tried to appoint, but the Repugnant-ones just block his appointments... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Los Angeloser
Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 19, 2013 11:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So Zimmerman can disobey the police, stalk, chase, pretend his life is at stake, and kill someone, but the President of the United States can't speak freely? Shall we take the word "if" out of the English language or just use it when you want? "If" is a very useful word, if you don't think so then don't ever think it, use it, or teach it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 20, 2013 1:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Surprised about Obama's statement because its a brave statement to make and a statement he couldn't have made in his first term. Its an accurate statement.
Its interesting when everyone likes to tell a group its not about 'that', whatever that is. Sexism. Racism. Homophobia. etc. As if millions of people are just imgagining things. Specifically to this issue, I am hard-pressed to think of ANY incident that pretty much the entire Black population and a fair number of non Black people call racism and it isn't. There have been the Jesse or Sharpton accusation that made news but were not anywhere close to the magnitude of this incident. Because it never resonated with Blacks as a whole. Those two say things once in a while to keep their faces in the news, even if its some arbitrary issue but on this scale, it is what it is, insert group name here _______.
Same with how anti-gay marriage advocates tried to say its not about being anti-gay or how anti-immigration reformers try to say its not being anti-latino. It is and the lie they tell themselves to help them feel good and/or right about holding prejudicial views.
Its also interesting how the standards of what is deemed a thug gets lowered to help people cope with defendng someone. A fight club fight and a bus driver struck, with no proof it happened and could have been teenage false bravado. Hitting a bus driver isn't something anyone can do without repurcussions. And the circumstances we don't know IF it happened. Also, logic says if someone calles someone creepy they tend to avoid such people and do not arbitrarily confront them. But if followed, its logical to harshly question someone why they are doing so. Many on here would. Also hard pressed how a 'fight club fight' IF it did happen as well as hitting a bus driver IF it did happen constitutes ample evidence of someone being in a murderous rage. The bar has been dropped below to accomodate an opinion.
Fact is ANY parent, doesn't matter the color would certainly question why there were at least no arrest of their son's killer if he was going to the store for candy and returning. Accepting that the verdict was right would deem that one must accept ALL verdicts and that would include OJ's. Which was certainly biased. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 21, 2013 4:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Surprised about Obama's statement because its a brave statement to make and a statement he couldn't have made in his first term. Its an accurate statement. |
It's a highly disingenuous statement which reinforces black victimhood, while saying absolutely nothing about the reasons why people might 'profile' blacks, namely, disproportionate black criminality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 21, 2013 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bigverne wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Surprised about Obama's statement because its a brave statement to make and a statement he couldn't have made in his first term. Its an accurate statement. |
It's a highly disingenuous statement which reinforces black victimhood, while saying absolutely nothing about the reasons why people might 'profile' blacks, namely, disproportionate black criminality. |
Bigverne, you're just going to make him spam, "They're poor! They're poor! Don't you know they're poor?! The absolute only reason they commit crime at a higher rate than whites is because they are poor!" about a dozen more times, followed by another disingenuous comparison with the Irish. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 21, 2013 5:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bigverne wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Surprised about Obama's statement because its a brave statement to make and a statement he couldn't have made in his first term. Its an accurate statement. |
It's a highly disingenuous statement which reinforces black victimhood, while saying absolutely nothing about the reasons why people might 'profile' blacks, namely, disproportionate black criminality. |
What comes first though, the disproportionate criminality or the disproportionate profiling and police presence? If group A is suspected more often, searched more often, and is in an area with a higher police presence than group B, then why are we surprised that group A is found more likely to commit crimes. For certain crimes, such as drug use, we know that rates of use is roughly proportional between blacks and whites, yet black incarceration is not proportionate to use, it being something like 4 times the rate of white incarceration. This is also before we get into issues like disproportionate sentencing for things like crack and powder cocaine, or that an increasing number of prisons are actually corporations that need criminals to receive money from the government, and that prison labor is allowed to be paid at next to nothing rates. We don't have slaves, but here is how the Federal Bureau of prisons describes the perfect corporate work force,"
"Sentenced inmates are required to work if they are medically able. Institution work assignments include employment in areas like food service or the warehouse, or work as an inmate orderly, plumber, painter, or groundskeeper. Inmates earn 12¢ to 40¢ per hour for these work assignments."
http://www.bop.gov/inmate_programs/work_prgms.jsp
The 13th amendment provides an incentive to keep incarceration rates high, much higher than any other country in the world.
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
This also ignores the fact that lots of police work is driven by statistics and quotas, and that there is an incentive to try to find crime where it's easy to find, and where is it easier to find than in urban cities where you have large masses of a poor underclass all grouped together, that don't have much political power and after you give them a felony have no political power, can't get a lawyer, and even more conveniently are already thought of as criminals by society at large.
I think that Sirius Black oversimplifies things to an absurd degree, and by only focusing on one issue, and by making irrelevant comparisons, actually strengthens the argument of anyone who disagrees with him. I think that others on this board who say genetics, IQ, criminals also are guilty of over simplifications and ignoring things that could complicate their views on this issue.
Last edited by Leon on Sun Jul 21, 2013 5:40 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 21, 2013 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
What comes first though, the disproportionate criminality or the disproportionate profiling and police presence? |
If you expand your consideration to a global scale, then it would seem what comes first is disproportionate criminality. More precisely, a disproportionate tendency towards the suite of psychological, intellectual, and emotional traits which happen to incline one towards crime, or, for that matter, poverty.
Yes, you can look at Americans of African descent and make an excuse ("Oh, it's just because of slavery and racism making them poor and angry, that's the only reason they have problems."). And then you can expand a little bit and make an excuse for South Africa ("Oh, it's just because the Afrikaners were -- and are! -- such bad people, they really messed up South Africa."). And then you can expand to the colonized regions of Africa ("Oh, it's just because of colonization! Never mind that the colonizing powers left behind vast wealth in terms of infrastructure and technological proficiency, and never mind that many of these regions were plagued by conflict and slave-taking long before Europeans ever meandered down and took over, it's still their fault."). And then you can expand to the regions of Africa which were never colonized, ("Oh, it's just that African animals are harder to domesticate, and malaria is a real problem, and so on. You can see, it's really just environmental factors, and if you put them in a nicer area, well, they'd be on par with Sweden in a few decades no doubt."). And so on, and so on, and so on. And in doing so, you'll feel good about yourself, but you won't be any closer to the truth than you were when you started.
It's not that none of these things are factors at all: they all are in their way. But there's a particular fundamental core which creates a near certainty of falling prey to such pitfalls, and that core doubtlessly lies in the people who make up the groups in question. We can try to help out of compassion, but when we shift from compassion to scolding -- as President "Boo Hoo I Once Got Mistaken For A Waiter" Obama did -- well, then forget it. I bear no guilt, and I won't be lectured. My family has never owned a black, never harassed a black, never harmed a black, never even discriminated against a black. We weren't here during the slavery era, we lived in a black-free region of the country during the Jim Crow era, and my grandfather was too busy hiding his own Russian Jewish identity to go around harassing anyone else.
Obama wants to have an honest conversation about race? Then cut the bullshit subjective-experience approach and start with the facts that make white flight the rational choice. Worry less about being watched when you enter a store, and more about why it's statistically rational to watch you. Stop being angry at Korean immigrants owning gas stations in your neighborhood, and instead wonder why a local didn't start one first. "Oh, but he said something mean to us!" Yes, right after you said something mean and "racist" to him. Teenage black boys shoot a white baby in the face, a Hispanic man kills a black teenager in what very much seems to be self-defense, and the national narrative becomes, "He's a racist murderer because he didn't stay in his car, lock him up!" Intolerable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 21, 2013 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
What comes first though, the disproportionate criminality or the disproportionate profiling and police presence? |
If you expand your consideration to a global scale, then it would seem what comes first is disproportionate criminality. More precisely, a disproportionate tendency towards the suite of psychological, intellectual, and emotional traits which happen to incline one towards crime, or, for that matter, poverty.
Yes, you can look at Americans of African descent and make an excuse ("Oh, it's just because of slavery and racism making them poor and angry, that's the only reason they have problems."). And then you can expand a little bit and make an excuse for South Africa ("Oh, it's just because the Afrikaners were -- and are! -- such bad people, they really messed up South Africa."). And then you can expand to the colonized regions of Africa ("Oh, it's just because of colonization! Never mind that the colonizing powers left behind vast wealth in terms of infrastructure and technological proficiency, and never mind that many of these regions were plagued by conflict and slave-taking long before Europeans ever meandered down and took over, it's still their fault."). And then you can expand to the regions of Africa which were never colonized, ("Oh, it's just that African animals are harder to domesticate, and malaria is a real problem, and so on. You can see, it's really just environmental factors, and if you put them in a nicer area, well, they'd be on par with Sweden in a few decades no doubt."). And so on, and so on, and so on. And in doing so, you'll feel good about yourself, but you won't be any closer to the truth than you were when you started. |
Why is it that it's so easy for you to mock these things than look at them seriously, though?
| Fox wrote: |
| Yes, you can look at Americans of African descent and make an excuse ("Oh, it's just because of slavery and racism making them poor and angry, that's the only reason they have problems.") |
Where did I say that, or imply that? Also, the use of 'only' is inappropriate since the main point of my post was that there were many causes not just one.
Also, why take things that are real reasons for real problems and simply call them excuses. Colonization did cause lots of real problems, I.E. artificial borders, divide and conquer techniques that further inflamed sectarian conflicts, using colonies for for resources rather than production, not educating the local population or letting them hold positions of power which makes it more difficult for the locals to have experience and running their own governments once the colonial power leaves. These problems exist in black Africa, Arab middle east, and even used to exist, and still do somewhat, in white Ireland.
As far as environmental factors, if you study the rise of political institutions you will find that the biggest factor in the development of societies and differing organizing principles, i.e. band, tribe, state, the environment is the single most predictive factor of what sort of society would emerge. Sounds like an excuse, I guess.
For each time you use the word only, just, or excuse to wave away these other reasons, you list only one reason. If you were interested in truth, I don't think you would have found your answer so easily, or that you would be so sure of it.
| Fox wrote: |
| More precisely, a disproportionate tendency towards the suite of psychological, intellectual, and emotional traits which happen to incline one towards crime, or, for that matter, poverty. |
How simple, thanks for clarifying the issue and wrapping it up into a neat little sentence without all of that tricky history, context, or liberal do goodery feel good about yourself excuses.
You can see, it's really just their own fault, and so on, and so on, and so on. And in doing so, you'll feel good about yourself, but you won't be any closer to the truth than you were when you started.
And I just saw that you edited your post again,
| Fox wrote: |
We can try to help out of compassion, but when we shift from compassion to scolding -- as President "Boo Hoo I Once Got Mistaken For A Waiter" Obama did -- well, then forget it. I bear no guilt, and I won't be lectured. My family has never owned a black, never harassed a black, never harmed a black, never even discriminated against a black. We weren't here during the slavery era, we lived in a black-free region of the country during the Jim Crow era, and my grandfather was too busy hiding his own Russian Jewish identity to go around harassing anyone else.
Obama wants to have an honest conversation about race? Then cut the bullshit subjective-experience approach and start with the facts that make white flight the rational choice. Worry less about being watched when you enter a store, and more about why it's statistically rational to watch you. Stop being angry at Korean immigrants owning gas stations in your neighborhood, and instead wonder why a local didn't start one first. "Oh, but he said something mean to us!" Yes, right after you said something mean and "racist" to him. Teenage black boys shoot a white baby in the face, a Hispanic man kills a black teenager in what very much seems to be self-defense, and the national narrative becomes, "He's a racist murderer because he didn't stay in his car, lock him up!" Intolerable. |
You're always more reasonable after you edit. Anyways, I would say that we can't help them, they have to do that themselves, but we do have realize that there are institutional and systematic things that are in there way that we can remove to allow them to help themselves, such as ending the war on drugs, disproportionate sentencing, private prisons, etc. etc.
(btw I don't think anyone is scolding you personally, Fox, so no worries on that score)
Also, there are things were race does play a big role, that aren't made up, such as people with black sounding names with the same qualifications as whites getting called back at much lower rates. (My name, Leon, sounds black, I wonder if that has affected me..., anyways I digress) I really think that Obama doesn't want to have a conversation about race, and the thing that was missed in that speech was that he basically was saying that there would be no federal charges. I think it's fair for blacks to be angry at certain things in our system, and things like being followed in a department store is a visible manifestation of it, something of a daily visual reminder of everything else. Remember as well, that I never said that the black community has no responsibility for this, but I think that there are also a lot of black leaders who do this as well, who do have honest conversations with the community, especially many black preachers and the like. They don't have the media presence of Al Sharpton and others like him, and with all things just because one group of people are more vocal doesn't mean they represent the majority opinion of their whole group. Claiming that Sharpton or Jesse Jackson is representative of black America doesn't seem likely.
Last edited by Leon on Sun Jul 21, 2013 6:21 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 21, 2013 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
Why is it that it's so easy for you to mock these things than look at them seriously, though? |
Because a serious examination involves uncomfortable truths which at a national level -- Hell, even at a personal level in most cases -- are functionally impossible to discuss, and thus, functionally impossible to resolve. It frustrates me, and faced with frustration, I mock. It's therapeutic.
| Leon wrote: |
Where did I say that, or imply that? Also, the use of 'only' is inappropriate since the main point of my post was that there were many causes not just one.
Also, why take things that are real reasons for real problems and simply call them excuses. Colonization did cause lots of real problems, I.E. artificial borders... |
See, this is exactly what I mean Leon. In fact, I almost included the "artificial borders" complaint as part of my mockery, cutting it only because it made the sentence long and unwieldy. Artificial borders leading to Congo-style rape-squad mass killing is bullshit. Sudan just recently showed the rational response to "artificial borders," and that response is to change your own borders. Act like peaceable human beings. "Oh, but they've got historic tribal conflicts, so they can't!" You think that two neighboring tribes which hate each other that much are going to not fight simply because they aren't enclosed by a particular "artificial border?" Come on, it's simply dishonest. All borders are artificial, but most of us don't form armies and begin mass rape campaigns as a result of it, do we?
| Leon wrote: |
| ... using colonies for for resources rather than production |
We use the Arab world for resources rather than production, and while it has it's problems, it's certainly not as bad off as the bulk of Africa.
| Leon wrote: |
| not educating the local population or letting them hold positions of power which makes it more difficult for the locals to have experience and running their own governments once the colonial power leaves. |
Right, in other words, not giving them enough. Not enough handouts. Not enough bequeathed knowledge. Not enough bequeathed training. We're back to one of my main problems with the anti-colonial position: it presupposes that the local populace is so fundamentally dullardly that they can't figure out how to run their own government absent the white man's training, but simultaneously ignores the natural impact such incompetence would have at any civilized endeavor.
Leon, Africa has had plenty of western-trained rulers. Africa has had plenty of western training. Africa has received plenty of western aid. The African continent has had more given to it than any other land the world has ever seen. If there is a problem, it does not and cannot lie in Europe not giving enough to Africa.
| Leon wrote: |
| As far as environmental factors, if you study the rise of political institutions you will find that the biggest factor in the development of societies and differing organizing principles, i.e. band, tribe, state, the environment is the single most predictive factor of what sort of society would emerge. Sounds like an excuse, I guess. |
I'm not disagreeing with that. What I'm disagreeing with is the attempt to reconcile that with the notion that "people are just people." Spending centuries, if not millennia, under certain conditions shapes people, culturally and probably genetically. The marks of such conditions are enduring, which is why it's so utterly wrong to try to blame short-term colonialism for the results we see today. It's the way your analysis always dances around the single, core point that is irritating: we cannot expect similar results from strongly dissimilar peoples. The narrative of, "If we can just stop discrimination, and maybe toss in some reparations, things will surely resolve themselves!" is wrong-headed.
| Leon wrote: |
| You can see, it's really just their own fault, and so on, and so on, and so on. |
It's no one's fault to be born a certain way. And yet, my position on the matter has supreme predictive ability, while yours does not. You speak of practicality and pragmatism, and yet this is a matter which you steadfastly refuse to be pragmatic, refuse to be practical, refuse to accept a simple truth when it actually presents itself. To be honest, I think you're using complexity here as an emotional shield, an attempt to reconcile your values to a world which cannot possibly be explained in terms of them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 21, 2013 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
Why is it that it's so easy for you to mock these things than look at them seriously, though? |
Because a serious examination involves uncomfortable truths which at a national level -- Hell, even at a personal level in most cases -- are functionally impossible to discuss, and thus, functionally impossible to resolve. It frustrates me, and faced with frustration, I mock. It's therapeutic.
| Leon wrote: |
Where did I say that, or imply that? Also, the use of 'only' is inappropriate since the main point of my post was that there were many causes not just one.
Also, why take things that are real reasons for real problems and simply call them excuses. Colonization did cause lots of real problems, I.E. artificial borders... |
See, this is exactly what I mean Leon. In fact, I almost included the "artificial borders" complaint as part of my mockery, cutting it only because it made the sentence long and unwieldy. Artificial borders leading to Congo-style rape-squad mass killing is bullshit. Sudan just recently showed the rational response to "artificial borders," and that response is to change your own borders. Act like peaceable human beings. "Oh, but they've got historic tribal conflicts, so they can't!" You think that two neighboring tribes which hate each other that much are going to not fight simply because they aren't enclosed by a particular "artificial border?" Come on, it's simply dishonest. All borders are artificial, but most of us don't form armies and begin mass rape campaigns as a result of it, do we? |
Here you are starting with a false premise, that all borders are artificial, so we can't really go anywhere from here. Countries that make geographic sense, i.e. follow natural borders like bodies of water, mountain ranges, etc. are not artificial and tend to be more stable. Also societies that have existed as states in perpetuity, i.e China, Japan, Iran, etc. are not artificial. Having real borders fosters a sense of legitimacy, and legitimacy is one of the most important factors in having a stable state. There is a lot of personal, and tribal, responsibility for the violence in Africa, again I never discounted that. How is this different than Yugoslavia, or Europe in the past, or Japanese butchery that happened in the last century. Where all these racial groups born with a greater predisposition towards violence and cruelty, and yet why is it that two of the most barbaric ethnic groups of the last century (Japanese and German) the most peaceful now?
As to changing the borders, that would be sensible, and many groups are trying to do that, but those in power are set against it because of the natural distribution of resources is that it's more profitable to keep the current borders, which is the same issue in places like Kurdistan and oil.
This is stuff that is really interesting to me, and is something that I've studied, (the effects of geography on human society) so I'm half participating in this to get to talk about something I don't normally get to, not just something I'm using to try to excuse black violence. I'd recommend Robert Kaplan's "The Revenge of Geography" if you wanted to learn more about where I'm coming from in this regard.
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| ... using colonies for for resources rather than production |
We use the Arab world for resources rather than production, and while it has it's problems, it's certainly not as bad off as the bulk of Africa. |
They have smaller populations, and the locals are more likely to be wealthy, but other than that, I'm not sure that I agree. Is Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Libya-Egypt (demographically and culturally more in common with the Middle East than Africa) that much better off?
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| not educating the local population or letting them hold positions of power which makes it more difficult for the locals to have experience and running their own governments once the colonial power leaves. |
Right, in other words, not giving them enough. Not enough handouts. Not enough bequeathed knowledge. Not enough bequeathed training. We're back to one of my main problems with the anti-colonial position: it presupposes that the local populace is so fundamentally dullardly that they can't figure out how to run their own government absent the white man's training, but simultaneously ignores the natural impact such incompetence would have at any civilized endeavor.
Leon, Africa has had plenty of western-trained rulers. Africa has had plenty of western training. Africa has received plenty of western aid. The African continent has had more given to it than any other land the world has ever seen. If there is a problem, it does not and cannot lie in Europe not giving enough to Africa. |
I agree, and I never said otherwise. They have to be responsible for their own development, and we have to stop propping up and working with illegitimate rulers, (in Africa, middle east, etc.) because we want their resources. They are getting better, quickly, http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/economic_studies/whats_driving_africas_growth but they have further to go than other regions in the world. If anything much of western aid created perverse incentives for current rulers who stole or misdirected large portions of it, and it can create a trap where they rely on others to take care of their problems. I'd recommend reading "The Bottom Billion" by Paul Collier for a serious take on that issue.
As to the idea that they are fundamentally unable to govern themselves, that's not what I said or implied, but that building institutions and having people accept those institutions absent a common history is incredibly difficult. We also see this issue with Pakistan, another artificial state that lacks a true identity but tried to forge one with militant islam. Are the Pakistani's and the Yugoslavs genetically predispositioned to violence and poverty as well? How many disparate ethnic groups with similar circumstances do we have to group together for your theory to work?
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| As far as environmental factors, if you study the rise of political institutions you will find that the biggest factor in the development of societies and differing organizing principles, i.e. band, tribe, state, the environment is the single most predictive factor of what sort of society would emerge. Sounds like an excuse, I guess. |
I'm not disagreeing with that. What I'm disagreeing with is the attempt to reconcile that with the notion that "people are just people." Spending centuries, if not millennia, under certain conditions shapes people, culturally and probably genetically. The marks of such conditions are enduring, which is why it's so utterly wrong to try to blame short-term colonialism for the results we see today. It's the way your analysis always dances around the single, core point that is irritating: we cannot expect similar results from strongly dissimilar peoples. |
This is known as the Denmark problem, i.e. when people talk about development they look at Denmark as the ideal and seek to copy what Denmark does as if it would be appropriate to just transfer Denmark's institutions to a third world country without looking at the history of how those institutions started in Denmark and if setting those types of goals are realistic or not. I don't think it's appropriate to use words like blame, or too point to any single issue as the only answer. Was colonialism a factor, absolutely. If anyone blames all the problems on colonialism they are not thinking seriously, if someone completely leaves it out, they are also not thinking seriously about the issue. But if you're telling me that people are a certain way due to longstanding circumstances, then isn't it only logical that when the circumstances change the people will change, but that it will not happen quickly. As for blacks in America, Civil rights is still a fairly recent thing, the end of colonies is in some cases a recent thing, etc. I think a little patience is required before we condemn them to being predisposed to poverty and violence and low iq's and the like.
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| You can see, it's really just their own fault, and so on, and so on, and so on. |
It's no one's fault to be born a certain way. And yet, my position on the matter has supreme predictive ability, while yours does not. You speak of practicality and pragmatism, and yet this is a matter which you steadfastly refuse to be pragmatic, refuse to be practical, refuse to accept a simple truth when it actually presents itself. To be honest, I think you're using complexity here as an emotional shield, an attempt to reconcile your values to a world which cannot possibly be explained in terms of them. |
[quote]
The world is a very complex place, the more I learn the less I think that there is a simple answer to anything. What is ideology but to reduce a complicated and seemingly meaningless world down to a manageable size, where things can be explained and understood, where there are clear guidelines to how things work. Sirius has his, Titus has his, and just because they are different doesn't mean that either is wholly wrong or wholly right.
To be honest, I think you're using simplicity here as an emotional shield, an attempt to reconcile your values to a world which cannot possibly be explained in terms of them.
Last edited by Leon on Sun Jul 21, 2013 7:41 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 21, 2013 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So, is it possible to think that Zimmerman didn't "Murder" Trayvon and at the moment he shot him, was acting in self-defense, but that he still profiled him poorly at the least, racially at the worst, and was negligent in his duties as a neighborhood watch guy which led to Trayvon Martin's death and the way he did so might have involved a violation of Martin's civil rights.
I do think Trayvon likely swung at Zimmerman first. I do think Zimmerman had cause to fear for his life. I do not think "Stand Your Ground" had anything to do with this or that SYG is an inherently bad or biased law. I don't think the police were conspiring to "kill black youth" or any of the Sharpton race claims. I think this issue has been clouded, mishandled, exaggerated, and distorted by the media and the Sharpton crowd.
But that kid should not be dead, and Zimmerman did something wrong that night.
I know that the above statements are a jumble, but that's kinda what I feel.
Look, Trayvon was not engaged in criminal behavior and was walking through his own neighborhood to his own place of residence in that neighborhood.
Why should he have been regarded with suspicion? What caused that- Him wearing a hoody (in the rain, mind you), and him being black. Maybe, the way he walked?
A white kid dressed the same way? Maybe, maybe it might have happened.
A black or white kid dressed like Urkel, probably not.
The thing is though, everyone of every race and most ages wear hoodies. Also, if wearing a hoody is some kind of suspicious behavior, there needs to be notices about it. There aren't. It's not enough to get all agitated the way Zimmerman did and assumed that the kid was guilty of something.
He said "punks always get away". His mind was made up about what that person was up to and he had no reason to do so. |
|
| 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
