|
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 |
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 5:45 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| blacks can get over their people having been persecuted for a few centuries. |
It might be suggested that in some sense this continues. Case in point "name-based" racism. I'll consider Steve Kowalski but DeShawn Rogers' resume is headed straight for the recycle bin.
| Quote: |
And what number of folks is that? Are you basing this on data, or just on what you imagine is the case?
Further, how are you so certain that when it does occur, it's based on skin color? We all know that things like clothing and body language play a huge role in our initial impressions of people. I know my reaction to an individual -- be they black, white, asian, or so forth -- will be quite different based on these factors. If I see a black man in a suit and a white man dressed like a gang-banger, I'll feel far more comfortable with the black man. Dress like a lower-class gangster and you're going to get treated like one. There's nothing wrong about that. |
This is such bad argumentation logic but it is a true bill- If you have to demand statistics and are in total disbelief about the sizeable, dare I say near-rampant level of mild to severe racism & prejudice in America, you clearly are ignorant when it comes to racism in America. It's by people of all colors against people of all colors. It can be overt or subtle. It can intentional or unintentional. But it is there and it is everywhere. If you really have to argue with this you are like a new recruit who hasn't "seen the elephant". Everything you say is academic, theoretical, devoid of true first hand experience dealing with "what's out there".
BUT I will say that just because someone is racist doesn't mean they can't get along with people of other races. In fact most racists do so, many are friends with people of other races. But I'll still maintain that there is a ton of racism out there.
| Quote: |
| Make no mistake, slavery is not justified by the fact that the descendants of slaves have a higher standard of living as a result of having been brought here, but at the same time, modern blacks are owed nothing by anyone. I for one don't want a single dime of my tax money going towards "reparations" for someone who has never been enslaved by any living American. It's time for this silly entitlement mentality to end. |
Since slaves were pledged lands and some were even granted them and then had there land taken away and given to their former owners without compensation one could hold that the United States government was in breach of contract. As the surviving kin, their descendants should be entitled to make a claim, and since it would seem that the government had violated the terms of the contract be entitled to damages.
Or we could come up with an alternative proposal- the claim for reparations for slavery and the end to affirmative action will come about provided the United States return all lands that were unlawfully acquired from Native Americans and agree to pay compensatory damages for war crimes committed by the U.S. government.
If a toxic industrial site causes a spill due to negligence that poisons not just the people in an area but their offspring as well, we all would certainly agree that their offspring are entitled to compensatory damages. I think chattel slavery had far worse effects than a toxic spill.
| Quote: |
| The last thing we need is our government handing out unearned wealth on the basis of racial background |
God forbid the United States becomes the beneficiary of unearned wealth on the basis of racial background. 
But it was the beneficiary of said wealth for nearly 100 years during which events such as the forcible separation of families, the lynching of people for learning how to read, and a total absence of protection under the law occurred. This had impacts beyond one generation and set long-term damage.
Jim Crow occurred for 100 years after that.
| Quote: |
| It was a trivial prank, and anyone who says otherwise is a whiny little baby (or pushing an agenda). |
So if I walk into a bank and shout out "Everyone listen up this will only take a minute" or "White people listen up this will only take a minute" and then just stand there giggling, should I be charged with a crime/ordinance violation?
You bet. Should it be a bias crime? I don't know, maybe, probably not, I'm too big on those. But definitely a trespassing and/or disturbing the peace or something like that. Which are usually not jailable offenses. We're talking community service + classes and an entry into a juvie record that disappears later on. I'd agree that those who want the kid sent to jail beyond 1 night are overreacting.
I'd say its also borderline whether or not the kid could be held financially liable for improperly damaging Wal-Mart's repuation, though let's be real, it's Wal-Mart- What reputation? With a minor that is a stretch, and with today's lawsuit and damage happy courts its even more of a stretch, but it does indicate the potential gravity of his actions.
More likely to stick would be a claim for the loss of business suffered because of the kids actions. Also since the kid improperly tried to cause a loss of business to Wal-Mart he should be held financially responsible for that. This makes a bit more sense to me. After all when you break a window because of pranks as a kid you take up a paper route to pay for it as part of your punishment.
But it was not a trivial prank.
That kind of thing said over a microphone, where someone cannot see the person speaking, creates a 'chilling effect' (pun somewhat intended).
BTW this 'kid' was 16, not some 8 year old. For one I think kids should never be tried as adults. I also think 14 should be the age of adulthood. But that's beside the point.
| Quote: |
| is that children often do stupid things when they're young, and the best response is simply to tell them to cut it out |
He may be a minor but he was not a child. Good grief are 16 year olds now considered helpless and incapable of being responsible for their own actions or incapable of making moral choices?
| Quote: |
| No one's feelings warrant police protection. |
Actually, putting someone in fear for their life or in fear of harm is a criminal act. Those feelings do warrant police protection. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 6:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Affirmative Action is not racist. Its merely a remedy to a past injustice. Inherent in Affirmative Action is its future obsolescence. Once the injustice is remedied, there will cease to be a need for Affirmative Action. |
Affirmative Action is reverse racism, but racism nonetheless. An advantage is given on the basis of race, thus it is "racist." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| blacks can get over their people having been persecuted for a few centuries. |
It might be suggested that in some sense this continues. Case in point "name-based" racism. I'll consider Steve Kowalski but DeShawn Rogers' resume is headed straight for the recycle bin. |
There's a difference between casual racism and systematic racism. The former happens all over the world, is never likely to end, and is practiced by blacks too. This isn't persecution, it's just petty, normal human behavior. I don't find it admirable, but I don't find a lot of things admirable.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| This is such bad argumentation logic but it is a true bill- If you have to demand statistics and are in total disbelief about the sizeable, dare I say near-rampant level of mild to severe racism & prejudice in America, you clearly are ignorant when it comes to racism in America. It's by people of all colors against people of all colors. It can be overt or subtle. It can intentional or unintentional. But it is there and it is everywhere. If you really have to argue with this you are like a new recruit who hasn't "seen the elephant". Everything you say is academic, theoretical, devoid of true first hand experience dealing with "what's out there". |
A near-rampant level of mild to severe racism? Yeah, I'll agree mild to severe racism is nearly rampant, since it includes anyone who has so much as ever made an race-based joke in poor taste. It includes most blacks, most whites, most Mexicans, and so forth. It's not just rampant in America, either; mild to severe racism is rampant the world over. Somehow, most social groups still manage to get on with their lives without freaking out like this.
If on the other hand you want to make a more relevant, salient claim like the assertion that whites are more racist against blacks than blacks are against whites, I'll ask you to prove it. Until then, you aren't saying anything particularly important with regards to the conversation. Yes, many people are mildly racist. No, it's quite frankly not a big deal. No, it's not why black people perform less effectively than other groups educationally or economically.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Since slaves were pledged lands and some were even granted them and then had there land taken away and given to their former owners without compensation one could hold that the United States government was in breach of contract. As the surviving kin, their descendants should be entitled to make a claim, and since it would seem that the government had violated the terms of the contract be entitled to damages. |
I disagree, and refuse to deal with this issue in some abstract, contract law sense. The current day tax payers of America owe the current day black population nothing, and we should not be forced to give them anything. That's what it comes down to. I don't care what a previously elected government stupidly promised, it's of no importance to me what-so-ever. What I care about is justice; not in some legal sense, but in a real sense. And in a real sense, it would be totally unjust to seize funds from non-black taxpayers and redistribute them to black citizens for crimes the non-black citizens never commited.
I don't respect contract law as some sort of universal, indisputable thing. There can be unjust contracts that should not be legally enforced. One example is a prostitution contract; I don't care what you wrote down, you should never be forced to have sex against your will. This is another example, as it's unjust from a social perspective, punishing those who committed no crimes and compensating those who suffered no offense.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Or we could come up with an alternative proposal- the claim for reparations for slavery and the end to affirmative action will come about provided the United States return all lands that were unlawfully acquired from Native Americans and agree to pay compensatory damages for war crimes committed by the U.S. government. |
Or people can stop being babies about the past, recognize they have the same opportunities as any other citizen, realize they're incredibly lucky to have been born in the United States, and stop mewling. If they feel they would have been better off being born on the African coast, well, even people in America living below the poverty line could probably afford a one-way ticket to Africa if they think they're somehow missing out on what they could have had.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| If a toxic industrial site causes a spill due to negligence that poisons not just the people in an area but their offspring as well, we all would certainly agree that their offspring are entitled to compensatory damages. I think chattel slavery had far worse effects than a toxic spill. |
1) Any damages they would would be entitled to damages from the company that spilled the chemicals. Likewise, any damage actual slaves suffer from should be paid by the people who did the actual harm: the slavers. But those people aren't here. What we have are people who make up a society which declares slavery to be wrong. People who have overall voted to protect the rights of minorities. These people shouldn't be punished for the misdeeds of people in the past.
2) The net result of slavery for the descendants of blacks are positive; their lives here are far better than they would have been in Africa. There is no damage to compensate for.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The last thing we need is our government handing out unearned wealth on the basis of racial background |
God forbid the United States becomes the beneficiary of unearned wealth on the basis of racial background.
But it was the beneficiary of said wealth for nearly 100 years during which events such as the forcible separation of families, the lynching of people for learning how to read, and a total absence of protection under the law occurred. This had impacts beyond one generation and set long-term damage. |
Modern blacks have the same rights and opportunities as anyone else. The situation has been rectified from a systematic perspective. I never harmed a black in my life. I never benefitted from the slave labor of blacks, nor did my ancestors. The idea that my tax dollars should go to pay off blacks is, quite frankly, silly. Many people are in my position.
You keep talking as if so many of the non-black citizens of the United States somehow have something to pay blacks back for. How many of our families do you think owned slaves? Far fewer than you seem to realize. Many of our families weren't even here back then (mine certainly weren't). Yet you don't even take that into consideration.
I don't owe blacks anything. I don't owe Native Americans anything. I don't owe anyone anything. I am willing to pool my resources with other members of my society in an equitable fashion in return for benefit. That's what society is about. I'm not willing to hand over my resources to people I never harmed for injustices they never suffered. That's silly.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| It was a trivial prank, and anyone who says otherwise is a whiny little baby (or pushing an agenda). |
So if I walk into a bank and shout out "Everyone listen up this will only take a minute" or "White people listen up this will only take a minute" and then just stand there giggling, should I be charged with a crime/ordinance violation? |
No, that doesn't help anyone. It's just a pointless waste of police resources, and frankly an over-reaction. The bank has the option to bar you from the premises if they wish as a result of it, that's sufficient.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| But definitely a trespassing and/or disturbing the peace or something like that. |
If the bank asks you to leave and you remain, then it's trespassing. If the bank bans you for life and you return, it's trespassing. Just making an off-color joke isn't trespassing. As far as disturbing the peace, whether or not that is a valid charge is dependant on whether or not the peace was actually disturbed, but I would expect leniency if one didn't have a previous record of this sort of tomfoolery, because many things could be construed as disturbing the peace, but shouldn't be.
Just look at the form of your response, though. "Trespassing, or disturbing the peace or something." You don't know exactly what someone should be charged with for making a racist joke, but you want them charged with something. That's the hallmark of an emotional response rather than a logical one in my eyes, and our justice system shouldn't be based on that kind of response.
The simple fact is I don't want police action in response to a verbal joke. I don't care if the joke is unfunny, or offensive, or what. That's just not the society I want to live in. If the police do get involved, I want it to be to warn the people in question not to waste their time again. Don't go through the criminal record system, take the community approach. Be on their side, but sternly. "I know you think it's funny, but it pisses people off, so don't do it again." Those were the police I grew up with, and I respected them and felt safe around them. Sometime between then and now, the police changed into what we see in this article. I don't like that. This transcends the issue of racism; regardless of the topic, the police really need to chill out.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| I'd say its also borderline whether or not the kid could be held financially liable for improperly damaging Wal-Mart's repuation, though let's be real, it's Wal-Mart- What reputation? |
As far as I'm concerned, Wal-Mart is free to sue him in civil court, as well as to ban him from the premises. There are laws in place to deal with this kind of thing. My concern here is with criminal law and police action, which are very different. People sue each other in civil court for stupid reasons all the time.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| But it was not a trivial prank. |
It really was. And to be honest, the fact that you, kabrams, and many others don't think it was a trivial prank is indicative of a decidedly non-trivial problem that's brewing in our society. Everyone's so ready to take offense, and what's worse, so eager to have their feelings defended by the police and courts. It's ridiculous.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| BTW this 'kid' was 16, not some 8 year old. For one I think kids should never be tried as adults. I also think 14 should be the age of adulthood. But that's beside the point. |
For whatever reason, our society has decided to continue treating people as children to 18. Treat a person like a child, and they're likely to behave like a child.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Actually, putting someone in fear for their life or in fear of harm is a criminal act. Those feelings do warrant police protection. |
Someone who has rational reason to believe they will come to harm because of a direct threat might warrant police protection. Someone who hears a 16 year old over a Wal-Mart loud speaker ask all blacks to leave the store and, due to something ranging from mental instability to total irrationality concludes their life is in danger and feels an intense wave of fear most certainly does not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| but in a real sense. And in a real sense, it would be totally unjust to seize funds from non-black taxpayers and redistribute them to black citizens for crimes the non-black citizens never commited. |
I think in real sense of justice the concept of enslaving an entire group of people based on race and doing everything in your power to destroy any form of culture, then adding on 100 years of Jim Crow would necessitate some sort of act of compensation on behalf of the government responsible, especially considering that many said perpetrators and victims of Jim Crow are still alive.
What of Japanese-Americans who were interred during WWII? What about the reparations that were paid to them? I think if grounds can be laid for paying them then grounds can be laid for those that lived through the Jim Crow Era.
I think we're really glossing over how horrible slavery was and the effects it produced.
| Quote: |
| Or people can stop being babies about the past, recognize they have the same opportunities as any other citizen, realize they're incredibly lucky to have been born in the United States, and stop mewling. |
Right because if someone wronged you and caused financial loss you wouldn't seek redress?
| Quote: |
| These people shouldn't be punished for the misdeeds of people in the past. |
What you term punishment other might call an expression of regret or even a gift to help a neighbor.
Also our tax dollars are used to pay settlements involving the government when something goes wrong. I didn't have anything to do with that incident in the past but I guess I am "punished" when my tax dollars go to pay their restitution. Then again I'm happy that someone (or their families) who was a victim of police brutality or wrongfully imprisoned can get financial restitution. Would you rather they could not? It's the same principal.
| Quote: |
| their lives here are far better than they would have been in Africa. There is no damage to compensate for. |
This might have something to do with the fact that during the invasion and colonization of Africa tribes were set against each other and the area was stripped of its resources.
| Quote: |
| The situation has been rectified from a systematic perspective. |
Since the situation is so ideal and solved, then you have no problem with the continuation of present policies, including Affirmative Action.
| Quote: |
| How many of our families do you think owned slaves? Far fewer than you seem to realize. Many of our families weren't even here back then (mine certainly weren't). Yet you don't even take that into consideration. |
Again this personal take on the matter. No one is punishing you and this isn't a pay off. Its the settlement of damages inflicted by the government. It's due to the violations of millions of lpeoples' basic civil rights people who are still alive today and the perpetrators are alive too.
| Quote: |
| I don't owe anyone anything |
You don't, but the government does.
| Quote: |
| injustices they never suffered |
Again what about the millions of people who lived through Jim Crow?
| Quote: |
| No, that doesn't help anyone. It's just a pointless waste of police resources, and frankly an over-reaction. The bank has the option to bar you from the premises if they wish as a result of it, that's sufficient. |
The point of those laws and arrests is to serve as a deterrent. Much in the same way phoning in a bomb threat or pulling a fire alarm as a prank is a violation of the law and not 'just a silly prank'.
| Quote: |
| Just making an off-color joke isn't trespassing. |
But your missing the key part- the person used the store PA system- a system that was known to be for employee use only, not for customer use.
When one does things like that then yes, it becomes a trespass. The PA system is in effect a restricted area whose use is known to be only for employees. A 16 year old could be reasonably expected to know this. When the person in question used the system he entered into a restricted area- the store's PA network.
| Quote: |
| The simple fact is I don't want police action in response to a verbal joke. |
Neither do I. I do think it is perfectly fine for the police to get involved in matters of trespassing.
| Quote: |
| Be on their side, but sternly. "I know you think it's funny, but it pisses people off, so don't do it again." |
What is this? Leave it to Beaver? What you think some 16 year old punks are gonna be like "Gee Golly Officer McDonald, you're right, I'm never going to do a prank like that again because I sure couldn't stand you giving me a one-sentence lecture ever again"
Should he be thrown in prison, no. Should he even spend one night in jail? No. Should he have to pick up trash or something? Probably.
| Quote: |
| "I know you think it's funny, but it pisses people off, so don't do it again." Those were the police I grew up with, and I respected them and felt safe around them. |
Nice you grew up around those police.
Some people still living today grew up along other kinds of police.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9kT1yO4MGg
| Quote: |
| Everyone's so ready to take offense, and what's worse, so eager to have their feelings defended by the police and courts. It's ridiculous. |
I agree that that is a problem. I don't think so in this case. Like I said, I'm not about the bias law in this case, I'm just against people saying the kid engaged in a trivial prank and that there should be no police involvement.
I'm also taking issue with the "Bah slavery and Jim Crow was nothing and 'we' don't owe 'them' anything" and all that stuff.
| Quote: |
| For whatever reason, our society has decided to continue treating people as children to 18. Treat a person like a child, and they're likely to behave like a child. |
I agree here.
| Quote: |
| Someone who has rational reason to believe they will come to harm because of a direct threat might warrant police protection. Someone who hears a 16 year old over a Wal-Mart loud speaker ask all blacks to leave the store and, due to something ranging from mental instability to total irrationality concludes their life is in danger and feels an intense wave of fear most certainly does not. |
Right...because 16 year olds are known for their lack of propensity towards violence and racial statements broadcast over PAs in crowded areas are totally NOT a cause for alarm.
No one ever shoots up a place in America. Especially not 16 year-olds.
Right...because 16 year olds are known for their lack of propensity towards violence and racial statements broadcast over PAs in crowded areas are totally NOT a cause for alarm.
No one ever shoots up a place in America. Especially not 16 year-olds. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 9:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| I think in real sense of justice the concept of enslaving an entire group of people based on race and doing everything in your power to destroy any form of culture, then adding on 100 years of Jim Crow would necessitate some sort of act of compensation on behalf of the government responsible, especially considering that many said perpetrators and victims of Jim Crow are still alive. |
Well, you'd be wrong, because the money the government would be handing those people as reprarations comes from its citizens, and in this case, the overwhelming majority of citizens in no way have ever harmed a black person. Governmental funds are shared societal funds. If you think it's cool to just hand those over to blacks because of something most living citizens didn't partake in, think again.
The entire point of an elected government is that we can replace it, and we have replaced it. The government of today is, in a very real sense, not the government of the slavery era. Like us, it owes those people nothing, because it didn't harm them. A long-outsted administration did some bad things; the members of that administration are responsible. Long-dead people enslaved blacks; those people are responsible. Some still living people harmed blacks during the Jim Crow era; they are responsible, take issue with them as you please, I won't defend them. But to expect the rest of us -- the overwhelming majority of citizens who have never harmed a black, never wished a black ill, and so forth -- to be penalized so blacks can be given our wealth is beyond unjust.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| What of Japanese-Americans who were interred during WWII? What about the reparations that were paid to them? I think if grounds can be laid for paying them then grounds can be laid for those that lived through the Jim Crow Era. |
One injustice doesn't warrant another. A huge amount of money was seized from people who never harmed a Japanese person in their life and given to Japanese people by an administration who had done them no wrong. That wasn't right, and a repeat of that stupidity would be silly.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| I think we're really glossing over how horrible slavery was and the effects it produced. |
I don't care how horrible it was, it wasn't modern day people that did it, and the current administration doesn't advocate it. I didn't hurt any blacks, so I don't want my money seized and given to blacks. How much more clear do I need to be? Something bad in the past happened. I didn't do it, and I refuse to pay a price for it.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Or people can stop being babies about the past, recognize they have the same opportunities as any other citizen, realize they're incredibly lucky to have been born in the United States, and stop mewling. |
Right because if someone wronged you and caused financial loss you wouldn't seek redress? |
According to your logic, the German government owes me and my family redress. But I don't want it, because I'm not a pathetic baby. I recognize the current German government didn't harm me. I recognize the German people alive today didn't harm me. I recognize that overall my life is better here in America than it would have been in Europe. I'm a calm, rational person rather than whiner with a victim mentality hoping to get other people's money handed to me. I can, with total honesty in relation to a real world situation that actually happened, say exactly how I would behave in response to such a situation. So what's with the sarcasm?
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| These people shouldn't be punished for the misdeeds of people in the past. |
What you term punishment other might call an expression of regret or even a gift to help a neighbor. |
I experienced precisely zero regret for things I never did. As far as a gift to help a neighbor, it stops being a gift when the government seizes it from me in the form of taxes and hands it to others. I have no problem whatsoever with the idea of a general, non-racist policy meant to help the poor. I have a huge problem with the idea of me being forced to "express my regret" for acts I never did by having my money taken and handed to members of a specific racial group I never harmed.
Regardless of my neighbor's race, if he's suffering, I'm happy to help. I've given money to people in need of a variety of ethnicities. My family has made a point of helping the poor where we can. I'm happy with this and plan to continue it. I'm also comfortable with the idea of tax-payer funded social programs which help the poor and needy. These are examples of helping a neighbor in need. Your reparations are nothing of the sort: it's stealing from non-blacks who on the whole never harmed anyone, and giving to blacks. That's it.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| I didn't have anything to do with that incident in the past but I guess I am "punished" when my tax dollars go to pay their restitution. Then again I'm happy that someone (or their families) who was a victim of police brutality or wrongfully imprisoned can get financial restitution. Would you rather they could not? It's the same principal. |
No, it's not the same principal. There's a huge difference between a current administration which the majority of people currently alive elected paying out money to remedy its mistakes, and a current administration paying out money to remedy the mistakes of past administrations which were never voted for by the majority of current citizens.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| their lives here are far better than they would have been in Africa. There is no damage to compensate for. |
This might have something to do with the fact that during the invasion and colonization of Africa tribes were set against each other and the area was stripped of its resources. |
If you want to believe Africa was some sort of paradise before the white man came, and that it would have evolved into a peaceful, advanced society without white intervention, you're welcome to do so. I'm more realistic.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The situation has been rectified from a systematic perspective. |
Since the situation is so ideal and solved, then you have no problem with the continuation of present policies, including Affirmative Action. |
The system was solved as soon as racially discriminatory laws were taken off of the books and laws against racial discrimination were introduced. That was by and large the solution, and that is the system that should remain in place. Heavily racist policy like Affirmative Action needs to go.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| How many of our families do you think owned slaves? Far fewer than you seem to realize. Many of our families weren't even here back then (mine certainly weren't). Yet you don't even take that into consideration. |
Again this personal take on the matter. No one is punishing you and this isn't a pay off. Its the settlement of damages inflicted by the government. |
The government that harmed people isn't in power, and hasn't been for a long time. Most people have never voted for such a government. Stop trying to tie this yoke around our neck. Stop trying to leech our wealth and hand it to a particular racial group.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| It's due to the violations of millions of lpeoples' basic civil rights people who are still alive today and the perpetrators are alive too. |
Then go after the perpetrators as individuals. Stop expecting the innocent minority to pay for crimes we never committed. But that's not very palletable, is it? The actual perpetrators don't have the billions of dollars you want to hand over to blacks unearned. So instead you target innocent non-blacks. No sell.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I don't owe anyone anything |
You don't, but the government does. |
The current administration doesn't. If it had been the current administration, then I could see your case; we collectively voted them into office, so we can bear some responsibility for their actions. Even if it was the directly previous administration, or even the one before that, okay, perhaps you'd have something to work with; most people alive today took part in those elections, so maybe there's some potential responsibility that's dispersed enough that it could be called collective.
How many people alive today voted for segregationist candidates during the Jim Crow era? A sufficient minority such that trying to create a case for collective responsibility is just plain silly. From any rational, just perspective there's a statute of limitations on this kind of thing, and it's expired.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| injustices they never suffered |
Again what about the millions of people who lived through Jim Crow? |
What about the hundreds of millions who didn't vote segregationist (or at all due to being not of age or not even alive) during the Jim Crow era that you're expecting to foot the bill? As so commonly happens, your answer to injustice is more injustice.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| The point of those laws and arrests is to serve as a deterrent. |
Social forces are a sufficient deterrant. People made angry by a prank like that will remember it, and will treat the culprit accordingly.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Much in the same way phoning in a bomb threat or pulling a fire alarm as a prank is a violation of the law and not 'just a silly prank'. |
When I was young, I pulled a fire alarm as a prank. The police came. They talked to me. I learned my lesson, no arrest needed. It was a stupid prank, and I was very wrong to do it, but arresting me would have changed me from a boy who learned his lesson to a boy who hated the police because they over-reacted.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Just making an off-color joke isn't trespassing. |
But your missing the key part- the person used the store PA system- a system that was known to be for employee use only, not for customer use.
When one does things like that then yes, it becomes a trespass. The PA system is in effect a restricted area whose use is known to be only for employees. |
Show me the law that says this, please.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| A 16 year old could be reasonably expected to know this. |
I wouldn't have known it when I was 16. If someone told me you could get arrested for jokinly using a Wal-Mart PA located in a public area of the store, I would have scoffed. Hell, I'm still not sure you're right, that seems incredibly suspicious to me. Using the PA might cause Wal-Mart to throw you out, but I'm not sure it makes you instantly guilty of trespassing. And you'll notice, he wasn't charged with trespassing; the only people talking about trespassing are the people in this thread desparate to condemn this boy in any way possible. Even if he could have hypothetically been charged with trespassing, he could only be charged with it if Wal-Mart pressed charges to that end, and they didn't. So let's drop this trespassing nonsense; even if there's a law that might have allowed Wal-Mart to accuse him of trespassing, they didn't, so he's not guilty of it.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The simple fact is I don't want police action in response to a verbal joke. |
Neither do I. I do think it is perfectly fine for the police to get involved in matters of trespassing. |
He wasn't charged with trespassing.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Be on their side, but sternly. "I know you think it's funny, but it pisses people off, so don't do it again." |
What is this? Leave it to Beaver? What you think some 16 year old punks are gonna be like "Gee Golly Officer McDonald, you're right, I'm never going to do a prank like that again because I sure couldn't stand you giving me a one-sentence lecture ever again" |
I think you'd be surprised how often things like that can be effective, if you actually give it a chance. But now a days we've stopped treating our children like young people who are still learning about what is and isn't socially acceptable. Instead of teaching them, we criminalize them. It's worked out so well, hasn't it?
| Steelrails wrote: |
I agree that that is a problem. I don't think so in this case. Like I said, I'm not about the bias law in this case, I'm just against people saying the kid engaged in a trivial prank and that there should be no police involvement.
I'm also taking issue with the "Bah slavery and Jim Crow was nothing and 'we' don't owe 'them' anything" and all that stuff. |
I didn't say slavery and Jim Crow were nothing. I just said they happened a reasonable time in the past, enacted by administrations that no and few (respectively) people alive today voted for, and were not participated in by the overwhelming majority of citizens alive today, and as such, we hold no responsibility for it. I also said that anyone with the emotional fortitude to be worthy of treated like a rational adult could find it in themselves to get past these events, given the legal and social protections they currently enjoy.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Right...because 16 year olds are known for their lack of propensity towards violence and racial statements broadcast over PAs in crowded areas are totally NOT a cause for alarm. |
The overwhelming majority of 16 year olds have never seriously attacked anyone in their life. This idea that 16 year olds have a propensity for serious violence is a pure media concoction. Sure, 16 year old boys might occasionally fight among themselves. They harm adults at a rate so close to 0% that it's virtually nil, though. As far as racial statements being a cause for alarm, again, anyone of any intelligence would realize exactly what happened. I guess I can't speak for the hypothetical irrational retards that you and kabrams seem to be so concerned with.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| No one ever shoots up a place in America. Especially not 16 year-olds. |
It's an incredibly uncommon occurance. Again, you're falling for media hype. What percentage of 16 year olds has ever shot a gun at anyone? Your case is actually starting to fire me up against the media rather than against racist, stupid teenagers. They've got people believing that are kids are a serious danger to society, and that's ridiculous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
conrad2
Joined: 05 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The US government "unlawfully" took land from the native Americans? Exactly what laws were broken? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| As an expat will I be exempt from paying reparations? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Governmental funds are shared societal funds. If you think it's cool to just hand those over to blacks because of something most living citizens didn't partake in, think again. |
Most living citizens don't partake in of an artist or public broadcasting or 5 million other government expenditures yet its perfectly fine to hand funds over to them.
How bout medicare? I never made anyone sick, why should I have to give money to making them better?
Who's playing the victim card- the first generation descendants of Jim Crow families or the guy who would whine and call himself a victim because $138 worth of tax money would go to said victims.
The fervent denials of the taking of so meager a slice come across as more victimish to me. That $138 is so little compared to things like hoses, dogs, not getting hired, not being able to receive a higher education, chattel slavery, and being lynched for knowing how to read.
I have much more sympathy for their "I was a victim" vs. your "I would be a victim" self-victimization.
Now you're starting to move to ultra-libertarian territory.
| Quote: |
| Some still living people harmed blacks during the Jim Crow era; they are responsible, take issue with them as you please, I won't defend them. But to expect the rest of us -- the overwhelming majority of citizens who have never harmed a black, never wished a black ill, and so forth -- to be penalized so blacks can be given our wealth is beyond unjust. |
Again how is this a penalty? It's not like the funds would come from an extra tax, just something else's funding would get cut.
Also I'm not wholly in favor of reparations, but I do think that when it comes to racial issues and the treatment of minorities this "no blood on my hands but judging black people as a bunch of criminals is okay" attitude of suburbia is utter nonsense. I also think that by the own standards that govern suburbia (if we can use the code word 'urban' I'm going to use the code-word 'suburban'- also you are right this isn't a pure race dynamic either way. Plenty of blacks, whites, Asians, etc. would agree with your position) there IS a legitimate case to make for reparations.
| Quote: |
| the overwhelming majority of citizens who have never harmed a black, never wished a black ill, and so forth -- to be penalized so blacks can be given our wealth is beyond unjust. |
But the point of reparations and Affirmative Action is that its not just about 'who the majority is' its also about the minority that was in power and in positions of power- Employers and lawmakers.
| Quote: |
| A huge amount of money was seized from people who never harmed a Japanese person in their life and given to Japanese people by an administration who had done them no wrong. That wasn't right, and a repeat of that stupidity would be silly. |
So in other words it doesn't matter what you do wrong, just wait long enough and then you shouldn't have to answer for it?
Or in other words, might makes right. Your past offenses are okay to just let bygones be bygones.
| Quote: |
| I didn't hurt any blacks, so I don't want my money seized and given to blacks. |
And I didn't agree to give birth to you, I don't want you receiving any government benefits in any form!
| Quote: |
| But I don't want it |
You don't have to take it.
| Quote: |
| I recognize the German people alive today didn't harm me |
And many a German person today would be more than happy to contribute to a Holocaust survivor's and descendant's fund AND to see government money go to such a thing.
Sometimes an act of history is so nauseatingly disgusting that even though someone may have had nothing to do with the act, they still would have no problem in their tax money going towards helping the survivors and descendants of such a thing.
I didn't cause the Earthquake in Haiti or the Tsunami off Sumatra. I have no problem with my money being 'taken from me' and given to these people. I don't tell them that they shouldn't have lived on an island near an area prone to earthquakes.
It's called not being a phallus.
| Quote: |
| There's a huge difference between a current administration which the majority of people currently alive elected paying out money to remedy its mistakes, and a current administration paying out money to remedy the mistakes of past administrations which were never voted for by the majority of current citizens. |
I don't think the majority of voters or whether it was a current administration is sufficient to dismiss a claim. See Bush II and Iraq War and murdered civilians. "Sorry about your mistakingly bombed kids of October 31st 2008 Mr. Aziz, but we have Obama as president now, and well we all know that only 60% of the electorate came out and only 51% of them voted for Bush, so we don't feel we owe you even a dime for funeral expenses. Oh by the way, your 2nd cousin twice removed is suspected of links to Al-Qaeda so tomorrow we are going to come and ransack your house and smash everything and not pay for it if we find you're innocent. After all you Iraqis are all a bunch of thugs and criminals. Take care and stop whining about being victims. Go back to Jordan where you're emigrated from if you don't like it. Actually we did you a favor, you're better off here because now you have us to take care of you"
| Quote: |
| f you want to believe Africa was some sort of paradise before the white man came |
Wasn't before, sure wasn't after. Regardless nothing justifies invasion or colonization.
Or are you operating under the "well be greeted as liberators" and "we'll make a new, democratic Africa" paradigm?
| Quote: |
| The system was solved as soon as racially discriminatory laws were taken off of the books and laws against racial discrimination were introduced |
Making a law is only half the battle. There is also enforcement.
| Quote: |
| Stop trying to leech our wealth and hand it to a particular racial group. |
The yoke of $138 a year for five years or something like that? Oh woe is you. God forbid a yoke is tied around your neck and a crumb of your wealth is given to the descendants of those who had the yoke, the oxen, and the cart tied to their necks and gave up the entire cake of their labors.
| Quote: |
| The actual perpetrators don't have the billions of dollars you want to hand over to blacks unearned. |
Again unearned money. God forbid black people get some unearned money. They only spent 350 years on this continent giving other people unearned money.
Since you used blacks in such a general term, I feel I am perfectly justified in this case in being general.
| Quote: |
| potential responsibility that's dispersed enough that it could be called collective. |
I'm not holding you responsible. I'm wanting to help out other people and attempt to provide financial compensation for some really ugly stuff that happened.
It's not just about you personally. But go ahead and look at this issue through the lens and only the lens of you and how it affects you personally.
| Quote: |
| What about the hundreds of millions who didn't vote segregationist (or at all due to being not of age or not even alive) during the Jim Crow era that you're expecting to foot the bill? As so commonly happens, your answer to injustice is more injustice. |
People's tax money goes to stuff that they didn't have anything to do with all the time. My tax money is going to people of future generations and past generations tax money has gone towards me.
Most people seem to understand the concept of debts of gratitude towards those that came before them as well as trying to pass along better stuff to those that come after.
| Quote: |
| Social forces are a sufficient deterrant. |
Clearly they weren't and that's why the laws were created.
| Quote: |
| The police came. They talked to me. I learned my lesson, no arrest needed. It was a stupid prank, and I was very wrong to do it, but arresting me would have changed me from a boy who learned his lesson to a boy who hated the police because they over-reacted. |
So you do agree that kids are capable of making correct moral evaluations and therefore can be held criminally liable for their actions. You imply that as a child you had that capability.
Also did it occur to you that maybe you seemed to express genuine regret over your actions and that maybe this kid did not seem to express regret, hence the decision to throw the book at him?
Also for every kid like you there's a kid out there who gets his talking to from the police and goes and does the same thing again.
Not to mention if he had taken you down to booking for a little scared straight you might have ended up exactly the same person. Only irrational people hold a grudge from childhood that long, especially when it was their actions that caused things.
| Quote: |
| Show me the law that says this, please. |
http://lis.njleg.state.nj.us/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=27504028&Depth=2&depth=2&expandheadings=on&headingswithhits=on&hitsperheading=on&infobase=statutes.nfo&record={A9F}&softpage=Doc_Frame_PG42
Sorry, not trespass, but unauthorized access. I guess that's the term for electronic trespassing.
Access" means to instruct, communicate with, store data in, retrieve?data from, or otherwise make use of any resources of a computer, computer?system, or computer network
Computer"?means an electronic device or another similar device capable of executing a computer program, including arithmetic, logic, memory or?input-output operations, by the manipulation of electronic or magnetic impulses?and includes all computer equipment connected to such a device in a computer?system or network.
The purposeful or knowing, and unauthorized accessing or attempt to access any computer, computer system or computer network
Just for fun lets look at New Jersey trespass law
Defiant trespasser. A person commits a petty disorderly persons offense if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in any place as to which notice against trespass is given by:
(1) Actual communication to the actor; or
(2) Posting in a manner prescribed by law or reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders
(i.e. 'For Employee Use Only')
New Jersey Disorderly Conduct Law
a. Improper behavior. A person is guilty of a petty disorderly persons offense, if with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof he
(1) Engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior; or
(2) Creates a hazardous or physically dangerous condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.
b. Offensive language. A person is guilty of a petty disorderly persons offense if, in a public place, and with purpose to offend the sensibilities of a hearer or in reckless disregard of the probability of so doing, he addresses unreasonably loud and offensively coarse or abusive language, given the circumstances of the person present and the setting of the utterance, to any person present.
"Public" means affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access; among the places included are highways, transport facilities, schools, prisons, apartment houses, places of business or amusement, or any neighborhood.
http://njlawman.com/Legal%20Research/2C.htm#2C:18-3._Unlicensed_entry_of_structures;_defiant_trespasser;_peering_into_dwelling_places;_defenses
| Quote: |
| our children like young people who are still learning about what is and isn't socially acceptable. Instead of teaching them, we criminalize them. It's worked out so well, hasn't it? |
Again, dude this is a 16 year old not an elementary schooler.
| Quote: |
| given the legal and social protections they currently enjoy. |
You mean like being able to drive through suburban 248 Metro Detroit without being pulled over for the color of their skin? Sorry still happens.
And again the name based racism that employers use to sift through resumes.
| Quote: |
| They harm adults at a rate so close to 0% that it's virtually nil, though. As far as racial statements being a cause for alarm, again, anyone of any intelligence would realize exactly what happened. |
If they could see the person yes. But again, it was in a Wal-Mart and not everyone had the person in their line of sight.
And no one black or white new what happened until much later.
| Quote: |
| Your case is actually starting to fire me up against the media rather than against racist, stupid teenagers. They've got people believing that are kids are a serious danger to society, and that's ridiculous. |
It's not the media, its my life experience through High School and the experiences of my hometown.
Number four on the Ann Arbor/Ypsi list of most dangerous gangs in 2001 was the Folkstone Crew a gang made up of High School kids (almost all white) and all suburban and upper-middle class.
Let's see there was the riot at my school. There were the numerous times where there were confrontation between different groups at school, many involved weapons, some involved guns, and a few went down where people fired. There were the constant brawls and the daily read of the crime blotter. People put in the hospital, people put into comas, people killed.
And I grew up in a nice affluent town where crime rates were generally low.
And no one listened to any police lecture. Also the cops could be nice and they'd be seen as weak or they could enforce the rules and be hated for a time. Then everyone reached 25 and dealt with things like getting robbed themselves and they respect the police now. Kids can grow and learn. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| caniff wrote: |
| As an expat will I be exempt from paying reparations? |
My family wasn't even here when blacks were enslaved. If that doesn't exempt me, surely something as trivial as your current location matters not at all. Make no mistake caniff, black people deserve money, and it has to be yours. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2010 12:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Make no mistake caniff, black people deserve money, and it has to be yours. |
I'm married to a Korean woman, so they'd be going after my lunch/makkeoli/cigarette allowance.
Just can't catch a break, you know? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
.38 Special
Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2010 7:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
I love a little anarchy in the morning  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chellovek
Joined: 29 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 10:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Just remembering how this thread made me chuckle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AsiaESLbound
Joined: 07 Jan 2010
Location: Truck Stop Missouri
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| It looks to me like the cops rushed in to save the reputation of one of the bigger employers in the area. I doubt even WalMart is big enough to survive a reputation for tolerating racism. |
+1 You bet the government and police protects companies and the rich hogs. I'm not saying what the boy did is right, he needs a talking, a paddling, allowance taken for 1 month, and grounded for 4 weekends in a row which also includes no cell phone and internet during that month to think about it.
What if he said? "Attention customers: All white people, please leave the store now." Probably just a slap on the wrist with a, "Boy, what are you doing? Get off that phone now." Well, that's how things were handled years ago. You just got disciplined by adults; not the police.
There are certain things you never say. If he'd said the N word, there might not had been time for the police to protect his life even though police are ready to respond at a moments notice for inventory control system infractions as to protect Walmart from losing any money. You know that robot voice that goes, "Notice: You have activated the Walmart inventory control system. Please step aside for an associate to help you." It's funny thinking about home. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 7:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| caniff wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Make no mistake caniff, black people deserve money, and it has to be yours. |
I'm married to a Korean woman, so they'd be going after my lunch/makkeoli/cigarette allowance. |
Do you get cost of living increases? |
|
| 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
