I didn't miss it - what are you going on about now?And I would like to know how you missed the fact that I was responding to your claim of equivalence in views between yourself and TCS, among others.
I didn't miss it - what are you going on about now?And I would like to know how you missed the fact that I was responding to your claim of equivalence in views between yourself and TCS, among others.
It wasn't meant as a diversion but rather a direct reply to parmalee stating that we don't have scary white men stories in the US (paraphrased, follow the links if you want the exact words)I've talked to my son about how to act, as any rational parent does. What in heaven's name prompts that diversion?
And apparently you disavow entire paragraphs and the main line of argument in an article you described as summing up your views of this issue and this thread.You're losing it entirely Ice. That is clearly a line from the article I quoted and not my words. Using that article to respond to the OP does not mean I agree with every word and turn of phrase nor does it imply that the opinions expressed therein apply to all participants in this thread.
probablyInterestingly enough, I believe Ice, T, TCS and myself all feel the same as to the substantive injustices perpetrated on minorities by the U.S. justice system.
lets review your own words: Michael saysYou also reworded and paraphrased them, and then argued from the paraphrases and rewordings. Like this:
to which you reply, and i linked it, so this can be validated:His argument was that black Americans are being 'legally' killed without cause. That's not true.
Now, that, no matter how you look at it, specifically states you are defending the legality of shooting blacks in the USIt is true.
why? can you prove that my paraphrasing is in any way incorrect, especially since i just proved it was valid with your own quotes?Use quotes only, argue from the quotes, not your paraphrases.
trolling and baiting - that is your exact quote from your post linked clearly for all to readYou really need to stop misrepresenting the record.
trolling/baiting - just gonna report that, not that it will do any good since you're protected, apparently―and then went on to misrepresent the record
you have provided absolutely no evidence to support this claimnd that's the thing: You try too hard; thoe paragraphs depend on your deliberate misrepresntation, which was called out:
blatant lie as i've posted your quotes and linked your posts for pagesAnd now here you are, repeating the misrepresentation.
so, it's ok for you but not everyone elseAnd you really are trying too hard; when you present out of order, you're appealing to a straw man in order to assert your post hoc recontextualization. It's pretty transparent, anyway, and then when you go on to insist you only make the purpose clear.
in the day?Ever been through Georgia or Mississippi back in the day? There were seriously nasty white men around then. Mostly dead now, thank God.
And it used cops as stand-ins for white men, thereby simultaneously misrepresenting the issue being addressed by the black father and the matters central to the arguments on this thread.It wasn't meant as a diversion but rather a direct reply to parmalee stating that we don't have scary white men stories in the US (paraphrased, follow the links if you want the exact words)
My argument has been posted multiple times by me, quoted in full by Randwolf and in part by others, is easily available for you to quote any time you want to, and is not that.i will ask again: where is that source material proving your argument of the legality of shooting blacks in the US per your above quote,
I'm not going to pretend that you are that stupid Ice. You obviously need to read the article again, with context - pay special attention to the closing line in that paragraph you cherry picked:And apparently you disavow entire paragraphs and the main line of argument in an article you described as summing up your views of this issue and this thread.
No, it didn't - it used white cops as an example of "scary white men" in the U.S. Period. Full stop.And it used cops as stand-ins for white men, thereby simultaneously misrepresenting the issue being addressed by the black father and the matters central to the arguments on this thread.
iceauraMy argument has been posted multiple times by me
michael says:
They weren't killed 'because they were black'. They were killed because the officers' lives were threatened and they didn't comply with the governmental authorities.
no evidence. no source material at all, just a claimThat's the same thing - the threat to the officers's lives was that they were black.
so, if i quote you and prove that you made the argument... and it's your post in your words...My argument has been posted multiple times by me, quoted in full by Randwolf and in part by others, is easily available for you to quote any time you want to, and is not that
RandwolfI'm not going to pretend that you are that stupid Ice.
Misrepresenting the issue being addressed by the black father, and in doing so the matters central to this thread. Like I said:No, it didn't - it used white cops as an example of "scary white men" in the U.S. Period. Full stop.
-And it used cops as stand-ins for white men, thereby simultaneously misrepresenting the issue being addressed by the black father and the matters central to the arguments on this thread.
Ok, you don't disavow it.I'm not going to pretend that you are that stupid Ice. You obviously need to read the article again, with context - pay special attention to the closing line in that paragraph you cherry picked:
in the day?
there are still places in GA, MS, TN, TC, KY, AR, LA and more...!!!
OK, we will go the stupid route...Back to square one: Then who's the "we"? You got a frog in your pocket?
Repeating it doesn't make it true. As I said "No, it didn't - it used white cops as an example of "scary white men" in the U.S. Period. Full stop."Misrepresenting the issue being addressed by the black father, and in doing so the matters central to this thread. Like I said:
They aren't, is the problem. So it can't.No, it didn't - it used white cops as an example of "scary white men" in the U.S
It was true the first time. "Misrepresenting the issue being addressed by the black father, and in doing so the matters central to this thread."Repeating it doesn't make it true
It suggests a possibility - because you left out the first sentence:Hope that helps you in comprehending "who's the 'we'? You got a frog in your pocket?"
So all that "we" - and the line of argument based on that "we" - wasAs to the OP, this sums it up for me:
That would be silly (and unlikely) of the author, of course (lots of people think it's ok to punch Nazis sometimes, without coming anywhere near that slippery slope, and the author is not referring to them - he is referring to a "we" that includes him, after all), but it would mean you think that article has something to do with the posters and issue here. But what? So the situation remains unsettled.- -
My take is that the author is referring to anyone who says it is OK to punch a Nazi... (or nazi, small "n", just for you.)
I wouldn't agree if I happened to be a black father talking to his son about the "right" way to act if pulled over by a white cop. What say you?
All I want is to see Ice state "No, it is not legal to kill somebody on the basis of their race alone."
The assault on self proclaimed "white nationalist" Richard Sponsor has caused the rise of an ethical question on Facebook and twitter about if it is acceptable to use violence on anyone labeled or simply is a "nazi".
Legal no it is wrong to attack anyone for spouting what ever they spout, or to attack them for claims against them, only police and a court of law my beat, imprison and even execute someone legally.
But morally is it ok?
Let me just put it this way..As I said above, the label doesn't justify hitting someone. Skin color doesn't justify shooting someone.
Laws exist in many States and Counties in the US, which allow one to stand one's ground (altered from being required to retreat from threats or harm) and the Castle Doctrine, which has basically been extended to amount to one's immediate environment being one's castle against not just direct threat, but perceived threat.. The perceived threat part of it is a recent addition. In the past, you could not pull out your gun unless you were directly threatened. Now the law allows one to shoot another if one merely perceives a threat. This is established law in around 30 or so States of the US. This is not up for dispute at present. We all agree on this, yes?..
Now, what this means is that if someone perceives a threat, they can shoot that person. The high majority of the time, they face no charges for their actions. So in the case I linked much earlier in the thread, a brown skinned minority walking his dog, was nearly hit by a car in a drive through driveway. He raised his arms up, one hand was holding a leash. The driver of the truck that nearly hit him pulled out a gun and shot him and killed him because he felt threatened. That was legal and the shooter faced no charges. He was not arrested or detained. This is legal in many parts of the State.
What is now blatantly obvious from these laws is that minorities are being killed by white people who merely have to perceive them as a threat and more often than not, they are not being charged for it. This is entirely legal.
Especially when one looks at how racial bias results in whites subconsciously seeing black people as a threat..
So, yeah. What qualifies for mortal fear↑. Criterion of threat↑, suspicion, or danger.
Again: we have examples. This is not theoretical. Trayvon Martin case is already in the thread.And unless the evidence (disparate force, ability and intent to do harm, etc.) or witnesses can corroborate such a perceived threat, the shooter will likely face at least manslaughter charges.
If it's the Adkins incident - there have been others - the shooter was eventually charged and convicted of second degree manslaughter, as the police recommended in the first place (although they did not arrest him). The victim was "hispanic" and/or "white", however - the perp was black, and 23 years old.In your anecdote, the shooter would not have been justified unless the victim was at least approaching in a threatening manor and either armed or of significantly greater physical build than the shooter. So your telling of it just doesn't add up.
The whole point here is what "clear, objective justification" means. That's the issue. And nothing here is limited to "civilians" doing the shooting.Can you even provide one well-sourced story that demonstrates a white civilian, without clear, objective justification, getting off scot-free for murdering a minority?
Which one is most clearly related to whether it's ok to punch a "nazi", in your view?You do know that there's a difference between not being charged and being found not guilty, right?
TiassaTo the other, yes, I still consider it in some manner significant or illuminating that one of the largest police departments in my area includes sports radio listeners as a recruitment target market.
BellsWhat is in dispute, however, are laws that have resulted in the legal shooting of black people and other minorities.
no, it is not "legal" per the above pointsBut what he keeps forgetting or ignoring is the fact that it is also entirely legal.
and again, see above, as i am trying to make this perfectly clear:So yes, for some people, skin colour is justification for shooting them dead if the shooter perceives that person of colour as being a threat. Studies show that white people see black people as being stronger.. As in ridiculously strong.