• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

‘Knock That White Boy Out’: Arrests Made After Mob Of Teens Attack Disabled Vet

Status
Not open for further replies.
Who are these "white bigots?"

Actual racists who would like to equate black bigots with the oppression suffered by blacks yesterday and today.
 
All I'm serving is the actual English definition of the word, instead of whatever someone would like it be to help them sleep at night.

Ignoring definitions you don't like, lying about what people said, calling them white bigots. Just to promote your viewpoint lol

Where would you say you acquired this tendency to serve the English?
 
Actual racists who would like to equate black bigots with the oppression suffered by blacks yesterday and today.
Which, apparently, happens when you admit black people can be racist. lol
 
Which, apparently, happens when you admit black people can be racist. lol

Exactly. It's trying to say that blacks do the same thing today as whites did to them years ago and today. And that's obviously BS intended to apologize for actual racism.

Keep apologizin' for whitey. I'm sure the check's in the mail.
 
Actual racists who would like to equate black bigots with the oppression suffered by blacks.

I haven't read the thread, but I haven't seen anyone do that. What I have seen is people saying if you are going to have hate crime legislation, then it must be applied equally in all cases, regardless of the ethnicity of the victim. Hate crime legislation is really not necessary. When people assault one another, it is perfectly acceptable to charge them with THAT crime and convict them on the heinousness level of the crime and not on what they may have been "thinking" or "feeling" at the time of the crime. I think all factors, including factors of racism, are considered during a trial when it comes to the level of heinousness of the crime and the level of danger the accused poses to society, and that includes specific ethnic groups too.
 
Exactly. It's trying to say that blacks do the same thing today as whites did to them years ago and today. And that's obviously BS intended to apologize for actual racism.

Keep apologizin' for whitey. I'm sure the check's in the mail.

Black people can racist, you weirdo lol

And I don't need to lie, call people racists, or ignore definitions of words to argue my point, either.
 
Black people can racist, you weirdo lol

And I don't need to lie, call people racists, or ignore definitions of words to argue my point, either.

You just called me a weirdo and a liar. And then you say you don't have to call names. Apparently, your problem with reading goes beyond definitions. You can't even read your own posts!
 
You just called me a weirdo and a liar.
Remember this:

That you would think a black person being bigoted is the same as a white person being bigoted is amazing.

I don't think that. I never said that. You lied when you said that I thought that.

And then you say you don't have to call names.

I didn't say I didn't have to call names. I said I didn't need to call people racist (or Uncle Toms, which you seem to be getting towards). So looooooooooool again: you're lying.

Apparently, your problem with reading goes beyond definitions. You can't even read your own posts!

hahhaahahahahahahahaahah the irony of this, considering you didn't read my post correctly, is delicious. God this keeps getting better and better. A testament to you, truly.
 
I want whatever he's smoking.
 
Who are these "white bigots?"

Pretty much anybody who does not support the reverse systems of privilege that have replaced the old ones and wants everybody to be treated the same, I do believe.
 
Pretty much anybody who does not support the reverse systems of privilege that have replaced the old ones and wants everybody to be treated the same, I do believe.

Affirmative action is not a reverse system of privilege. It's a system of fostering diversity so as to provide a better product.

Acknowledging that the actual racism perpetuated upon blacks by whites carries different societal implications than a black bigot is not a matter of privilege, it's a matter of fact.
 
Pretty much anybody who does not support the reverse systems of privilege that have replaced the old ones and wants everybody to be treated the same, I do believe.

I think it's silly to say that you don't want to recognize people according to "race" yet to support these kinds of laws which are based on nothing but race. It just seems to much like thought control to me. Like the government says that you are NOT allowed to hate and if you, you will be punished for feeling that emotion. Of course no one likes racism, but people should be punished for their ACTIONS and not for their thoughts. I don't have an issue with it being brought in the process of trial because it would be related to a motive, but I just don't agree with specifically punishment for and making an emotion into a crime. I don't see an actual NEED for it besides appeasement.
 
Affirmative action is not a reverse system of privilege. It's a system of fostering diversity so as to provide a better product.

Acknowledging that the actual racism perpetuated upon blacks by whites carries different societal implications than a black bigot is not a matter of privilege, it's a matter of fact.

At one time that might have been true, but I just don't think that's the case anymore.
 
I think it's silly to say that you don't want to recognize people according to "race" yet to support these kinds of laws which are based on nothing but race.

Perhaps if you had the slightest understanding of hate crime legislation, you wouldn't spew this garbage. By your "reasoning" there should be no first or second degree murder charges, there should only be manslaughter for everything - because you think considering motive is executing thought crime.

Maybe some day you will understand that hate crime legislation is basically anti-terrorism legislation. The accused must be engaged in basically terrorism to be charged.
 
I want whatever he's smoking.

It might help you read. Jesus this is great. I was afraid you were going to slink away, but you're still here posting, after all these **** ups, it's fantastic.
 
At one time that might have been true, but I just don't think that's the case anymore.

Sure, because there's no racism in America today!

I want what she's smoking too.
 
eco, tell me about that time I said I wouldn't call people names! lol tell me again, dude! Tell me about that time you ignored two definitions because you didn't like them. Or about that time you implied I was a white bigot. Or that time you lied about what I thought. Come on, please. This is too rich.
 
It might help you read. Jesus this is great. I was afraid you were going to slink away, but you're still here posting, after all these **** ups, it's fantastic.

Why would I slink away from your meltdown? Got some capslock for us?
 
I think it's silly to say that you don't want to recognize people according to "race" yet to support these kinds of laws which are based on nothing but race. It just seems to much like thought control to me. Like the government says that you are NOT allowed to hate and if you, you will be punished for feeling that emotion. Of course no one likes racism, but people should be punished for their ACTIONS and not for their thoughts. I don't have an issue with it being brought in the process of trial because it would be related to a motive, but I just don't agree with specifically punishment for and making an emotion into a crime. I don't see an actual NEED for it besides appeasement.

My biggest issue has to do with the way this dogma actually creates racists. Most people can see through dogmatic b.s. on at least some level, even if they cannot articulate it well, and supporting double standards only increases the sort of resentment that is stirred when these double standards are institutionalized as they are. These reactive attitudes are only create more of what they are reacting to when they become so commonplace that they are part of the system.
 
Why would I slink away from your meltdown? Got some capslock for us?

Probably because of this:

eco, tell me about that time I said I wouldn't call people names! lol tell me again, dude! Tell me about that time you ignored two definitions because you didn't like them. Or about that time you implied I was a white bigot. Or that time you lied about what I thought. Come on, please. This is too rich.
 
Perhaps if you had the slightest understanding of hate crime legislation, you wouldn't spew this garbage. By your "reasoning" there should be no first or second degree murder charges, there should only be manslaughter for everything - because you think considering motive is executing thought crime.

Maybe some day you will understand that hate crime legislation is basically anti-terrorism legislation. The accused must be engaged in basically terrorism to be charged.

Absolutely not. Degrees and levels of murder are completely different than punishment for "hating." Terrorism is specifically a crime to create mayhem. That is NOT the case with a lot of crimes that you might consider a "hate" crime. You are operating on the PREMISE that a crime committed based on "hate" of a particular race would cause terror and fear among that particular ethnic group. Terrorist crimes also have other great impacts on a society in general such as economical issues.

So then you must agree that rape would be a "hate" crime against women, and child molestation would be a hate crime against children. You cannot say these specific crimes are not based on feelings of "hate" or some other derogatory emotion towards females or children. What about when a person specifically targets a rich person? Maybe that person hates rich people?
 
Probably because of this:

I think we're all accustomed to your delusional claims of victory and calling others liars. None of us are surprised.
 
My biggest issue has to do with the way this dogma actually creates racists.

This is absolutely correct. Black people don't need a dude running around telling people that he thinks it's impossible for blacks to racist. It's factually incorrect, one, and just creates more friction than it solves, two.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom