• 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!

N.C. teen's hanging death ruled a suicide; mother says it was a lynching

repeating this lie will never make it true, its been proven wrong by 10 dictionaries, 20+ posts and multiple posters
a LEGAL crime is not needed for a lynching
facts win again

IIRC, nowhere in Luftwaffe's posts was their any mention of a, "legal", crime being necessary to qualify as a lynching.

I think the best thing for you and your ilk to do, is to stop trying to racialized the English language.
 
If I was you, I'd give up. You're dealing with a guy who's 18 years old and thinks he knows everything there is to know about everything. You cleaned his clock in that discussion. He'll be on to some new cause next.

I know but watching people argue against facts is my second favorite thing here, its hilarious and awesome!
 
"multiple posters"

argumentum ad populum is a fallacy.

the dictionary definition agreed with me as it stated that someone is executed without "LEGAL trial" and the only time someone goes to legal trial in regards to having committed a crime is when they commit a legal crime not any other crime.

ZERO dictionaries agreed with you, ENGLISH 101
legal trial doesnt mean LEGAL crime is simply meant THEY JUDGED HIM with no legal trial not that there was a legal crime committed
again 10 dictionaries(including the ones you used), 20+ posts and multiple posters all prove your statement false

if you disagree then stop dodging my question, i am DIRECTLY CHALLENGING YOU to answer and I bet you dodge it again lol

here is an scenario:
a black man is hung by a group of white people, they hung him for dating a white woman

here is my statement:
this in fact can be called a lynching

Here is my question:
is my statement true? YES or NO
 
1.)IIRC, nowhere in Luftwaffe's posts was their any mention of a, "legal", crime being necessary to qualify as a lynching.
2.)I think the best thing for you and your ilk to do, is to stop trying to racialized the English language.

1.) 100% false he just did it again for like the 10th time in post 150 lol
2.) good think i didn't do that, lynching can exist without race as i pointed out to a poster who claimed otherwise earlier
facts win again
 
ZERO dictionaries agreed with you, ENGLISH 101
legal trial doesnt mean LEGAL crime is simply meant THEY JUDGED HIM with no legal trial not that there was a legal crime committed
again 10 dictionaries(including the ones you used), 20+ posts and multiple posters all prove your statement false

if you disagree then stop dodging my question, i am DIRECTLY CHALLENGING YOU to answer and I bet you dodge it again lol

here is an scenario:
a black man is hung by a group of white people, they hung him for dating a white woman

here is my statement:
this in fact can be called a lynching

Here is my question:
is my statement true? YES or NO

No need to dodge your question, I had answered it from the beginning. No, False. It's just a murder (which is no less severe mind you).

You say dictionaries agree with you and then say ENGLISH 101. If that is what you consider evidence then whatever.

Again, resorting to citing other posters is committing the argumentum ad populum logical fallacy.
 
If there were shoes that were 2 sizes too small and they disappeared, and the information didn't come LE, where did the family get that information?

Read the articles in the OP, that information is attributed to the family, not the authorities.

The local authorities were interviewed for the stories, because there are statements attributed to them, but nothing related to "discrepancies" in belt ownership or shoe size. If there was anything to the claims, don't you think the multiple reporters would have actually asked, on record, for an official response?
 
No, False. It's just a murder (which is no less severe mind you).

thank you!
Thank you for proving how severely uneducated you are on this topic. NOBODY honest and educated agrees with you including 10 dictionaries

is there ANYBODY that agrees with the factually proven false and wrong answer above . . . anybody? . . even ONE person . . . ?

and if so please provide and facts that make the 10 dictionaries wrong . . .

just to refresh

here is an scenario:
a black man is hung by a group of white people, they hung him for dating a white woman

here is my statement:
this in fact can be called a lynching

Here is my question:
is my statement true? YES or NO

Here is his answer:
No, False.

does ANYBODY agree with this false answer and can anyone post ONE single fact that makes his answer not false?
 
I can't believe the majority of the 158 posts on this topic is debating the proper definition of a hypothetical situation.
 
thank you!
Thank you for proving how severely uneducated you are on this topic. NOBODY honest and educated agrees with you including 10 dictionaries

is there ANYBODY that agrees with the factually proven false and wrong answer above . . . anybody? . . even ONE person . . . ?

and if so please provide and facts that make the 10 dictionaries wrong . . .

just to refresh

here is an scenario:
a black man is hung by a group of white people, they hung him for dating a white woman

here is my statement:
this in fact can be called a lynching

Here is my question:
is my statement true? YES or NO

Here is his answer:
No, False.

does ANYBODY agree with this false answer and can anyone post ONE single fact that makes his answer not false?

Argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad nauseum.

At this point you should give up debating, every post is littered with logical fallacies.
 
Argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad nauseum.

At this point you should give up debating, every post is littered with logical fallacies.
translation: you still got nothing and are deflecting lol
facts win again

facts and dictionaries > your proven wrong opinions
 
So then CNN lied when it said she believes her son was "lynched". And she didn't really mean it when she said "He didn't do this to himself". And CNN lied when they said "Immediately, Lacy believed her son's death was the result of some foul play".

Okay. No wonder this thread is a bust. Nobody can even keep the story straight.

I quoted her. Believe what you want.
 
Then they did not lynch him.

You can't go to court over a personal offence that isn't considered a crime in the eyes of the law.

That is the basis behind a lynching, that a person is charged/accused of a legal crime, but is not given a trial to prove that he is innocent, rather, he is simply executed right away.

The situation your referring to is just plain old murder.

I quoted the law in S.C. and you're just wrong. The motive can be anything a mob can come up with. A lynching at least in S.C. requires ONLY 3 things:

1) Mob (two or more people)
2) Violence
3) Leading to death.

So if, say, a gay person moves in next door, and the neighbors gather one evening and decide to drag him out of his house and hang him from the nearest tree, that is a lynching. Why the mob decided to do that doesn't matter in the slightest.
 
yep, not to mention the reality is that while hanging and lynching was popular in the slave days and extreme racist days of this country the term lynching actually has nothing to do with race lol

it comes from "lynch mob" and wild west days where vigilant hangings took place, not race. So the assumption that the word is used based on race is a personal subjective one and has nothing to do with the word lynch

It comes from a guy named "Lynch" in Virginia or W. Virginia who was a self appointed judge in his town during the Revolutionary War who went out with groups of people, "mobs", convicting Loyalists, "Tories", before, during, and after the Revolutionary War.

The Original Lynch Mob

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching
 
I quoted the law in S.C. and you're just wrong. The motive can be anything a mob can come up with. A lynching at least in S.C. requires ONLY 3 things:

1) Mob (two or more people)
2) Violence
3) Leading to death.

So if, say, a gay person moves in next door, and the neighbors gather one evening and decide to drag him out of his house and hang him from the nearest tree, that is a lynching. Why the mob decided to do that doesn't matter in the slightest.

One law in one state hardly disproves my point.

Hey, gay marriage is illegal in at least one state, therefor it is right and should be illegal in all states.
 
Uh huh, and here is the definition from the Merriam Webster dictionary.

"to kill (someone) illegally as punishment for a crime"

"to put to death (as by hanging) by mob action without legal sanction"

Lynch - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From the OXFORD DICTIONARIES

"(Of a group of people) kill (someone) for an alleged offence without a legal trial, especially by hanging"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

None of your definitions refute my point that it must be someone being accused of a crime to be a lynching. The whole point of a lynching that I made was that the person was ACCUSED of a crime and was not given DUE PROCESS.

READ THINGS

Apparently you were incapable of reading the key word in my original definition of lynch "ACCUSED of a crime"

In the minds of some bigots, simply being black is a crime in of itself.
 
So you decline to answer the question. Got it.
:lamo

Did a bunch of you guys go to 'Really Really Bad Debate Skills 101' together?
 
In the minds of some bigots, simply being black is a crime in of itself.

And that certainly sucks, but it's not lynching.

Now, the bigots can all kill a black guy without trial and say "well he raped a white woman" or "a white woman said he raped her" and bam now it's a lynching.
 
Before everyone gets all foamy about racism and race and lynching and the KKK and revisiting the civil war....

shouldnt there be some sort of determination that an actual crime was committed?

A person is found dead and there are many questions surrounding the circumstance of his demise?

Something about this death is seriously wrong.
 
One law in one state hardly disproves my point.

Hey, gay marriage is illegal in at least one state, therefor it is right and should be illegal in all states.

You've hilariously dug yourself into a deep hole and keep on digging.

Here's Virginia: https://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-39

§ 18.2-39. "Lynching" defined.

Any act of violence by a mob upon the body of any person, which shall result in the death of such person, shall constitute a "lynching."

Here's the text of a Federal anti-lynching bill that passed the House three times in the 20s: "Anti-Lynching Bill," 1918

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the phrase "mob or riotous assemblage," when used in this act, shall mean an assemblage composed of three or more persons acting in concert for the purpose of depriving any person of his life without authority of law as a punishment for or to prevent the commission of some actual or supposed public offense.

Public offense is awfully broad - in that era, it might include a black man kissing a white woman, or any other reason a mob can think of to kill another person. There is certainly no reference to your made up definition.
 
And that certainly sucks, but it's not lynching.

Now, the bigots can all kill a black guy without trial and say "well he raped a white woman" or "a white woman said he raped her" and bam now it's a lynching.

Clearly in the 1920s, it didn't have to be a rape, could be enough that he held hands or went on a date with a white woman, or didn't show a white man proper respect, or was uppity, etc. Any reason a mob can come up with to kill a person works for it being a lynching. Mob, violence, death = lynching.
 
You've hilariously dug yourself into a deep hole and keep on digging.

Here's Virginia: https://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-39



Here's the text of a Federal anti-lynching bill that passed the House three times in the 20s: "Anti-Lynching Bill," 1918



Public offense is awfully broad - in that era, it might include a black man kissing a white woman, or any other reason a mob can think of to kill another person. There is certainly no reference to your made up definition.

Public offense isn't broad at all. Nice try though, you think I wouldn't verify your posts?

public offense = a term that is used to describe the conduct that is in violation of existing laws and is punishable by laws.

What is PUBLIC OFFENSE? definition of PUBLIC OFFENSE (Black's Law Dictionary)

lynching refers to someone accused of legal crime be it by a formal or informal group, and then executed without any due process.
 
One law in one state hardly disproves my point.

Hey, gay marriage is illegal in at least one state, therefor it is right and should be illegal in all states.

The text of laws certainly disproves your point in SC and VA, and at the Federal level. If you want, find a law that is consistent with your own view..... We'll be waiting patiently.
 
A person is found dead and there are many questions surrounding the circumstance of his demise?

Something about this death is seriously wrong.
And you have seen me state questions shouldnt be asked...where? All I have said is that make sure you actually have an answer before you declare that a black kid was 'lynched'. For all anyone knows he DID commit suicide. Or hell, his moms said he had his new kicks stolen...now...who goes about stealing a black mans expensive shoes? And HERE is the comical part. People will read that sentence and JUMP to cry foul...say its racist that I might be blaming his death on a black person. You know who would say that? Someone that is rushing to speculate he was lynched by the KKK because he was bumpin uglies with a white woman.

The point is...we dont KNOW what happened. Ask questions. Just dont start gearing up for a race war til you know there was an actual crime committed and by who.
 
And you have seen me state questions shouldnt be asked...where? All I have said is that make sure you actually have an answer before you declare that a black kid was 'lynched'. For all anyone knows he DID commit suicide. Or hell, his moms said he had his new kicks stolen...now...who goes about stealing a black mans expensive shoes? And HERE is the comical part. People will read that sentence and JUMP to cry foul...say its racist that I might be blaming his death on a black person. You know who would say that? Someone that is rushing to speculate he was lynched by the KKK because he was bumpin uglies with a white woman.

The point is...we dont KNOW what happened. Ask questions. Just dont start gearing up for a race war til you know there was an actual crime committed and by who.

Depend on the area you're in, especially a good pair of Jordans that can be anywhere from 100 to 300+ dollars shoes are definitely something to fight over in poor areas. I remember my dad telling me to wear my ****ty sneakers whenever we go to Bridgeport because he recalled a man having been killed because he strolled into a bad side of town with 100+ dollar brand new shiny Jordans.

Although I agree with you, not that many people necessarily would make a fuss over shoes rather than steal something else that is a lot more accessible and maybe just as valuable.
 
Then they did not lynch him.

It seems you don't understand what a lynching actually is. Emmett Till committed to no crime and he was still lynched. Whether a crime took place or not is irrelevant, it was the perception that an offense took place that is important. That offense did not necessarily have to be a crime in the legal sense of the word. Here are more examples of no crime taking place and it still being called a lynched:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_of_Julia_and_Frazier_Baker

A 40-year-old schoolteacher, Frazier B. Baker, was appointed postmaster of Lake City, South Carolina in 1897 and immediately encountered fierce opposition from local whites.[2] While the surrounding Willamsburg county was 63% black, Lake City was, with fewer than a dozen black residents, overwhelmingly white.[3]

....

Unusually, the lynching was met with widespread condemnation. The lynching was defended by those who agreed with South Carolina Senator Benjamin Tillman's appraisal of the "proud people" of Lake City's refusal to receive "their mail from a nigger."[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Crawford_(lynching_victim)

On October 21, 1916, Crawford was taking two loads of cotton and a load of seed into Abbeville and had a disagreement over the price of cottonseed with W.D. Barksdale, a white store owner. After Crawford left the store, one of Barksdale's employees followed him outside and hit him on the head with an ax handle. Crawford called for help, which drew police officer T.H. Botts. The officer arrested Crawford, most likely for his own protection, as a mob of angry whites was already beginning to accumulate.[5]

Again, a crime in the legal sense of the word was not required for a lynching. Only that the person offend the right people. Learn some history "Luftwaffe"
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom