Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 31
  1. #21  
    Power CUer noonwitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Warren, MI
    Posts
    12,573
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    The problem with the responses in the DU thread, and the comments in published stories about this, is that certain people jump through hoops to de-racialize this crime. How can you be a part of the solution if you deny that the problem exists? Liberal America and Minority America have worked very hard to establish in the public mind the shibboleth that it isn't race/ethnicity and the culture that goes with it that underlies the criminal or anti-social behavior, it's poverty, or discrimination, or Post Traumatic Slave Syndrome (seriously Google it), or anything but the obvious.


    I'm sure somewhere in the US there are white kids doing this, too-the DUers will search until they find one in order to make their point.

    I don't want to make the thing racial, I just want the police to catch the perps, the courts to punish them and the convicted punks to be given the appropriate prison sentences for their crimes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #22  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    42,110
    Quote Originally Posted by noonwitch View Post
    I'm sure somewhere in the US there are white kids doing this, too-the DUers will search until they find one in order to make their point.
    If white kids were doing this DU would not have to search for the incidents, they would be front page of every news source in the country, this is racist and needs to be identified as such, not facing facts is dangerous.
    The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.
    http://i.imgur.com/FHvkMSE.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #23  
    Senior Member DumbAss Tanker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    2,681
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    There is no conflict there. While the notion that sexual orientation is a "choice" is absurd to almost anything who thinks about it (it suggests that heterosexuals made some choice to be heterosexual as well) it's utterly irrelevant as a matter of law and society. As American citizens we are entitled to equal rights under law and policy. The ghetto rat is also entitled to equal rights under law and policy, but what sets him apart is criminal and anti-social behavior committed against another person. A gay person is not committing a crime or anti-social behavior against another person by being gay. The "your existence and insistence on equal rights tramples my right to be a religious bigot" is idiotic.
    Since I'm neither particularly religious nor the bigoted idiot in the conversation, I doubt there's much point in responding to your gaycentric projection. It's an artifact of well-intentioned government meddling that has allowed marriage to devolve from being an institution to provide a stable home social unit for fostering of children (Even if none ever are born and they remain a mere potentiality) into a thing that merely concerns access to various governmental and governmentally-supported benefits for adult individuals of any biology, to the inevitable detriment of the fundamental social function of the institution.

    It worked pretty well for 6,000 years or so, until government 'Helped' it, I suppose.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #24  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by DumbAss Tanker View Post
    Since I'm neither particularly religious nor the bigoted idiot in the conversation, I doubt there's much point in responding to your gaycentric projection. It's an artifact of well-intentioned government meddling that has allowed marriage to devolve from being an institution to provide a stable home social unit for fostering of children (Even if none ever are born and they remain a mere potentiality) into a thing that merely concerns access to various governmental and governmentally-supported benefits for adult individuals of any biology, to the inevitable detriment of the fundamental social function of the institution.

    It worked pretty well for 6,000 years or so, until government 'Helped' it, I suppose.
    Marriage has nothing to do with providing a stable home social unit, marriage is property law. Religion has been grafted on after the fact. Religion and government are intertwined for much of that 6000 years you are talking about. Religion evolved as a way of explaining the unknown, but also to add weight to the power of tribal leaders. Chief ben Israel says so, and so does that big scary guy with the thunder and lightning.

    Marriage also is not unchanged in 6000 years. In fact, same sex marriage is legal in 16 states and numerous countries. PLural marriage hasn't changed much in 6000 years.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #25  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Does The Tea Party have official membership?
    Yes. I'll send you the decoder ring and the directions for the secret handshake.

    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    In theory I would agree with you, but given that I live in a warm weather resort I can testify that the elements here really try hard to conform to northern urban stereotypes at times. For example, as soon as the temp drops below 74ºF you start to see the hoodies up, knit caps, heavier bling and clothing.

    We have had a couple of attacks on the bike trail... which is why I (and some of the guys at the bike shop as well) always carry when riding. Mostly there is the deliberate inconsideration where they wander down the middle of the trail three and four abreast acting like they aren't going to move to the side.

    So if we had knock out games here I would expect to see it on the trail, at the beach or church or someplace where you don't expect a person to be armed.
    In other words, in the gun-free zones where liberals say that we should be safest.

    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    The problem with the responses in the DU thread, and the comments in published stories about this, is that certain people jump through hoops to de-racialize this crime. How can you be a part of the solution if you deny that the problem exists? Liberal America and Minority America have worked very hard to establish in the public mind the shibboleth that it isn't race/ethnicity and the culture that goes with it that underlies the criminal or anti-social behavior, it's poverty, or discrimination, or Post Traumatic Slave Syndrome (seriously Google it), or anything but the obvious.
    They don't want to be part of the solution, they want to hide the problem while feeding off of it. DUmmies feed on ethnic grievance as a way of perpetuating their power. If one sub-group of a community creates an atmosphere of fear that causes that community to be perceived as dangerous, then the law-abiding can be manipulated into seeing the fear response to them as racism, rather than a rational reaction to thugs who bear a superfical resemblence to them. This is why middle class blacks or Latinos who find themselves being treated with suspicion blame the profilers, instead of the criminals who create the profile in the first place. Democrats parlay that resentment into votes.

    Quote Originally Posted by noonwitch View Post
    I'm sure somewhere in the US there are white kids doing this, too-the DUers will search until they find one in order to make their point.

    I don't want to make the thing racial, I just want the police to catch the perps, the courts to punish them and the convicted punks to be given the appropriate prison sentences for their crimes.
    As Rock pointed out, if this were being done by white kids against other racial groups, it would be all over the news.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #26  
    Senior Member DumbAss Tanker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    2,681
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Marriage has nothing to do with providing a stable home social unit, marriage is property law. Religion has been grafted on after the fact. Religion and government are intertwined for much of that 6000 years you are talking about. Religion evolved as a way of explaining the unknown, but also to add weight to the power of tribal leaders. Chief ben Israel says so, and so does that big scary guy with the thunder and lightning.

    Marriage also is not unchanged in 6000 years. In fact, same sex marriage is legal in 16 states and numerous countries. PLural marriage hasn't changed much in 6000 years.
    Au contraire, its social function is indeed as I stated, the idea of married women as anything but an agent of the husband with certain personal rights is a late Industrial Age legal construct, only about 200 years old in the English legal tradition from which we obtain our laws, and prior to that the right of men to even inherit land (As opposed to property escheating to the sovereign on the fiefholder's death), let alone the widow getting it, is merely old rather than ancient. If your statement is based on the political marriages of the Medieval period, it's a somewhat of a misconception about exactly what was going on in those deals and how they were structured, but you're not alone since even most literate people project their contemporary context and values on those arrangements and don't understand how they really worked, either.

    The 6000 years is a reference to how long it appears marriage has involved at least one man and at least one woman, I don't exclude polygamous or polyandrous marriages since in the cultures where they are traditionally practiced they seem to work reasonably well to fulfill the same social function of providing households for children to be reared and join society in due course. I don't believe purely homosexual marriage, on the other hand, has any history beyond modern conceits about the overriding importance of self, and even in historical societies where homosexuality was widely accepted, marriage was a thing apart from any such predilections and the twain did not meet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #27  
    Sin City Moderator RobJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    16,911
    Quote Originally Posted by DumbAss Tanker View Post
    Since I'm neither particularly religious nor the bigoted idiot in the conversation, I doubt there's much point in responding to your gaycentric projection. It's an artifact of well-intentioned government meddling that has allowed marriage to devolve from being an institution to provide a stable home social unit for fostering of children (Even if none ever are born and they remain a mere potentiality) into a thing that merely concerns access to various governmental and governmentally-supported benefits for adult individuals of any biology, to the inevitable detriment of the fundamental social function of the institution.

    It worked pretty well for 6,000 years or so, until government 'Helped' it, I suppose.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #28  
    eeeevil Sith Admin SarasotaRepub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Sunny,FL
    Posts
    43,037
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockntractor View Post
    If white kids were doing this DU would not have to search for the incidents, they would be front page of every news source in the country, this is racist and needs to be identified as such, not facing facts is dangerous.

    Exactly.
    May the FORCE be with you!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #29  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    9,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    There is no conflict there. While the notion that sexual orientation is a "choice" is absurd to almost anything who thinks about it (it suggests that heterosexuals made some choice to be heterosexual as well) it's utterly irrelevant as a matter of law and society
    The notion that sexual orientation is "in-born" is neither scientific nor uniformly borne out by all members of the small GLBT community. When Mrs. DeBlasio can be a self-proclaimed "out" lesbian who falls in love with and marries a man, and when Cynthia Nixon can describe her same-sex relationship as a "choice", then there is no absurdity to the notion that homosexuality has (at least) a certainly element of choice to it. The onus is on those who feel they are "born this way" to actually demonstrate that there is some genetic intractability to their sexual preferences.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #30  
    Sin City Moderator RobJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    16,911
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •